Time to Change Course, Rebuild Finance and Debate 'What is The Good Life'

Jamie Galbraith is one of my favorites: He speaks clearly and holds nothing back. Elsewhere he has called for the destruction of the Financial System and a clean rebuilding of it. Makes sense, since in its current form it serves us not, and instead extracts the value of our labor and output. Finance should be a utility: Moving money from where it is to where it is needed. However, the reality is that Finance instead preys upon the majority, stripping the value from our assets (via loans and speculation), pocketing money they create akin to Counterfeiting.

As Finance grows and extracts all they can from a particular market, it continually moves on. Currently its intended prey is our public institutions: Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and even perhaps our public lands. Through its tools in the House and Senate, they pretend that it is the only way.

But there is a another reasonable way of viewing the current situation. Finance promised us jobs and prosperity if we cut taxes on Capital and High Incomes. We did so in 2003, with dismal job growth and stagnate gains since. It was a loan that didn't pay off. It is time to call it in: If we have learned anything over the past 20 years is that leaving money in the hands of the Finance industry and the excessively wealthy does society no good - and there is no credible argument that the majority of society need to give anything up to pay for the misdeeds of the members of the Finance Industry.

Galbraith here explains the global state of affairs very nicely, and reveals in commonsense terms how what is happening in America is not distinct or separable from what is happening in Europe - that Finance is currently in the advanced stages of destruction of the World Economy. Although speaking to a European Audience, he reveals many things about the global economy, the US Economy, and exactly how and why there are different current outcomes, but that all is not stable...

Galbraith: Change of Direction

Thinking Empathetically

The genius of Sherlock Holmes was seeing the pattern that wasn't there – recognizing that the dog didn't bark, but should have, that something was missing from the clutter of the room, etc. It turns out that is a devilishly difficult thing to do: Our minds place the available information into patterns, but gloss over anything that isn't readily handy. Researchers have shown that we can regularly find a pattern in a sequence of numbers or shapes, but seldom do we recognize a pattern in the missing numbers or shapes.

Not only do we seldom see these patterns, but due to the way our minds work on available information, we even less frequently notice when we have blindly omitted even considering the holes. This crops up in our everyday interactions and conversations, in the ways we view ourselves and others.

Listening to a group conversation yesterday, I was struck by how this mechanism blinds us to possibilities for how others think and feel, for what may motivate them. Instead of recognizing that they didn't have the information about others' motivations and desires, and taking that into account, it was almost universally common for the various speakers to assume that the others either didn't have motivations or desires, or their motivations and desires were only of the most basest sort.

If we stop and consider, however, it doesn't make sense that only we have positive motivations, desires, hopes, fears, biases, and that our motivations, desires, etc. are unique and not universally shared by the majority of those we recognize as human. Truly, this is the key to thinking empathetically: To believe and then think and act as though those around us have dreams, just like us; that they have fears, just like us; that they have motivations and desires, just like us. That where we have found our lives shaped by forces outside of our control, perhaps they, too, have had their lives buffeted and diverted, not by lack of motivations or dreams, but in spite of them.

We are quick to give ourselves a pass when the outcome of our lives doesn't match the inputs we've made: We know the details, both of what motivated us and what outside influences either helped or hindered our achieving our goals. But we are equally quick, since this intimate information is seldom available about others we see, to assume that the lack of information is proof of lack, and that those others are deficient in those qualities, rather than realizing the truth: We just don't know.

Upon reflection, I often wonder if my own motivations and desires would by themselves be insufficient for achievement, if it weren't for the influences and stabilizing forces of the people in my life. If it wasn't for those who looked to me to provide education, shelter, and love; if it wasn't for those who looked for my advice and valued my experience in my job or my community; if it wasn't for those who demanded that I be a good friend and a good example; would I be all that I am?

So I give thanks today for all of those people who have shaped and guided my life, for those who have taught me and those he needed my teaching, for both change me. Thanks for those who have loved me, and those who have requested my love, for one is not complete without the other. Thanks for those whom I have needed, who have consoled me, encouraged me, and challenged me; and for those who have needed and accepted my consoling, my encouragement, and my challenges to them.

And I encourage you to consider that the success in your life is likely due to the richness of the people surrounding you; to the quiet, often unspoken motivation living up to their expectations places upon you and aids you; and overall, to think empathetically, to become aware of the lack of information you have about those who are struggling, and rather than discount their internal processes, consider that perhaps the determining forces are external, that they could be more if only they had a rich network of people and community. Just as those external forces awaken motivations and dreams in us and alleviate our fears, the less successful others in our community have motivations and dreams, and rather than condemning them by failing to recognize that we don't have the proper information, we need to consider always that they may not be so different from us.

Modern research may have illuminated the mechanism and given it a name, but the ancients knew and understood it well, and crafted a simple reminder to overcome this availability bias. So, today, as we bow our heads in humility at what we have gained during our lives, I remind you to retain the humility for the knowledge you don't have, and to remember:

“Judge not an individual until you have first walked a mile in their shoes.”

Enacting a Pigou Tax

The growing inequality in America is probably one of our greatest problems – from reduced health outcomes to increased violence to reduced beneficial productivity (think of the quants who could have been working on energy or health care but instead were figuring out ever more creative ways to fleece the unsuspecting pension fund of its money), grotesque increases in inequality degrade a society in a multitude of ways. However, an equally difficult problem has been to find a reasonable solution.

Interestingly, British Depression Era Economist Arthur Pigou floated a possible solution to neutralizing undesirable externalities: Tax them! (An economic Externality is a side effect of a transaction that costs a third party – pollution is the most common example.)

In this well-presented essay, Liam C. Malloy and John Case explain more fully the idea, what it would imply, and present even some 'whys' – Why we would want to do this, Why it would help, Why it is reasonable for a society to take this action.

I was particularly struck by the number of topics we've discussed over the past year: The fact that higher taxes do NOT correlate with reduced economic productivity; The fact that CEO's who are paid 300-400 times their average workers are not producing at 300-400 times the average rate (in fact, likely 'earning' their income by lobbying the government for breaks or handouts for their company or sector); The fact that 80% of the productivity growth of America's economy over the last 35 years has gone to the top 1% (as pointed out in the article, if the 90% increase, 2.1% per year had accrued to everyone, today's median household income would be $85,000 instead of the $50,000 that it is.)

The only omission I easily spotted was failing to call to equate income taxes on labor (wages) and capital (capital gains). There is no good reason to give preferential treatment to money earned via investment, and many, many reasons to tax investment income at exactly the same rate as labor income. Left unsaid is that for the Pigou Tax to be most effective, it would have to apply equally to all income, regardless of source. But, that is a change that needs to occur regardless of our enacting a Pigou Tax.

Enjoy, and spread the word! Want to do something positive for America's future? Advocate for those actions (like this) that would reduce the grotesque, almost third-world, levels of inequality currently present. Our country does best when everyone works towards a common goal, and when everyone, even the rich, acknowledge and act like we're all in this together.

