This post is more of a question than an essay. What is the difference between motivation and manipulation: When does a motivating action cross the line and become a manipulating action? What is the salient characteristic of manipulation that motivation lacks (or vice verse)? Or, as I started suspecting, is the difference purely in the eye of the beholder (the one being motivated or manipulated)?
I know: We could all look up the dictionary definition for clues, but that's cheating. With your current knowledge and experience, what would you say?
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Violent References
One of the notable achievements of an electoral democracy, like ours, is that the ballot box replaces violence as the mechanism of power change. As the different would be leaders contend for their time in control, the pen replaces the sword, words replace bullets, oration the cannonball.
In support of this ideal, many realize that allusions to violence have no place in the process either: Criticize your opponent (or those from a different power group), speak out with specific remedies you prefer, frame it as a contest if you will, but leave the violent metaphors (no 'targeting' your opponent, no 'assassinating' their view, etc.) out of the conversation or debate.
You would think that removing violent speech from the process would be so uncontroversable as to gain universal acceptance - that even those who've perhaps used such speech in the past would realize the undesirability, and join with those who call for all to abstain.
But, no. It seems that there are some who so identify with their idols that a call for them to refrain from violence as metaphor or allusion is a personal attack - and in defending the right (?) to violent speech, they show themselves to be morally unanchored.
For their very defense is to deny the interconnectedness of society - to deny that our actions ripple outwards and affect and influence those around us - that leading a moral life is not just for our benefit, but benefits (by example and support) our family, our friends, our colleagues, our fellow citizens.
Their defense, too, espouses the ultimate 'me first' attitude - recast as 'me only' - an abdication of any and all responsibility to anyone else, to society, to country.
But, for an electoral democracy to succeed requires that the citizenry accept shared responsibility for society's problems, that they build an inclusive community of shared ideals and values, and, foremost, that violence as a solution is eschewed in favor of open debate, with ideas carrying the day.
In support of this ideal, many realize that allusions to violence have no place in the process either: Criticize your opponent (or those from a different power group), speak out with specific remedies you prefer, frame it as a contest if you will, but leave the violent metaphors (no 'targeting' your opponent, no 'assassinating' their view, etc.) out of the conversation or debate.
You would think that removing violent speech from the process would be so uncontroversable as to gain universal acceptance - that even those who've perhaps used such speech in the past would realize the undesirability, and join with those who call for all to abstain.
But, no. It seems that there are some who so identify with their idols that a call for them to refrain from violence as metaphor or allusion is a personal attack - and in defending the right (?) to violent speech, they show themselves to be morally unanchored.
For their very defense is to deny the interconnectedness of society - to deny that our actions ripple outwards and affect and influence those around us - that leading a moral life is not just for our benefit, but benefits (by example and support) our family, our friends, our colleagues, our fellow citizens.
Their defense, too, espouses the ultimate 'me first' attitude - recast as 'me only' - an abdication of any and all responsibility to anyone else, to society, to country.
But, for an electoral democracy to succeed requires that the citizenry accept shared responsibility for society's problems, that they build an inclusive community of shared ideals and values, and, foremost, that violence as a solution is eschewed in favor of open debate, with ideas carrying the day.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
You Are Not A Rational Actor In A Free Market Economy!
I'm not trying to insult you, but I wanted to get your attention and start you thinking. I know you believe that you are rational, and in the sense that you aren't irrational, you are. However, when an economist postulates rational actors in an economy, he or she actually means something more. They mean that you have perfect knowledge about the market, that there is no asymmetry of information between you and whomever you are dealing with. They also mean that you plan your actions according to those which will provide you with the most good.
And that's so patently false in the real world in which we live and act economically that I can say that you aren't a rational actor! We all act economically with partial information, we sometimes (Oftentimes?) make economic decisions on a whim, not really considering whether the outcome will be good or bad. We also don't all act alike, and we often are willing to withhold information (or lie!) during a transaction if we think it will give us an advantage.
Given that rational (knowing, utility maximizing) actors provide a major underpinning of neoclassical economics (the kind that holds sway in our policy makers - Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan (an extreme case)), one has to wonder if the predictions made are as bad as the axiom (oh, wait! We don't have to wonder: The evidence is in, and the predictions don't mean squat - one can clearly see that they don't know what's going to happen next in the economy!)
What about the Free Market Economy? Again, a fuzzy definition would be that it is unregulated, with free trade across boundaries and within. But, again, economists mean something much more restrictive: Not only that trade is unregulated, but that any of the aforementioned rational actors can buy or sell at any time without effecting the market!
