For Republicans if one person is assigned to do a job that really needs three people to do, no problem.
For Democrats if three people are doing a job that one person can do, no problem.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Republicans - Money Trumps Everything.
No, this blog isn't about the Donald, not directly. It's about the fact on every government issue that effects the health and welfare of the entire country Republicans over the last couple decades consistently choose money over public health or addressing poverty.
They weren't so bad back in the early 70's. The Nixon and Ford administrations signed off on laws regulating air quality to reduce toxic emissions into the air we breath, regulating the dumping of toxic materials into the water we drink, more broadly regulating industrial dumping of poisonous substance on the land we live on and requiring government to assess the impact proposed development would have before approving the development.
But for the last couple decades Republicans primary focus has been on getting rid of those nuisance regulations that make business accountable for the damage they cause to the the air we breath, the water the drink and the land we live on. All because it costs business money. "Job Killers" the Republicans say. Yet during that period of time business has done just fine, corporate profits are at all time highs, corporate executives make 300 times the salary of the average worker.
Then there is poverty. The anti-poverty programs of LBJ have made a huge dent in poverty in this country, although they certainly are not notable for their efficiency. But Republicans talk only about getting rid of the programs, not improving efficiency. They say that the free market will take care of poverty. Odd, given that in the prior history of mankind the free market never managed to come even close to accomplishing that feat.
Then there is Health Care. Anyone that cared could see for the last 40 years the US health care system was a joke. It cost twice us twice as much per person as any other developed country in the world, and produced mediocre outcomes. The people in tiny, relatively poor countries have lower infant mortality and live longer than we do. Yet no progress could be made until we had the one two year period of a Democratic Congress and Democratic President in the last 20 years. Even then Republican obstructionism resulted in a system that is a ludicrous combination of private insurance and public oversight. An improvement but light years from a really efficient system.
The really odd thing about the Republican obsession with money is that history demonstrates they are oblivious to how money works. Twice in the last hundred years Republicans have controlled Congress for a decade or more. Both times they handed the economic controls over to business, confident business knew better than anyone how to run an economy. Both times ended with the world economy blowing up, leaving the world (including us) poorer (although a few really rich people did just fine).
In Republican primaries this last year virtually every Republican Governor touted his ability to balance his states budget. They can balance their budget because most Republican states get more back from the Federal Government than they pay in taxes. The Feds are doing all the heavy lifting on poverty and health care. Florida (Jeb Bush) get $2.44 back for every dollar of Federal Income taxes paid in the state. Ohio (John Kasich) gets 34% of the states revenue from the Federal government.
Sometimes it seems Republicans are too obsessed with getting rich to understand how an economy works.
They weren't so bad back in the early 70's. The Nixon and Ford administrations signed off on laws regulating air quality to reduce toxic emissions into the air we breath, regulating the dumping of toxic materials into the water we drink, more broadly regulating industrial dumping of poisonous substance on the land we live on and requiring government to assess the impact proposed development would have before approving the development.
But for the last couple decades Republicans primary focus has been on getting rid of those nuisance regulations that make business accountable for the damage they cause to the the air we breath, the water the drink and the land we live on. All because it costs business money. "Job Killers" the Republicans say. Yet during that period of time business has done just fine, corporate profits are at all time highs, corporate executives make 300 times the salary of the average worker.
Then there is poverty. The anti-poverty programs of LBJ have made a huge dent in poverty in this country, although they certainly are not notable for their efficiency. But Republicans talk only about getting rid of the programs, not improving efficiency. They say that the free market will take care of poverty. Odd, given that in the prior history of mankind the free market never managed to come even close to accomplishing that feat.
Then there is Health Care. Anyone that cared could see for the last 40 years the US health care system was a joke. It cost twice us twice as much per person as any other developed country in the world, and produced mediocre outcomes. The people in tiny, relatively poor countries have lower infant mortality and live longer than we do. Yet no progress could be made until we had the one two year period of a Democratic Congress and Democratic President in the last 20 years. Even then Republican obstructionism resulted in a system that is a ludicrous combination of private insurance and public oversight. An improvement but light years from a really efficient system.