Leonardo Da Vinci Exhibit

We stopped by the Da Vinci exhibit at the Denver Pavilions yesterday. On display there are over 60 recreations of Da Vinci original machines – many believed to never have been executed before. From his fertile mind sprang ideas for gears, bearings, chains, and flight. Although the tools and materials available during his day (late 15^th century) were inadequate to realize many of his inventions, the ideas were sound.

For instance, he developed plans for a bicycle, the rear wheels connected to the operator's pedaled crankshaft via a flat chain – a chain that would have been impossible to make in his day, but closely resembles early bicycle (and other machinery) chains.

Some of the best aspects of the exhibit are those interactive inventions sprinkled throughout. I took the kids, and they marveled as they played with gear systems, chain systems, bearings, and thoroughly enjoyed assembling the interlocking bridge that requires no fasteners. Of course, too, they wanted to spend much more than time than would have been polite in the 360 degree mirror room whereupon we could all gaze upon our backsides...(And see, for once, what really was behind our ears!)

They give guided tours every hour, and we drew a student art major who propelled us around the exhibits with her animated explanations, her easy knowledge, and her nearly breathless wonder at the accomplishments of the man: Whether the leap in progress was mechanical, imagination, or artistic, her enthusiasm was infectious, especially for the kids. Written placards next to exhibits really are no match for the spoken account from a knowledgeable guide – especially when the guide will entertain questions.

Naturally, on the way out, we stopped by the gift shop to see if there was something which would help us remember our trip. Puzzles, games, models of the machines, t-shirts: It seemed they had it all. But the item that intrigued my son the most was a simple black notebook: faux leather outer binding yellow, parchment-like pages. I purchased each of the children one, along with M. Gelb's book, “How to Think Like Da Vinci.”

The inspiration from the trip was on full display today. Early this morning my 12-year-old mastered writing in mirror script to be more fully like Da Vinci. Then, after reading a chapter of the book, he started imagining, writing, drawing in his 'notebook', creating his inventions. Later he tried bringing one to life (with modest success!), illustrating that often the best gift we can give our children is a blank book along with the permission to fill it up with their ideas, their imaginings, their life (along with the necessary string, tape, glue, cardboard, etc.!)

Da Vinci didn't start receiving a formal education until he was 14 years old. Prior to that he developed his process of disassembling, assembling, drawing, thinking, and learning about the ways in which the world works and how to illustrate them, and how to combine known parts into previously unknown creations. He didn't suffer under the need to get an 'A': he was driven, it appears, from a formidable curiosity, and perhaps the realization that, as a bastard child, without learning all he could, making his way in the world may have been very difficult. It is hard to know what drove him, but if even a little of that drive and inquisitiveness can be transferred to our children, and will stick, then Da Vinci and those who brought the modern exhibit to life are my newest heroes.

Romney Will Say Anything

I didn't realize how ripe of a take-down there was awaiting Mitt “Robme” Romney, but it's all out there just waiting for someone to put it all together...

Mr. Romney claims that he will create 12 million jobs during the next 4 years if only we elect him as president. He doesn't say how he'll create the jobs, just elect him, sit back, and find out...

Nail #1: Since he won't specify, we are enabled to speculate. And some big guns have speculated, like those fine folks at Macroeconomic Advisers and Moodys Analytics. Their estimation: The economy, regardless of the president will add 11.8 million jobs over the next four years. So, that's only 200,000 for you?

Mr. Romney has repeated used the meme that he was a job creator while working for Bain Capital, that he knows how to create jobs...

Nail #2: Search for the jobs he created, and you will search in vain. But you will find cogent analysis of his work and methods there, by no less a business standard than Bloomberg:

What’s clear from a review of the public record during his management of the private-equity firm Bain Capital from 1985 to 1999 is that Romney was fabulously successful in generating high returns for its investors. He did so, in large part, through heavy use of tax-deductible debt, usually to finance outsized dividends for the firm’s partners and investors. When some of the investments went bad, workers and creditors felt most of the pain. Romney privatized the gains and socialized the losses.

So, Mr. Romney is willing to mislead on his record, mislead on what he'll actually accomplish while at the helm (if we give it to him). But, he has served in government before, what did he accomplish there? Surely that would give him some bona-fides...

Nail #3: As Governor of Massachusetts, which as candidate Romney he claimed he would initiate a jobs program "second to none in the history of the state.” But, the history, as capably outlined by Jim Kaplan of the Tampa Bay Times: “When Romney's four-year term expired, the job growth rate of 1 percent lagged four points behind the national rate.” So, even though he has promised this particular outcome before, last time he utterly failed.

During the second Presidential Debate, Mr Romney asserted that “Government does not create jobs”.

Which leads us directly to...

Nail #4: Mr. Romney: If the government does not create jobs, how the he** are you going to create jobs as president of the United States? You didn't create jobs when you were in the private sector, you failed to create jobs the last time you were in government, and you are willing to lie to us about what will happen even though, by your own assertion, it is impossible for you to accomplish that! What kind of a man are you?

I believe four nails allows us a roundtrip on this particular coffin. Sleep well, Mr. Romney. I don't believe there is a place in heaven for folks like you. May I suggest you read Neil Gaiman's collection of shorts, “Smoke and Mirrors”. There is a particular story in there about a place where time has no meaning...

Free Will and Democracy

In 1797, the Reverend Timothy Dwight, then president of Yale University, argued “...that if God had decided from all eternity that an individual's fate was to die of smallpox, it was a sin to interfere with the divine plan through a man-made trick like vaccination.”

Sound familiar?

Everyone has their own conception of what a god or God is, how he or she interacts with the world. We cannot possibly address all concepts in a morning essay. However, the line of thinking implicit in Reverend Dwight's argument, and present too in Candidate Mourdock's recent comments on pregnancy resulting from rape, is of a god that influences or guides our behavior.

Probably the most useful image of God in this instance is of the Platonic God: The God represents in his or her divine instance all that is good or perfect. To illuminate our behavior, we have only to ask, “Is my behavior emulating what would be the behavior of one who is perfect, and perfectly good?” If so, the behavior is likely acceptable, if not, one may wish to reconsider.

But that is not the god that Dwight and Mourdock envision. Their god has a plan, and interfering with the plan is the wrong, for the simple reason that we cannot know the plan aforehand, and it is then assumed that what ever occurs is the plan!

Notice, however, that the God of Dwight and Mourdock is indistinguishable from a non-god, indistinguishable from the absence of any god. It is impossible to discern, using their logic, that there is a god in the universe. Saying that a pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will is logically equivalent to saying that a pregnancy resulting from rape is Nature's natural outcome – there is no test that could be administered to determine the difference.

Mourdock's conclusion rhetorically begs the question...

But the line of thinking is more insidious than even that. Implicit in reaching the conclusion that we shouldn't interfere is to deny the concept of Free Will, the concept that we can (and should!) make our decisions and choices upon the best available information currently at hand.

Present at our nation's founding were individuals steeped in Enlightenment ideals, individuals who were willing to place Free Will front and center of our public and political discourse. A Democracy cannot exist without Free Will, and the exercise thereof. Freely we can make arguments for or against our behaviors, for or against laws and policies that may constrain that behavior, and freely we can submit to the conclusions. However, democratic discourse has no place for vacuous appeals to invisible authority, no place for attempts to eliminate the exercise of Free Will from individuals and replace it with one person's concept of what should be.