But, that only works if the actors are small: During 2008, when the financial industry started melting down, we saw how the actions of the major banks (Lehman, Bear Sterns, AIG) to liquidate their positions in hopes of raising capital to cover their margin calls caused the market to fall further, which required more selling, which led to more selling, until some (notably Lehman and Bear Sterns) could no longer change their positions, and were forced into bankruptcy or a bailout (I shouldn't say 'forced', since I really think it was optional to save them...)
We've never seen a 'free' market - so economists have absolutely no data that would indicate that a free market could exist, or that it would be optimum. Again, however, this tenet provides one of the underpinnings of neoclassical economics.
Think about it: In physics, theorems hold sway as long as they provide useful predictions about events, and when an event or experiment occurs that contradicts theory, scientists search for a better theorem that can explain (predict) the event - and the theorems are built to support the empirical evidence. Additionally, axioms are never adopted unless they have been solidly proven (and if they are ever dis-proven, they cast their dependent theorems into doubt!).
But in economics, we have an entire class of 'predictive' theorems built on at least two very shaky (false?) axioms - with our policy leaders using those economic models to determine our national economic and monetary policy. Any wonder they didn't predict the potential downside to the actions of the major banks and investment houses as they grew ever larger trading Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations, a majority based upon the subprime lending market?
And that's so patently false in the real world in which we live and act economically that I can say that you aren't a rational actor! We all act economically with partial information, we sometimes (Oftentimes?) make economic decisions on a whim, not really considering whether the outcome will be good or bad. We also don't all act alike, and we often are willing to withhold information (or lie!) during a transaction if we think it will give us an advantage.
Given that rational (knowing, utility maximizing) actors provide a major underpinning of neoclassical economics (the kind that holds sway in our policy makers - Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan (an extreme case)), one has to wonder if the predictions made are as bad as the axiom (oh, wait! We don't have to wonder: The evidence is in, and the predictions don't mean squat - one can clearly see that they don't know what's going to happen next in the economy!)
What about the Free Market Economy? Again, a fuzzy definition would be that it is unregulated, with free trade across boundaries and within. But, again, economists mean something much more restrictive: Not only that trade is unregulated, but that any of the aforementioned rational actors can buy or sell at any time without effecting the market!
But, that only works if the actors are small: During 2008, when the financial industry started melting down, we saw how the actions of the major banks (Lehman, Bear Sterns, AIG) to liquidate their positions in hopes of raising capital to cover their margin calls caused the market to fall further, which required more selling, which led to more selling, until some (notably Lehman and Bear Sterns) could no longer change their positions, and were forced into bankruptcy or a bailout (I shouldn't say 'forced', since I really think it was optional to save them...)
We've never seen a 'free' market - so economists have absolutely no data that would indicate that a free market could exist, or that it would be optimum. Again, however, this tenet provides one of the underpinnings of neoclassical economics.
Think about it: In physics, theorems hold sway as long as they provide useful predictions about events, and when an event or experiment occurs that contradicts theory, scientists search for a better theorem that can explain (predict) the event - and the theorems are built to support the empirical evidence. Additionally, axioms are never adopted unless they have been solidly proven (and if they are ever dis-proven, they cast their dependent theorems into doubt!).
But in economics, we have an entire class of 'predictive' theorems built on at least two very shaky (false?) axioms - with our policy leaders using those economic models to determine our national economic and monetary policy. Any wonder they didn't predict the potential downside to the actions of the major banks and investment houses as they grew ever larger trading Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations, a majority based upon the subprime lending market?
Monday, January 3, 2011
Our Libraries
I have a bookmark with a saying of Erasmus: "When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes."
My love of reading is such that could apply to me; I would seriously be in jeopardy of purchasing more books than I should afford. Fortunately, my city has a reasonable library system, and I don't have to.
It was actually better than reasonable a few years ago, before the recession. Seeing that the revenue was falling, and likely to fall farther, a ballot initiative was floated to make a separate, dedicated income stream for the city libraries based on property tax. It wasn't to be much, the estimates were $60-$70 for a median valued home. I for one know that in books alone I save far more than that each year; plus, with its computers, many city residents who cannot afford one of their own can search for information for school, look for work, even keep an email account they otherwise would not.
Unfortunately, many in the city either didn't know firsthand the value of the library, or think it worthwhile (perhaps because of misinformation like this), and the measures failed. Several of our libraries were closed, and hours at the remaining curtailed.