The really odd thing about the Republican obsession with money is that history demonstrates they are oblivious to how money works. Twice in the last hundred years Republicans have controlled Congress for a decade or more. Both times they handed the economic controls over to business, confident business knew better than anyone how to run an economy. Both times ended with the world economy blowing up, leaving the world (including us) poorer (although a few really rich people did just fine).
In Republican primaries this last year virtually every Republican Governor touted his ability to balance his states budget. They can balance their budget because most Republican states get more back from the Federal Government than they pay in taxes. The Feds are doing all the heavy lifting on poverty and health care. Florida (Jeb Bush) get $2.44 back for every dollar of Federal Income taxes paid in the state. Ohio (John Kasich) gets 34% of the states revenue from the Federal government.
Sometimes it seems Republicans are too obsessed with getting rich to understand how an economy works.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Mindfullness Meditation
It's a hot topic in the media these days and has been brought to my attention by presentations at legal conferences addressing ways to reduce stress. As someone who has been fascinated with the organization of the brain since my college days I can't resist (figuratively) lifting up the hood to see what is going on.
It appears that what "Mindfulness" is all about is shutting off that area of our brain above our left ear (in most people) that is the root of language and logic. The thing with language and logic is it derives meaning from sequential data, this + this = that - because it is rooted in sound which we perceive sequentially. If you are talking 2+2=4 that's the end of it, but much of life cannot be reduced to such a simple answer. Most of what goes on in our lives is ambiguous in both cause and effect. So our logic doesn't get us to an easily identified final answer. If the topic is important to our life we keep chewing on it to solve the problem. In modern life that can mean we live with many problems our logic is simultaneously chewing on. Even if you manage to turn away from one problem another pops up to dominate our thoughts. The result can be difficulty sleeping, or constant stress or just an inability to relax.
What Mindfulness seems to accomplish is to let the other parts of our brain grab the controls for awhile. Parts like vision, which doesn't find meaning from sequential data since it builds systems that we perceive as a whole, so vision perception isn't plagued by an eternal nagging sense of something unfinished. Or even more basic areas of our brain that monitor our bodies as a whole, not as a problem to be solved.
The primary tool mindfulness uses, typically, is breathing. Breathing is unambiguous in whether we are achieving our objective. We breathe in then we breathe out. Mission accomplished. By focusing on an immediately achievable goal we shut off the sequential processing parts of our brain that never quiet reach a final solution, allowing us to relax.
The need for mindfullness is probably a direct result of modern life that drives us incessantly from early in life to use language and logic to achieve abstract goals and objectives. It would be a good habit to find a way to strike a balance between achievement and just being.
It appears that what "Mindfulness" is all about is shutting off that area of our brain above our left ear (in most people) that is the root of language and logic. The thing with language and logic is it derives meaning from sequential data, this + this = that - because it is rooted in sound which we perceive sequentially. If you are talking 2+2=4 that's the end of it, but much of life cannot be reduced to such a simple answer. Most of what goes on in our lives is ambiguous in both cause and effect. So our logic doesn't get us to an easily identified final answer. If the topic is important to our life we keep chewing on it to solve the problem. In modern life that can mean we live with many problems our logic is simultaneously chewing on. Even if you manage to turn away from one problem another pops up to dominate our thoughts. The result can be difficulty sleeping, or constant stress or just an inability to relax.
What Mindfulness seems to accomplish is to let the other parts of our brain grab the controls for awhile. Parts like vision, which doesn't find meaning from sequential data since it builds systems that we perceive as a whole, so vision perception isn't plagued by an eternal nagging sense of something unfinished. Or even more basic areas of our brain that monitor our bodies as a whole, not as a problem to be solved.
The primary tool mindfulness uses, typically, is breathing. Breathing is unambiguous in whether we are achieving our objective. We breathe in then we breathe out. Mission accomplished. By focusing on an immediately achievable goal we shut off the sequential processing parts of our brain that never quiet reach a final solution, allowing us to relax.
The need for mindfullness is probably a direct result of modern life that drives us incessantly from early in life to use language and logic to achieve abstract goals and objectives. It would be a good habit to find a way to strike a balance between achievement and just being.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Voters Mad as Hell
Through this primary season a consistent theme on the Republican side is Republican voters are angry and frustrated and are letting their anger and frustration decide who to gets their vote. Not to suggest this is a failing that only afflicts Republicans, people on the left are prone to the same tendency, but the angry lefties are more marginalized in the Democratic party at this point in time.