People who exhibit thinking like Mourdock (we can add Todd Akins as another example) have no place in public office. Their underlying thought processes hew back to the days of predestination, back to unquestioned submission to authority. Their thinking denies Free Will, denies that others have the right to exercise it, denies a foundational cornerstone of Democracy.

In so doing, they reveal that they are unfit for public office in our Democracy.

An Alternate Universe

In our world, it is hard to run a large corporation. You have to constantly keep your sales up and your costs down, all because the leeches at the big, bad government will tax you into oblivion. You have to always be watchful: Since you have to pay your taxes first, before you pay your employees, before you invest in R&D, before you pay the depreciation on your equipment, before you pay your subcontractors, before pay your CEO and your accountant, any loss of revenue will force you to cut jobs so that you don't end up short at the end of the year – debtor's prison is hell. If you are lucky, after taxes and then your expenses, you may have enough to put aside for a rainy day or to create a new job – because that's what corporations do: They take any money left over after taxes and then expenses and they hire, but that is becoming rarer and rarer...

I think often of an alternate universe where the tax laws are reversed. Where a company gets to pay its employees first, and deduct that from earnings, thus lowering their tax bill. Where they can also deduct the money they pay into their employee's pension, 401k retirements, and health care premiums. Where things like capital depreciation count against revenue before profit is calculated, where the CEO can be paid his/her worth with positive tax implications (shoot, let's overpay them and let the company lower their tax bill!); Where even modest amounts of R&D are allowed to be deducted before the taxable amount (and the tax liability) calculated.

I know: My alternate universe is completely untenable. It would set up a horrible conflict between the government and the investors, because once profit was calculated, an increase in the money going to one would be a decrease in the money going to the other. It would be unfortunate, too: Since as soon as investors get a reasonable amount of money together they hire someone to do something, and if there is nothing to do, they create a job out of thin-air, because employing people is what they do. Conversely, of course, once a government gets money from taxation it just sits on it, unproductively, never thinking about how to spend it, accumulating all those taxes so that Presidents can feel rich. If only the government would employ people with the money it collects, if only it would invest in things like roads and airports and parks and open space, if only it would ensure that everyone had access to health care so that the corporations could have healthy employees..

I wish I knew how to make a government do that. Perhaps it would, in my alternate universe.

Charter Schools are Ordinary At Best...

I just wanted to do a quick highlight of this article:

Charter Schools Fail the Math Test in Battleground Chicago

Basically, as Yves Smith adroitly writes: "The public wants a pony: higher quality education while demonizing teachers and cutting their pay."

I find it a little disheartening that so often we want the best but aren't willing to pay for it: Especially if it is fellow middle class Americans who will benefit by providing the goods or services we want. Our exploitation mentality has grown to where we are no long content just exploiting people in far-away lands, now we want to do it here at home.

Read Yves' article, and the Jarosvky if you are so inclined. Our public schools are pretty darn good, and instead of sucking them dry to transfer the money from the teachers and educators who are willing to grow and guide our children, to the already rich for whom too much is not enough, we should rethink our approach and reinvest in those who can and do make a difference. 

2012 Election - Work Will Remain After The Voting

When a friend asked if I would like to provide an essay for her blog about the election, I quickly agreed. It didn't seem like it would be too difficult: I have strong opinions, I've written about them for some time: How hard could it be?

It turned out to be much harder than I anticipated. This election is presenting me with some challenges that I just don't recall any previous election presenting. I know who I am going to vote for, but it seems woefully inadequate, woefully irrelevant. Let me explain:

I find the big social issues to be a continued source of disbelief: You mean, after the Civil War, Woman's suffrage, the passage of the 14^th Amendment (with its Equal Protection Clause) and the 15^th amendment on voting, we STILL insist on attempting to segregate people from general equality based upon some aspect of their lives? We STILL insist on attempting to force conformity to one particular set of religious beliefs, even as those beliefs are undergoing internal revision themselves and don't speak for all of us? Bah.

So, it has been easy for me to vote against the party that continually comes down on the discriminatory side of things – that somehow eschews calls for equality and advocates against women frequently, against a gender-blind definition of marriage. Add to that their almost fanatical support for increasing the means to inflict violence, and its a no-brain-er.

2008 was exciting. Here we had an articulate black man who voiced concern for those who don't get a fair shake; concern for those who face injustice and inequality; and who, more than anything else for me, was willing to advocate for a restructuring of our out-moded and poor system of health care that costs all of us too much and denies coverage to many, specifically many who need it.

He did exactly that, too. Once President, Barack Obama continued pushing to reform the system of health delivery, striking bargains to make the result palatable to Republicans, Democrats, the Insurance and the Health Care Industries.

Of course, what we got represents all sorts of compromises, and in a spectacular play against the nation and for the furthering of their own interests, members of the Republican Party unanimously voted against it – voted against a remodeling that looked surprisingly like plans put forth by their own party 30 years previously; a plan that strongly resembled a successful State Plan enacted in the previous decade.

In the intervening time since then, President Obama has come out in favor of Gay Marriage, and has allowed the Pentagon to repeal their nefarious 'Don't Ask; Don't Tell' policy.

So, here we are in 2012. There is a new gorilla in the room, but nobody is talking about it. Neither Republican candidate Mitt Romney, nor re-nominated Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Both, in fact, seem bent on side-stepping THE major issue of this election (and perhaps our lifetime and more), turning the whole processes into a frustrating side-show of irrelevancies.

Mr. Romney, following his party (actually, almost re-inventing himself to be crueler and more prejudiced against practically anyone who isn't wealthy and white and male than was evident during his tenure as Governor) has brought up the old, tired drudges about taxes and spending and jobs, as though we won't see through it again. His running mate, true to form, has sponsored a non-sense budget that panders exclusively to those who extract rent from the economy, and imposes austerity on those who work.

The gorilla, of course, is the outsized (over 40% of our economy!), enormously detrimental Financial Sector with its reckless debt creation, speculation, and extractive activities that drove us to the brink of ruin four years ago, and its continued existence in current form which will only repeat the cycle. The financial sector has driven debt creation, both private (which we, as a nation, are wallowing in), and public (as the falsely strong dollar elicits large trade deficits, piling on government debt as foreign traders recycle their American dollars in Bonds).

I want a champion who will go to Washington and take on the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) sector without concern for re-election, without concern for the opposition by the malefactors who daily steal the real productivity of the masses. I want a hero who will advocate a return to a true, classical economy, where debt is used to finance manufacturing expansion, where the unearned, 'free lunch' asset appreciation gains (Capital Gains) don't drive the economy nor contribute to outlandish awards to some.

I want a Neil Barofsky, or an Elizabeth Warren, or a Bill Black to go. Each has shown the fortitude to stand tall on this issue; each has worked in their way to raise awareness or to gain a foothold to battle it. Each has clearly demonstrated that they understand both what is happening, which of many possible solutions might give the best outcome, and the urgency with which this is needed.