Sadly, yesterday I read in the paper that the sharing agreement with the county libraries for our residents to check out books there will be sharply curtailed. Not unreasonably so, since our residents don't contribute to their funding, it was extremely generous of them to allow us to check out books at their branches.
So it was with a little anxiety that I rushed to the library. I had requested an inter-library transfer of a book and had received confirmation that it had arrived. However, I wanted to get it in my hands before they changed their minds and took it back!
So, for now, I finally have a copy of "Econned" by Yves Smith to read (she of the blog Naked Capitalism), with the hopes that these transfers will continue for our beleaguered libraries, since I have a few more to request.
Hopefully, too, the residents of our city will change their minds and decide that they, like me, value our libraries much more, and perhaps we'll be able to bring them back.
My love of reading is such that could apply to me; I would seriously be in jeopardy of purchasing more books than I should afford. Fortunately, my city has a reasonable library system, and I don't have to.
It was actually better than reasonable a few years ago, before the recession. Seeing that the revenue was falling, and likely to fall farther, a ballot initiative was floated to make a separate, dedicated income stream for the city libraries based on property tax. It wasn't to be much, the estimates were $60-$70 for a median valued home. I for one know that in books alone I save far more than that each year; plus, with its computers, many city residents who cannot afford one of their own can search for information for school, look for work, even keep an email account they otherwise would not.
Unfortunately, many in the city either didn't know firsthand the value of the library, or think it worthwhile (perhaps because of misinformation like this), and the measures failed. Several of our libraries were closed, and hours at the remaining curtailed.
Sadly, yesterday I read in the paper that the sharing agreement with the county libraries for our residents to check out books there will be sharply curtailed. Not unreasonably so, since our residents don't contribute to their funding, it was extremely generous of them to allow us to check out books at their branches.
So it was with a little anxiety that I rushed to the library. I had requested an inter-library transfer of a book and had received confirmation that it had arrived. However, I wanted to get it in my hands before they changed their minds and took it back!
So, for now, I finally have a copy of "Econned" by Yves Smith to read (she of the blog Naked Capitalism), with the hopes that these transfers will continue for our beleaguered libraries, since I have a few more to request.
Hopefully, too, the residents of our city will change their minds and decide that they, like me, value our libraries much more, and perhaps we'll be able to bring them back.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Conflict of Interest (oweno.com should be Oh No! What a load of crap Part 2)
The national debt is growing. We are currently running a deficit, spending more than we take in in taxes from our people. To some, this is a cause for alarm. To others, it is an acceptable situation, given the current recession, and, as long as it proves temporary, a good thing for the government to do.
Everyone has their favorite villain: The two wars, The growth of social welfare (including medical spending), The financial industry, China. Of course, it is actually a combination of all of them that contributes to our current deficit: We would need to get all under control to balance the budget, if that were a worthy goal (again, it's not clear that it needs to be balanced at the Federal level.)
But there is one sector of the current budget that is balanced, that hasn't, ever, contributed to the deficit. One sector that does not need to be tampered, changed, realigned, etc. One sector that has its own, dedicated income stream, a stream that has always exceeded the payments made on its behalf.
You would think that fact alone would prevent every honest politician from including it in a list of items to be adjusted to balance the budget. That it would prevent any special interest group from attacking it under the rubric of balancing the budget. That it would assure our citizens of the viability of the program, and remove concerns about its ties to our deficit.
But, that's not what we see. Every time the subject of the budget comes up, this program heads the list of those that need adjustment or cutting. Every conversation about congressional spendthrifts includes mention of this program. It has become so ingrained in our consciences that reference is made in seemingly unrelated articles.
Why should that be? Why would a solvent, money making program get included when the subject of the budget comes up? Why would it be disparagingly referred to as a cause of our woes when in fact is does not?
My guess is two-fold. First, not every citizen is aware of this fact. They haven't seen the numbers, they don't know that the program is, in fact, solvent. But, it is: In 2009, income was $899 billion, expenditures were $678 billion. That's a pretty good surplus.
Second is the propaganda machine that continually couples this program with the deficit and the debt, that has so infiltrated our thinking that the program is mentioned, to the exclusion of all others, when government growth is the topic.
But, whence this propaganda machine? Who's behind it? For what purpose?
I have to admit that I don't know. But I can take a guess. Remember oweno.com? They include this program in their list of items that need to be cut back to balance the budget. Who is oweno.com? Why, it's none other than the Peter G Peterson Foundation, run by investment banker Peter G Peterson.
And the program? Social Security.
And the purpose? Conflict of Interest.