Some of this is just media blather but judging by the behavior of the candidates they perceive a large element of the Republican primary voters are motivated not by gathering data on how to solve problems, but by identifying enemies and bad guys who are the source of all the perceived problems. Ironically apparently many of these angry Republicans are Evangelical Christians who seem oblivious to the admonition from Jesus that if you are angry you are in danger of hellfire (Mathew 5-21).
Makes one wonder if these folks follow their emotions in all their important decisions in life.
It also makes one wonder if these folks have any clue how easily they can be manipulated through their anger. We see that playing out in the success of Donald Trump, the master marketer. In the same way some business folks jump on whatever marketing strategy will make the most money, Donald seems to look at whatever marketing strategy will get him the most votes. While other Republican wannabees look to pollsters and consultants to figure out what to say to get votes, the Donald knows instinctively.
Hitler's ability to stir up anger to gain power in Germany was the direct cause the most horrendous war in history. I don't think the Donald is another Hitler - he seems to be a pretty happy guy. But the worst atrocities in history generally can be traced back to political leaders who created enemies to blame for all problems and then stoked anger at those enemies.
Politicians of all stripes are always going to be tempted to cultivate anger or disgust since that is the easy way to motivate voters. It is up to we the voters to not reward that tactic.
Some of this is just media blather but judging by the behavior of the candidates they perceive a large element of the Republican primary voters are motivated not by gathering data on how to solve problems, but by identifying enemies and bad guys who are the source of all the perceived problems. Ironically apparently many of these angry Republicans are Evangelical Christians who seem oblivious to the admonition from Jesus that if you are angry you are in danger of hellfire (Mathew 5-21).
Makes one wonder if these folks follow their emotions in all their important decisions in life.
It also makes one wonder if these folks have any clue how easily they can be manipulated through their anger. We see that playing out in the success of Donald Trump, the master marketer. In the same way some business folks jump on whatever marketing strategy will make the most money, Donald seems to look at whatever marketing strategy will get him the most votes. While other Republican wannabees look to pollsters and consultants to figure out what to say to get votes, the Donald knows instinctively.
Hitler's ability to stir up anger to gain power in Germany was the direct cause the most horrendous war in history. I don't think the Donald is another Hitler - he seems to be a pretty happy guy. But the worst atrocities in history generally can be traced back to political leaders who created enemies to blame for all problems and then stoked anger at those enemies.
Politicians of all stripes are always going to be tempted to cultivate anger or disgust since that is the easy way to motivate voters. It is up to we the voters to not reward that tactic.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Reference Query - Do We Have A Growth Problem?
(Caution - this blog has lots of facts and figures - maybe have some caffeine before reading)
The world of economists revolves around GDP. It is tempting sometimes to view economist as worrying about mathematical constructions that are not reality. GDP growth is a measure of wealth not health or happiness. Economists often seem to not even consider someone, or a society could be perfectly content at a given level of income per person. Maybe they don't need more wealth to be either healthy or happy?
Further, GDP is not a direct measure of technological and scientific advances. Finding ways to do things better in our day to day lives is unquestionably a good thing. But GDP measures many things totally unrelated to doing things more efficiently.
But that said, given all the talk about income inequality I decided to look into the whole concept of wealth to see what I would find - maybe there are some good reasons to be focused on GDP?
I begin with the proposition statistics about wealth are not precise but are probably educated estimates that provide some representation of reality.
I also begin with the proposition growth in itself is not the concern, the concern is growth allows more people to live comfortably. Studies tell us that the average American worker is comfortable with an income of about $70,000 a year. That is the point where they feel no need to work at getting more wealth. So if the whole world was generating an average yearly income of about $70,000 per person, we perhaps would not need more growth?
Where are we on growth?
I looked at wealth figures, even though GDP combines both wealth and income. Although wealth is not the same as income, it is a relatively good proxy for income. If you have a lot of wealth you probably have a decent income and if you have a lot of income you will probably will have a lot of wealth eventually.
Dividing the total wealth in the world (241 Trillion) by the total world population (7.4 billion) reveals that existing wealth amounts to $35,567.56 per person. That would be a decent yearly income but as total wealth it is pretty low. $35,000 invested to produce a 5% per year return would only be income of about $1,750 a year per person. Clearly the world could use some growth.