Alas, outside of Warren who is running for the Senate, the others are not on the ballot. So, that leaves:

Mr. Romney, of course, who earned his fabulous wealth through this very means, borrowing and then saddling others to pay it off, while extracting a fortune from that very same debt. It is inconceivable that a Romney administration would promote the dismantling of the outsized banks and a return to a stable economy based upon real labor, real production, where real people perform real tasks to earn a real living.

President Obama, who has shown only a superficial awareness of this issue, and has so far backed away from any real attempts to address it or even communicate that he is considering it.

Hence, the lackluster feelings I have for this election. I will cast my vote for Obama, recognizing that my political participation will have only just begun at that point. That in order for us to gain any leverage, for us to stave off the austerity measures that the financial elite are cooking up for us, we will have to continue to participate, continue to advocate, continue to Occupy the public spaces.

How To Curb The Power Of Democracy

You have to admit it: Democracy is messy. Everyone gets a say in all matters, even the poor and uneducated. We toss and turn in the sea of public opinion, some informed, some ill-formed, some completely uninformed. What the masses want is not always the desire of those in power, or those with wealth. If you wanted to control or diminish the power of Democracy, what could you do?

First, I think you would posit something called a Free Market. You would imbue it with the power of a god – make it all encompassing, pure, and always correct. Posit that the God Market perfectly rewards those who work hard, and likewise punishes those who are negligent in their production or attention. Posit that the God Market is Strongly Efficient: the values It determines, whether they be salaries or prices or rewards of any sort, they are exactly the correct salaries or prices or rewards.

Now you have the perfect tool to curtail the power of The People. If they advocate for higher wages, you can simply beat them back: Their wages are exactly the wages God The Market has determined should accrue to one who does what they do. Paying them other than what the God Market has chosen is an affront, and will have many negative consequences.

Perhaps they would use their democratic powers to move something from the realm of the private into the realm of the public with the desire that the fruits of society should benefit all of its members. Again,

remind them that public entities are fraught with inefficiency and corruption – you know, because God The Market has informed you, and It has no interest in rewarding any who would not strive alone to better themselves.

You can even use it to bruise their ego. Observably, the masses are poor, and since the God Market is purely efficient and correct, ergo, they deserve their lot in life. Who would dare go against what is pure and true? Those who have succeeded, by definition, are those who have worked harder, dared more, and received the bounty of the God Market! Repeat often, and perhaps they will learn the error of choosing Democracy, and stop attempting to use their votes and some pathetic egalitarian ideal to oppose that which is natural and pure and good, and just go and toil for the God Market.

For surely, you can point to your own success, and recognize that it is of course the result of a mighty struggle that has received the beneficence of God The Free Market, and you now have the perfect tool with which to flay Democracy: Indeed, you can point to your own neutrality! Do The People want clean air and plentiful, pure water? It is not for you or they to decide: The God Market will provide those as needed and when needed, and if they are not as clean as some want, well, who are they to go against the providence of the God Market?

Use the tool often and with energy, and perhaps this desire for messy interference with the natural order of things, this desire to make society better for all, this desire to diminish the injustices of previous generations can be caused to wither, perhaps die. Those who would choose their fellow citizen over personal gain can see the error of their ways. For once this arrogant wrongness, this affront, this virtual heresy that is Democracy is banished, then all can turn towards the God Market and have its splendor and perfection shine upon their faces, and the world can become Its perfect reflection.

In Mitt's Defense (Or, What We Should Be Talking About)

Everyone is talking about Mr. Romney's latest gaffe: His statements to the effect that those who don't pay federal income tax are part of a poor, taker group that mooches off the rest and will vote to keep it that way.

Of course, the pundits rush in to provide the backstop facts: It truly is a much smaller group than Romney claimed who are actually free from federal income tax (most the elderly), and no, those in the lower half of the national income don't predominately vote for only one party, nor are they moochers in any real sense: They have jobs!

But what Mitt inadvertently cast a light upon is something that we should be talking about: namely, the large gap between the median income in the country and the average, and the impacts that has upon our society.

The median income in the U.S. is roughly $40,000 per year* – that is the point at which half the earners earn more, and half earn less. (I am going to use the per worker median rather than the household median ($50,000) to illuminate the individual's position within the workforce.)

Our Gross National Product (GNP) for 2011 was $15 trillion dollars – the sum of all productive activity in the nation for the year. Our workforce was 142 million people (fn1) – which works out to an average production per worker of approximately $100,000 annually.

This is a large difference: The average is significantly right skewed – in fact, earning upwards of $100,000 per year would place you in the top 16% of the nation's earners (and the top 20% of the nation's households.)

This shows that the fruits of our labor are accruing not across society, but predominately to a small percentage of the individuals. Now, while it is reasonable to believe that many are much more productive than others, it is hard to make a case that the distribution of productive ability shouldn't be a normal Bell Curve or standard distribution where the median and the average are closely in alignment.

There is a natural phenomenon behind some of this skewing: The time-value property of capital vs the ephemeral or transient property of labor. What any labor makes today doesn't compound into higher production tomorrow: Another unit must be produced with new labor tomorrow. However, money, through compounding, can earn more tomorrow than it earned today.

But what should concern us is the rest of the structure of society that places a premium on capital and capital earnings and forces this skewing to the the extreme level we see in our country. The structure of our economy is largely ours to choose: The laws that govern contracts, employment, money flows (taxes, tariffs), the formation of corporations, all provide this structure and hence impact the resulting distribution.

We should be talking about how we restructure so that all workers (and I'm talking the workers here, not those who choose to freeload) share equitably in the production of the nation. What changes do we need to make to restore the median worker's salary closer to where it should be near the average? What changes to our views of capital and labor do we need to foster to allow us to hold the worker in esteem, to perceive and accept the liberating effects of equality?

For surely many would willingly pay more federal taxes if their position in society was both monetarily richer and more esteemed, with the positive effect of an increase in commitment to the shared goals of our nation. There has been much research that has shown that gross inequality is a detriment to a society in both decreases in individual happiness and increases in civil unrest and a tearing of the social fabric that binds people to one another.

That is as far as a defense of Mr. Romney's comments I can make. Although we can thank him for bringing to light the problems of having a large financially extractive class by being a member of that class and forcing the research revealing the destructive nature of Private Equity, his comments are/were atrocious. They reveal a shallow individual with neither empathy nor moral compassion who has been thoroughly corrupted by the accumulation of ill-gotten money. There is nothing likable about a mindset that would deprive workers of the ability to make a modest and fair wage and then condemn them for not being rich enough to afford to pay taxes.

But, he has opened the door. We must have the discussion. Changing the structure so that everyone shares from the ground (or labor-hour) up is truly the way to progressive societal equality, for with the equality comes opportunity, and with opportunity comes the increases in productive capability and our living standard. This is exactly the progressive attitude towards wealth redistribution – not through taxes to correct an unfair system (although a progressive system is likely always needed to overcome the effects of chance), but structural changes to promote an equitable sharing of the productive capacity of all.

* I'm drawing all my data from stats.oecd.org

fn1: If you count our 14 million unemployed, our workforce is 156 million. I'm splitting the difference in my average calculation because I can see strong reasons to use either figure.