Social Security is a retirement vehicle, run by the US Government. It doesn't have great returns, but it does have guaranteed returns. And, it is big: $900 billion in 2009 alone.
Investment Banking is a retirement vehicle run by banks and Wall Street. They sometimes have great returns, but there are no guarantees. Think about how they must be salivating to get their hands on the $900 billion collected by the US Government each year to fund Social Security? A significant portion of that $900 billion would go to line their pockets, rather than finding its way into the hands of our retirees.
So, who cares if Social Security contributes to the deficit? Since worry about the deficit is on people's minds, it can be used to whip up concern of a solvent program for the very purpose of moving that money into private hands to increase private empires.
But only if we listen. Only if we follow the faulty reasoning that it somehow is tied to the debt.
And only if we are silent. We have an obligation, on behalf of the 3.5 million people who will retire this year, and similar numbers for the next several years, to tell everyone we meet that Social Security is solvent, that it doesn't contribute to the debt, and that it has proven itself a societal good.
We have an obligation to pressure our law makers, and the president, to stand down from tampering with it in their pursuit of 'fiscal accountability'.
And, we have an obligation to remain informed about matters fiscal, so that we aren't easily led into believing we need to fix problems that don't need fixing (which are presented by those who just want to get their hands on the money!)
Everyone has their favorite villain: The two wars, The growth of social welfare (including medical spending), The financial industry, China. Of course, it is actually a combination of all of them that contributes to our current deficit: We would need to get all under control to balance the budget, if that were a worthy goal (again, it's not clear that it needs to be balanced at the Federal level.)
But there is one sector of the current budget that is balanced, that hasn't, ever, contributed to the deficit. One sector that does not need to be tampered, changed, realigned, etc. One sector that has its own, dedicated income stream, a stream that has always exceeded the payments made on its behalf.
You would think that fact alone would prevent every honest politician from including it in a list of items to be adjusted to balance the budget. That it would prevent any special interest group from attacking it under the rubric of balancing the budget. That it would assure our citizens of the viability of the program, and remove concerns about its ties to our deficit.
But, that's not what we see. Every time the subject of the budget comes up, this program heads the list of those that need adjustment or cutting. Every conversation about congressional spendthrifts includes mention of this program. It has become so ingrained in our consciences that reference is made in seemingly unrelated articles.
Why should that be? Why would a solvent, money making program get included when the subject of the budget comes up? Why would it be disparagingly referred to as a cause of our woes when in fact is does not?
My guess is two-fold. First, not every citizen is aware of this fact. They haven't seen the numbers, they don't know that the program is, in fact, solvent. But, it is: In 2009, income was $899 billion, expenditures were $678 billion. That's a pretty good surplus.
Second is the propaganda machine that continually couples this program with the deficit and the debt, that has so infiltrated our thinking that the program is mentioned, to the exclusion of all others, when government growth is the topic.
But, whence this propaganda machine? Who's behind it? For what purpose?
I have to admit that I don't know. But I can take a guess. Remember oweno.com? They include this program in their list of items that need to be cut back to balance the budget. Who is oweno.com? Why, it's none other than the Peter G Peterson Foundation, run by investment banker Peter G Peterson.
And the program? Social Security.
And the purpose? Conflict of Interest.
Social Security is a retirement vehicle, run by the US Government. It doesn't have great returns, but it does have guaranteed returns. And, it is big: $900 billion in 2009 alone.
Investment Banking is a retirement vehicle run by banks and Wall Street. They sometimes have great returns, but there are no guarantees. Think about how they must be salivating to get their hands on the $900 billion collected by the US Government each year to fund Social Security? A significant portion of that $900 billion would go to line their pockets, rather than finding its way into the hands of our retirees.
So, who cares if Social Security contributes to the deficit? Since worry about the deficit is on people's minds, it can be used to whip up concern of a solvent program for the very purpose of moving that money into private hands to increase private empires.
But only if we listen. Only if we follow the faulty reasoning that it somehow is tied to the debt.
And only if we are silent. We have an obligation, on behalf of the 3.5 million people who will retire this year, and similar numbers for the next several years, to tell everyone we meet that Social Security is solvent, that it doesn't contribute to the debt, and that it has proven itself a societal good.
We have an obligation to pressure our law makers, and the president, to stand down from tampering with it in their pursuit of 'fiscal accountability'.
And, we have an obligation to remain informed about matters fiscal, so that we aren't easily led into believing we need to fix problems that don't need fixing (which are presented by those who just want to get their hands on the money!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)