On the other hand dividing the total wealth of the United States (118 trillion) by the population of the United States (319 Million) reveals that existing US wealth amounts to $369,905.95 per person. A two person household with this theoretical wealth could generate an income of about $18,000 per year per person assuming a return of 5% on their wealth, which would be $36,000 for a two person household. Skimpy but not starving.
However data indicates the top 1% of the US population currently owns about 37% of the wealth. That means the top 1% (3.19 Million people) own $43 trillion of the countries wealth which equals $13,479,624 per person. At 5% per year the top 1% control assets could produce income of $673,981 per year per person.
Subtracting the top 1% share from the total national wealth (118 Trillion - 43 Trillion) leaves 75 Trillion for the other 99%.
However, the next 19% own 1/2 of this remaining wealth which amounts to $37.5 Trillion. 19% of the population equals 60 million people. Per person each of that 19% has assets of about $625,000. At 5% that would generate $31,250 per person per year.
The remaining $37.5 Trillion are shared among the remaining population (80% = 255,200,000 persons) The per person share is $146,944 which, if invested would produce $7347 per year per person.
Conclusions
Economists can't be faulted for obsessing about growth, the world needs it. However, the world would not need as much growth if economists could figure out policies that would spread wealth across populations more effectively.
The world of economists revolves around GDP. It is tempting sometimes to view economist as worrying about mathematical constructions that are not reality. GDP growth is a measure of wealth not health or happiness. Economists often seem to not even consider someone, or a society could be perfectly content at a given level of income per person. Maybe they don't need more wealth to be either healthy or happy?
Further, GDP is not a direct measure of technological and scientific advances. Finding ways to do things better in our day to day lives is unquestionably a good thing. But GDP measures many things totally unrelated to doing things more efficiently.
But that said, given all the talk about income inequality I decided to look into the whole concept of wealth to see what I would find - maybe there are some good reasons to be focused on GDP?
I begin with the proposition statistics about wealth are not precise but are probably educated estimates that provide some representation of reality.
I also begin with the proposition growth in itself is not the concern, the concern is growth allows more people to live comfortably. Studies tell us that the average American worker is comfortable with an income of about $70,000 a year. That is the point where they feel no need to work at getting more wealth. So if the whole world was generating an average yearly income of about $70,000 per person, we perhaps would not need more growth?
Where are we on growth?
I looked at wealth figures, even though GDP combines both wealth and income. Although wealth is not the same as income, it is a relatively good proxy for income. If you have a lot of wealth you probably have a decent income and if you have a lot of income you will probably will have a lot of wealth eventually.
Dividing the total wealth in the world (241 Trillion) by the total world population (7.4 billion) reveals that existing wealth amounts to $35,567.56 per person. That would be a decent yearly income but as total wealth it is pretty low. $35,000 invested to produce a 5% per year return would only be income of about $1,750 a year per person. Clearly the world could use some growth.
On the other hand dividing the total wealth of the United States (118 trillion) by the population of the United States (319 Million) reveals that existing US wealth amounts to $369,905.95 per person. A two person household with this theoretical wealth could generate an income of about $18,000 per year per person assuming a return of 5% on their wealth, which would be $36,000 for a two person household. Skimpy but not starving.
However data indicates the top 1% of the US population currently owns about 37% of the wealth. That means the top 1% (3.19 Million people) own $43 trillion of the countries wealth which equals $13,479,624 per person. At 5% per year the top 1% control assets could produce income of $673,981 per year per person.
Subtracting the top 1% share from the total national wealth (118 Trillion - 43 Trillion) leaves 75 Trillion for the other 99%.
However, the next 19% own 1/2 of this remaining wealth which amounts to $37.5 Trillion. 19% of the population equals 60 million people. Per person each of that 19% has assets of about $625,000. At 5% that would generate $31,250 per person per year.
The remaining $37.5 Trillion are shared among the remaining population (80% = 255,200,000 persons) The per person share is $146,944 which, if invested would produce $7347 per year per person.
Conclusions
Economists can't be faulted for obsessing about growth, the world needs it. However, the world would not need as much growth if economists could figure out policies that would spread wealth across populations more effectively.