The Irony of Ryan's Entrancement with Rand

I did the college thing of reading several of Ayn Rand's works. What struck me most was how much the landscape she was describing resembled nothing like the world I know. However, it seemed pretty obvious that she was working against the landscape she knew: Soviet Russia. Her descriptions of the difficulties for entrepreneurs, of mindless bureaucrats standing in the way, of the waste and inefficiency of a command economy all fit when you realize that is the world she is describing. And, like a school girl caught up in her first crush, Ms. Rand gushes blindly about the wonderfulness of the structure of her chosen country, America.

Although her creed, that acting out of selfishness results in the best outcomes, is neither a description of how we actually act and has been discredited as a proscription for how we should act, she does draw a clear and useful distinction between those who work and produce, and those whose actions are extractive. The bureaucrats of her old world produced nothing of use, worked to expand mini-empires with the command economy, and they were the ones who ended up with the summer homes, the cars, the better life-style, while many faced hardship enduring goods shortages (the images of the breadlines come readily to mind.)

These parasites, the one's who so steadfastly stood in the way of entrepreneurs like John Galt (from Atlas Shrugged), who condemned the working man or woman to a lifetime of ill-spent productivity by their miss-allocation of production (creating both vast waste and shortages as they ill-anticipated the needs and desires of the population); These mindless wasters of both the labor capital and intellectual capital of their countrymen: About them Ayn Rand heaped her derision. Galt's 50+ page speech in Atlas Shrugged is simply a condemnation of a command Economy and its flaws, interspersed with unchecked praise for an American-style Capitalist Economy.

The more we learn about the inner workings of the American Economy, however, places things in a new perspective. Reports about the influences and outcomes of the financial sector; reports about the actual results of applying Private Equity, keep enforcing the idea that we have built a purely extractive layer upon our vaunted production (ideas, manufacturing, services). What the entrepreneurs and laborers of America put in, our financial services (and corporate elite) take out for personal use, trading lobbying power for actual production.

American Capitalism has degenerated into a quasi-Command Economy: The Banking members of the Federal Reserve set the dollar and maintain it high to benefit those who lend (extracting great wealth for themselves along the way); Congress interests itself with passing laws that maintain wealth or provide easy avenues for those with wealth to build more; The massive corporations use their market position and power to squelch new ideas and new innovations (or buy them up and squelch them internally or, after the initial pay-out to the entrepreneur, hoard the future income from the idea for themselves, along with accounting control fraud to extract more from the economy than the production of the idea or product places in.)

Just as this parasitic behavior was detrimental to the well-being and expansion of old Russia, so, too, this parasitic behavior has profound negative consequences for America's future. As labor is squashed, less demand is created for the production of the entrepreneur, curtailing the advancements that can and will be realized. As the benefits of the productive classes flow more and more to the parasitic classes, the velocity of money slows, reducing the opportunities for new ideas to enter the market; as the money available to educate all decreases, the number of fertile minds (and hence the number of innovations) decreases, leaving America a second-(or worse!) class producer and member of the world stage.

The irony arises, then, because all of these self identified acolytes of Rand are members of this parasitic class: From Greenspan to Geithner, from Cantor to Bernanke, from Romney to Ryan: Each is a member of the extractive classes, producing nothing, but extracting greatly. None of them would be heroes in a Rand novel, but rather would be the derided antagonists, standing in the way (and ultimately failing) the onslaught of a true producing giant. I think that Galt would smite them with a snort!

The Real Meaning of the Deficit

I think there is a lot of confusion about the real meaning of the deficit. There is a lot of talk about the need to balance the budget, the need to pay down the deficit, to make the 'hard choices' – but no-one really talks about the why. There is some ambiguous talk about deficit vis a vis the future, but no specifics at what is at stake.

In simple terms, as long as others are willing to purchase and hold U.S. Dollars, thereby funding the deficit (or holding it in terms of bonds), the dollar remains strong, e.g., its purchasing power remains great. However, if conditions were to change, if others' confidence starts to falter, and U.S. Bonds are not seen as the low risk instruments that they are today, it would signal a weakening of the U.S. Dollar, and the purchasing power of the dollar would likewise fall.

A falling dollar translates, here at home, to inflation, as the amount of goods or services that can be purchased with a given amount drops. Everything starts to cost more, from food to clothing, services to labor.

Inflation isn't necessarily good, although it impacts different people differently. To truly understand the demagoguery surrounding the deficit, one needs to ask the question: Who will be most impacted by inflation?

The answer, of course, is lenders. Bankers. Wall Street tycoons. Anyone who lends money and derives their income from the resultant payments sees their income fall. And, if their money is tied up in a long-term, fixed rate instrument (think a 30-year fixed rate loan at 4%), there is a huge risk that such an instrument's yield will drop to near (or possibly, below) zero if inflation climbs high enough – that the payment flow is actually negative.

Now, a debtor or borrower is in almost the opposite position. While there was likely some initial pain as their income dropped relative to the goods and services they wished to purchase, since labor (i.e., wages) are a form of service and hence increase their cost along with inflation, labor typically sees their income keep pace with inflation, and the resultant pain is from the fact that there is no growth in their wages. Conversely, as inflation takes hold, the amount relative to their pay that their long term debts require is dropping, laborers are seeing an actual increase in their standard of living as a greater amount is free to purchase other goods and services!

So, who really cares about the deficit? Not likely you or I. In fact, it has been suggested that one of the best ways forward would be for America to gradually inflate her way out of the problem of a high deficit, and that the consequences are orthogonal to the current horror stories told about a high deficit.

So, the next time someone tells you it is imperative that we balance the budget and begin serious efforts to reduce the deficit, ask them “Why?”

And if the answer isn't because they have substantial money tied up lending to others at low interest rates and a future inflation risk may lower their income, they either have no clue or are lying to you.

And in either case, they have no credibility. So why listen to them?

Do As I Say...(Boy Scouts Edition)

It should be obvious why the Boy Scouts don't allow gays or atheists into their ranks: They don't need the training that scouting has to offer, and their outstanding moral positions would prove to be a humiliating distraction to the rest of the poor boys who struggle with the 12 tenets of the scout law.

For who can demonstrate loyalty better than an atheist, who won't drop you as friend if he learns you worship a different god? Or a gay boy, who won't torment you for liking Sally or Billy, but accepts that liking someone and pledging undying friendship, kindness and love is the height of being human?

Either can demonstrate trustworthiness, thriftiness and cleanliness. And what of reverence? Being gay or atheist is a life lesson in respecting institutions that support connections between people, but rejecting any that smack of bigotry or prejudice. Showing reverence for hate and fear is as wrong as lacking any reverence.

With their extremely tolerant views of others and willingness to offer the freedoms for others to pursue goals as they want the freedom to pursue theirs, the presence of gays and atheists within an intolerant, struggling group of Christian Scouts would prove a constant embarrassment.

(And what of the members of the LDS, who deemed the Book of Mormon insufficient for instilling moral character into their boys, and added the canon of Lord Baden-Powell alongside as the sole youth program for young men? Being bested in the mastery of cheerfulness, helpfulness or bravery by one who didn't consult either text might prove to be a debilitating demoralization!)

Instead of attempting to get in, gays and atheists should rejoice that they have mastered what scouting would teach them. They are the graduates.

And, never-mind that for a boy to fully understand Friendliness (offering his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respecting them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.); Kindness (He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not harm), or many of the other 12 tenets without the inclusion of all people, without leaders and an organization that lives those tenets and shows no prejudice, will, in the end, cripple him and his understanding.

For, obviously, the inclusion of gays and atheists within the ranks of scouting would prove too big a challenge, too great a test for the remainder, and their failure to live up to their tenets would become plain for all to see.

The Devil Is In The Details

Job Creator? Nope. More like pension looter, debt adder, layoff enjoyer.
Nicholas Shaxson gets the credit for this interesting Vanity Fair article looking into the finances (and perhaps moralities) of the man who would be president.

Ireland America's Future If...

...The policies advocated by the Romney campaign are enacted, according to Paul Krugman. Ireland's 14% unemployment (30% youth unemployment) are a direct result of the austerity measures enacted by Ireland's leaders: Low corporate taxes, diminished government spending, etc.

It just seems counter-intuitive to me that high unemployment benefits anyone over the long term. But, it's short-term, "I've got mine, go get your own" thinking that underlies so many of the difficulties we face today, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Lance Armstrong, Doper?

The news came out this week that the USADA was opening an investigation alleging that during his seven Tour wins, Lance Armstrong was doping. The USADA indicated they believed they had credible evidence and that this was an appropriate action to take.

The immediate consequence of the investigation is that Lance will be banned from competing in a National Ironman Qualifier June 24 in Nice, France (if he had qualified, he would be eligible to compete in the International Hawaii Ironman Triathalon this fall.)

I've mulled this news all week, and have to admit that I am as conflicted today as I was when I first heard it. I'm conflicted because I normally believe that cheating and unfairness should always be ferreted out, revealed, and punished. But I am uncertain that this is appropriate.

You see, I've always believed that the top echelon of cyclists are dirty. That they (along with their counterparts in other sports) hire team doctors who push the envelope with recovery and improvement enhancing substances, that the doctors earn their pay by masking the existence or previous use of the drugs with other substances so that the athlete can pass the myriad and constant tests they are forced to undergo. Call me cynical, but there have been enough 'caught' athletes, along with long after the career admissions of banned substance use that I've developed the idea that it is probably fairly widespread.

Sure, if he was doping, his seven Tour wins are tainted. But the relevant question is: Did Lance win because he alone amongst the 200 contenders was doping? Or did he win because among the 200 contenders and the unknown number of contenders who were doping he was still the best? If the controls in place 1999-2005 were not able to discern his (or, for the most part, anyone's) violations, shouldn't we just accept the outcomes of the races and move forward?

Hence my conflict: If Lance was doping for his wins, I am disappointed, and a reaction is that he should be denied the titles. However, I'm concerned that eliminating the winner doesn't create fairness: What if the first runner-up was doping? The second? How deep in the field would we have to go to find a clean cyclist to award the winner's yellow jersey to? And, if we don't know, can we strip any titles?

Because there is an aspect of revenge and spite to all of this: Some of Lance's most vociferous critics are fellow cyclists who did get caught using illegal substances. They somehow blundered, or their doctors, and the controls did catch them. Sure, if they feel that the drug use was widespread, they are angry at being singled out and punished when so many others continue on.

But they were caught red-handed, as it were: There is no doubt they were doping and cheating. As for Lance (and the bulk of the peloton) that didn't occur, and all we have are angry accusations...

And so the flip-side of the conflict: It is too easy to go back and review, to reveal actions that went undetected at the time of the athletic contest. We have rules, referees, control tests that are all designed to catch a cheating athlete at the time of the athletic contest. For the most part, they do their job, penalties are called, cheaters relegated to the sideline, etc. Sure, upon review of a tape we might find a missed call, a pushing of the limits that maybe should have been noticed, but that is all part of athletics.

And we don't go back and review the tapes on other contests: Football, basketball, hockey, baseball, and change the outcomes of the games based upon what we found. When a prominent baseball player admitted to steroid use we didn't strip his team of every win that occurred while he was on the field.

So my measured, but still conflicted opinion is that we should let matters regarding alleged previous drug use by Lance and others lie. The referees and controls didn't catch them at the time of the contests – and if they missed Lance, how many others were also providentially missed? Revisionist sports just doesn't play out well.

Let Lance race the Ironman. He'll be under scrutiny and repeated testing – I do believe that if he is continually cheating he will eventually be caught red-handed: And then there is no conflict: He is denied that race, perhaps prohibited from taking place in any for the next year or more, and the punishment is immediate and fair; The recipient of an elevated placing will have passed the very same testing that Lance failed, and we will have little doubt of their relative 'cleanness'.

Another Fire, Another Accusation

Yesterday I watched the growing plume from the High Park fire in Northern Colorado. Spotted early Saturday morning in an area with heavy damage from the Beetle Kill Epidemic sweeping through Colorado's Lodge-pole Pine forests, it had grown to 5,000 acres by nightfall, and early Sunday reports put it at over 8,000 acres.

“I blame Smokey the Bear,” remarked an observer. “If it weren't for the Forest Service's fire policies, this confluence of over-aged forests and beetle-kill fire-ripe tinder wouldn't be so prevalent.”

The Forest Service always gets the blame. If it isn't their approach to controlling and preventing wildfires, it's their lack of willingness to allow logging companies in to thin the forests. No one ever remarks that the sea of beetle-kill red spreading across Colorado's forests might just be a natural cycle of mother nature – part of the recurrent pattern of fire, new growth aspen-pine-juniper, aging lodge-pole, insect infestation, fire.

But there is an intriguing assumption underlying the accusations: That the activities of people can alter the processes of nature. That a small organization with its thousands of people can make decisions and affect actions to the point of changing the course of life. That the few millions of Colorado residents, along with the temporary visitors each year, through their actions avoiding starting fires are impacting and altering what would otherwise occur.

It's the underlying assumption that our stewardship of the earth matters. That what we do, the actions we take and the actions we refrain will push and pull the tides of growth and death across vast regions of the planet.

What happens if we scale up the scenario? If instead of the actions of 7 million people, we consider the combined influences of the actions of all 7 billion residents of the world? Does our passage go unremarked by Mother Nature: The resources we consume, the pollutants we produce, the alterations to the patterns of plant and animal populations not have an affect many times greater than the simple act of controlling wildfires in a few acres of high mountain forests?

Did the observer hit upon a truth, or miss the mark? Is blaming Smokey and the actions of the few disingenuous because it is simple arrogance to think that humankind and our collective actions bear upon planetary outcomes? Or did he simply mis-phrase it, and should instead of said “I blame us"?

Would you Like a 94-inch Space Telescope?

How awesome could this be? Appears that there may be a replacement for the Hubble out there thanks to the magnanimity of one of our spy agencies which has a couple of spare, 'unused' hardware... - namely two 94 inch space-based telescopes they no longer need, gifted to NASA...