Source of Data - Wikipedia articles on wealth, GDP and Income Inequality.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Trump - Random Thoughts
1. Lloyd Kumley offered the following observation:
"I had a thought while listening to the harangue at a wrestling show..." (Lloyd isn't a wrestlemania kind of guy but was indulging a niece who likes the excitement of the shows) ".... Trump's campaign talks sound much like the outrageous stuff the wrestlers shout to whip the crowds up... It's a formula that works for wrestling....those choreographed "shouting matches" , which lead to what look like make believe battles between the good guys and bad guys. Are wrestling fans and their ilk much of the Trump supporters?'
2. Some very rich and politically active CEO's are coming out saying Trump must be stopped. Mitt Romney, Meg Whitman. Hmmmm. Perhaps they feel like the domination of Republican economic policy by big business interest is threatened? Both Mitt and Meg say Trumps policies could cause a recession. Gee whiz, no Republican has ever caused economic damage - oh wait, the Republicans were running the show for the decade leading up to the great Depression...and the Republicans were also running the show in the decade leading up to the great Recession. Those prior Republican efforts have set a pretty high bar in terms of economic disasters, I don't see how a mediocre businessman (according to Mitt and Meg) like Trump could do as much damage.
2. Some very rich and politically active CEO's are coming out saying Trump must be stopped. Mitt Romney, Meg Whitman. Hmmmm. Perhaps they feel like the domination of Republican economic policy by big business interest is threatened? Both Mitt and Meg say Trumps policies could cause a recession. Gee whiz, no Republican has ever caused economic damage - oh wait, the Republicans were running the show for the decade leading up to the great Depression...and the Republicans were also running the show in the decade leading up to the great Recession. Those prior Republican efforts have set a pretty high bar in terms of economic disasters, I don't see how a mediocre businessman (according to Mitt and Meg) like Trump could do as much damage.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
The FBI, Apple and Privacy
I don't get it.
On probable cause the government can get a warrant from a judge and search my house. But they shouldn't' be able to search my phone?
Privacy is an abstract concept, what does it mean in the real world?
What data could be on my phone that I would perceive as more important than accommodating to governments efforts to protect us from violent attacks?
The techies argue this is a slippery slope, if they open the door to let the government into a terrorist suspects phone soon all manner of bad people (or the government) will then be able to troll through the data in all of our phones. So? Maybe I don't do my banking on my phone to protect financial data. An inconvenience, but in my mind worth not providing safe havens for those seeking to engage in potentially murderous criminal activity.
It would be helpful to understanding if the techie claims have merit if they could give a few concrete examples of what other data from my phone could present a threat. Because I haven't been able to come up with much.
I can accept that some governments in this world would collect data to stifle dissent, maybe even arrest people on trumped up charges. But as my mother used to say, two wrongs don't make right. Hamstringing governments ability to investigate potential threats to public safety doesn't seem like the way to deal with bad government.
I wonder if the tech industry isn't overly wrapped up in the idealistic notion that technology is going to save the world. They don't want to face up to the problems their ambitions are creating. I'm old enough to remember life when it didn't revolve around the phone in our pockets, I'm no happier now than I was then.
On probable cause the government can get a warrant from a judge and search my house. But they shouldn't' be able to search my phone?
Privacy is an abstract concept, what does it mean in the real world?
What data could be on my phone that I would perceive as more important than accommodating to governments efforts to protect us from violent attacks?
The techies argue this is a slippery slope, if they open the door to let the government into a terrorist suspects phone soon all manner of bad people (or the government) will then be able to troll through the data in all of our phones. So? Maybe I don't do my banking on my phone to protect financial data. An inconvenience, but in my mind worth not providing safe havens for those seeking to engage in potentially murderous criminal activity.
It would be helpful to understanding if the techie claims have merit if they could give a few concrete examples of what other data from my phone could present a threat. Because I haven't been able to come up with much.
I can accept that some governments in this world would collect data to stifle dissent, maybe even arrest people on trumped up charges. But as my mother used to say, two wrongs don't make right. Hamstringing governments ability to investigate potential threats to public safety doesn't seem like the way to deal with bad government.
I wonder if the tech industry isn't overly wrapped up in the idealistic notion that technology is going to save the world. They don't want to face up to the problems their ambitions are creating. I'm old enough to remember life when it didn't revolve around the phone in our pockets, I'm no happier now than I was then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)