The only problem? NASA doesn't have the funds to fly them. The next time you are speaking with your congressman or senator, remind them that knowledge gathering has enormous benefits to the nation and the species - the more we learn, the more we are prepared to combat the various problems and challenges that face us!

"Too Distracted By His Inability To Breathe..."

I read this gem today under the headline "F22 Pilot Blamed in Fatal Crash After Plane Malfunction"

Capt. Jeff Haney was flying the Air Force's next-generation stealth F-22 Raptor on a routine training mission in Alaska in November 2010 when a sudden malfunction cut off his oxygen completely. Capt. Haney never made a distress call but took his plane into a dive and, a little over a minute later, crashed into the winter wilderness at faster than the speed of sound.

After a lengthy investigation, an Air Force Accident Investigation Board could not find the cause of the malfunction but determined "by clear and convincing evidence" that in addition to other factors, Haney was to blame for the crash because he was too distracted by his inability to breathe to fly the plane properly.

 Wow.

Granted, the ability to remain calm without oxygen might save your life, provided that you don't lose control of your plane and auger in or black out and auger in AND the oxygen flow is restored reasonably quickly (like maybe less than 15 seconds, max!)

But blaming an oxygen-less pilot for the crash? It would appear the members of the Air Force Accident Investigation Board need to review some basic human physiology. Wonder if they would get 'too distracted by an inability to breathe to perform their jobs properly', of they could (and maybe did!) write the report in the absence of oxygen - certainly no functioning, oxygen using brain was active when that line was written!

Privilege and Easter

Last night we watched Cecile DeMille's 1956 classic, “The Ten Commandments”.

The root of this story is the slavery of the Hebrew people at the hands of the Egyptians, and their eventual deliverance into freedom and ultimately nationhood. Their slavery is depicted as cruel and unrelenting; they are basically used and thrown away when no longer able to do the manufacturing demanded of them by their privileged masters. One of the earliest stories in the Christian anthology places a premium on self-determination, on freedom, on the evils of enslavement.

Today I was reading Dylan Ratigan, and he writes (fn1):

“The policy machinations happen on the other side of the Pacific, not just in America. In March 2006, write[sic] Brendan Smith, Tim Costello, and Jeremy Brecher in Asia Times, the Chinese government proposed a new labor law that would have improved working conditions moderately. In response, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, as well as US corporations such as General Electric, Wal-Mart, and even Google lobbied against the law, and in some cases threatened to leave China for countries such as Pakistan and Thailand if it passed. By December, the Chinese government had revised the draft law to limit workers' rights in the areas of contracts, collective bargaining, and severance, among others.”

He was writing about the nearly intolerable working conditions at many Chinese manufacturing plants, notably those exposed at Foxconn (maker of iPads, iPhones, and iPods and other Apple products). The workers there have been dubbed 'iSlaves', and for all practical purposes, they are slaves: forced to perform a small set of tasks repeatedly for barely more than sustenance living; their work hours controlled by their masters; many falling prey to central nervous system disorders at an early age as a result of the chemicals they use; and then thrown aside without any further compensation from either their company or their government.(fn4)

The eye-opener is that American companies lobbied against an improvement in working conditions: That Americans felt it was their privilege to be the beneficiaries of the exploitation of poor Chinese citizens. We shouldn't be surprised, though: A lowering of labor standards in China, along with preferential trade status, brings about a lowering of labor standards in America, opening the doors to greater exploitation of the American laborer, along with increased profits for the corporate executives and shareholders who employ said laborers.

Today is Easter – the Holiest Day on the Christian calendar, and the celebration of the life of Jesus. Interestingly, in his teachings, Jesus was consistently against privilege: In his Sermon on the Mount he spoke of the blessedness of the merciful, of the evil that awaits he who attempts to serve two masters and store up money on earth; after the last supper he knelt down and washed his disciples' feet, proclaiming “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” (fn2) Jesus spent his life preaching, teaching, and living against privilege.

And well he should have: For it is privilege, and the seeking of privilege that leads us to acceptance of exploitation and slavery of others; prejudice is our natural defense against the cognitive dissonance that arises when we treat another human as sub- or unworthy.

But, I wonder. Some 70-80 million adults attended Easter Services today in America (fn3). Did they connect the dots? Richard Feynman, the Nobel Physicist, observed that most intelligence is fragile: That information gained in one area or endeavor is seldom transferred to another, even when the situation is an exact transformation. Dr Feynman was renowned for solving problems in chemistry and biology (in addition to his physics), correctly recognizing that the problem was solvable using a transformation of the mathematics and methods he knew.

Jesus spoke against privilege. Moses spoke against slavery. If we connect the line between the two:

Enslavement of the Hebrews was wrong. Enslavement of the Jews (by the Romans) was wrong. Enslavement of the American Negro was wrong. Enslavement of the Chinese Peasantry is wrong. Using the situation of the Chinese peasantry to push the American laborer back towards enslavement is wrong.

How many who attended Easter Services today will wake up tomorrow with a renewed interest in living a life without privilege; will recognize that privilege is what drives them to demand of their leaders (and drives our leaders themselves) to increase exploitation of 'others' around the world; that it is only through the exploitation of those, like the Chinese, that we have all that we have?

Relinquishing privilege can be painful, and leaves us with less material goods, although it strengthens our moral character. Privilege and slavery have been human social constants for most of human civilization. But, humans were not made to toil in poor conditions for the benefit of another; humans were not made to be abused by the whims of a master; each human was made to live a life of free determination, choosing his or her own path, choosing what to do and who to help during his mortal journey, and reaping the rewards thereof. Each should have the ability to work in conditions that are safe, with remuneration above sustenance, without fear of losing their job or their livelihood because some business owners have found a new group of people somewhere to exploit or enslave.

Everywhere and anywhere we see abuse of privilege leading to exploitation of another we must speak out. As the Pharaohs were to the Hebrews, so those today who feel that it is in their power, their privilege to live a life above while at the same time denying freedom to others, especially under the guise of 'employment', must be called out. The executives who would fight to deny a moderate increase in the working conditions of overseas laborers; the executives who would fight to decrease working conditions for their fellow Americans; the lawmakers who allow trade imbalances to continue that make it too easy for Americans to lose sight of the evils of privilege and slavery and so invest their money and talent in exploiting rather than producing; All must made to hear our desire to end both, and to fear our wrath if they do not.

Speaking out against slavery and privilege occupy a place in our oldest writings; We've understood for more than 3000 years that such a relationship is against our very moral fiber. Sadly, our work constructing a society built on a more positive relationship is still very much nascent, constantly thwarted by the powerful and our own innate desire to have more than our neighbor; and our unwillingness, once we find ourselves privileged, to move to strike such thinking from our minds and hearts and promote ideas that are fair to all.

Not the easy road, but if one lesson can be gleaned from today, it is that the correct path is not the easy one. Imagine for just a moment how the difficulties facing us might appear differently if we were to strike privilege and prejudice (and the acceptance of exploitation) from our thinking, from our doing, from the very structure of our society. 

(fn1) Dylan Ratigan. “Greedy Bastards” Loc 995, Kindle Edition, 2011.

(fn2) Jesus washes disciples feet. John 13, v14-15. NIV

(fn3) Estimated Easter Christian Attendance – 70-80 million adults (approximately 1/3 of the nation) - pulled from Wikipedia, Pew Research (59 million average Sunday attendance, Easter approx. 33% higher)

(fn4) No, I am not picking on Apple. I was chagrined to learn that my Kindle was most likely made either there or at an equivalent factory - and that much of what we purchase with the 'Made In China' sticker has aspects of that, although electronics are likely the worst.

Autism Week

Monday, April 2nd was World Autism Day. However, in Europe, specifically the Netherlands, this is Autism Week. As a result of the wide focus on the topic, there has been much published recently.

I enjoyed this one by Ingrid Robeyns, and thought I would share - for those I know dealing with this firsthand.

A Helping of Bullshit, Anyone?

I was reading some of the fine articles by the folks over at Language Log, and several times they indicated that such-and-such satisfied the technical definition of bullshit. Intrigued, I followed the link, and was taken to the site for Princeton Philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt's book “On Bullshit”. Amazed that such a book could be written, and that renowned philosopher Wittgenstein evoked in such writing, well, I had to read it. So, as they say, in less than a minute I had called the book from the cloud to my reader, ready for my perusal.

What I learned is that bullshit does withstand a technical definition, and that it is distinct from lying, although it is designed to deceive. Whereas the liar is still intimately concerned with the truth, for the purpose of denying their listener or reader access to it, the bullshitter reveals a blatant disregard for the truth. Instead of verifying the correctness of his or her details, the expounder of dung carries on without concern for the voracity of what they are saying, oftentimes when the exact details, hence the truth, could be easily obtained.

What separates bullshit from mere laziness, however, is the former's intent to deceive. An individual may not know the factual details, and may expound briefly on the subject, but the knowledgeable one must soon give way, knowing they do not know and cognizant of their lack (and unwilling to go look it up). Bullshit, however, is still designed to deceive: To allow the writer or speaker the ability to carry on towards some other goal without concern for the facts; to try on ideas to see how they sound, or, more often in our political world, to throw out ideas just to see if they have carrying power because they further someone's aims.

Coincidentally, while watching the TV last night I was given the perfect example: Rick Santorum, during one of his campaign speeches, expounded on the idea that “I think its seven or eight of the California System of Universities don't even teach an American History course. It's not even available to be taught.”

The details are easily verifiable, in fact numerous people have gone to the effort to look into the offerings of the CA university system, with the demonstrable gain that all except one (a medical school!) offer and require American History of their students.

Does that make Rick Santorum a liar? In all likelihood, no. It was not his intent to deny us the truth, for surely he understands how easily we could look that up. No, his was the desire to float a different idea: The meme that American Colleges and Universities (and those educated by them) are out of touch with some 'real' America and out of touch with the morals and values of said 'real' America. The presence or absence of American History at the universities provides neither proof nor disproof of his idea, but gives a useful hook into establishing the meme.

The idea he is attempting to float is surely as false as his sloppy disregard for the actual offerings by the universities, and now, thanks to professor Frankfurt, I can proclaim, without malice or prejudice, and with technical certitude:

Bullshit, Mr. Santorum!

The More Things Change....(Iran Edition)

'W. E. B. DuBois – Biography of a Race' closes in 1919 with DuBois touring Europe in the aftermath of its Civil War of 1914-1918. He is hopeful that Europe will cast off its African Colonies and allow them to become self-governing, and in so doing, light the way for America to reduce, and ultimately eliminate its own suppression of the Negro in its midst.

What interestingly escapes DuBois until much later in his life is that wars are fought not to free secondary or oppressed people: Wars are fought between the powerful to consolidate or expand the power, territory, and citizenry under their control. Just as territorial control was a driver in Europe's Civil War, so was land and territorial control a major driver in America's Civil War 65 years earlier. Sure, both wars were dressed up in ideology at the time and in our kinder remembrances of them, but the expansion of power was at the root of both.

Reading history is an interesting exercise: One continually has to confront the truth of the observation that things now are in many ways, and almost completely in the ways that matter, little different from what has gone before. I read with heavy heart of the high cost of war, the destruction of property, technology, agriculture (and the ability to feed a populace), and the tragic loss of life. The book is closed, I surface in the now, and hear the drumbeats leading to another war, this one potentially modern. Sure, the pundits claim that the loss of life will be minimal, the damage contained, etc.

But, it will be war. Our folks will be killing their folks, our boys (and girls) killing their boys and girls, and being killed in turn. Our resources and energy will be diverted from educating our young, building our commons, researching for cures to the diseases that ail (and sometimes plague) us to building weapons, creating means of destruction rather than means of construction, and strengthening the warrior hierarchy of our society.

We just fought two wars under the mistaken notion that we could do so without cost, that the benefits would overcome them: Instead, we've plunged our country deeper into debt, increasing our vulnerability to economic sabotage by those who might wish to do so, weakened our children's future and neglected items we formerly took great pride in. Now, we worry that we cannot afford to provide for our elderly, either in money to live on or health care to live by; we decree that higher education must be put further out of reach, and standard education must be crippled; that maintaining the previous standards of our society must be forsaken, and we must all accept the gradual diminishing of our way of life.

So, for those who believe that we need to engage Iran, I have but a single question: What will you personally relinquish so that we can do so? Will you pay more in taxes to support the war effort in the hopes that the investment in containing Iran will accrue to you in future years? (Taxes you currently do not pay and could not escape through any loophole, but a new tax that you will bear above your current tax load.) Will you accept a loss of income increases at your job for the duration of the war, and perhaps for several years after until America regains her feet and pays down her wartime debt? Or, will you personally put your life or the lives of your sons or daughters on the line by going to the front and fighting in Iran to remove whatever threat our leaders believe is there?

For if you are not willing to, in the same breath that you advocate war with Iran, explain how you will share in the burden, then your thoughts are the specious thoughts of a coward. There is one other constant of history that is always present: People are ever willing to advise and admonish others to do some thing, especially when doing that thing will result in a good outcome to the adviser and the cost will settle on the advisee.

Think we need to go to war with Iran? If you are willing to pay some of the cost directly, then, and only then, will I listen to your argument. Otherwise, you can talk to the hand – the hand making the sign of peace.

J. Edgar

Watched J. Edgar last night.

This morning when I got up, the movie was still on my mind. Foremost were two questions: What is this movie inviting me to think about, and How much of what I saw is reliably true?

The second question bears considering first, as it plays into the first.

I watched the credits in their entirety to gain some insight – hoping to see something about the sources, their reliability, etc. Of course, this is a movie, but based upon history... What did come up was standard boilerplate: “Although this movie is based upon historical facts, some scenes were dramatized...”

Which is very disquieting in terms of uncovering how we should view this movie. There are many, many scenes which involve J. Edgar alone, or J. Edgar and one other person, very often another person who was considerably loyal (and unlikely to record separate notes on what took place.) So, every scene with just him and his mother, just him and his friend Clyde, or him and his secretary Helen becomes suspect as to its accuracy, and without additional confirmation, we have to take the information portrayed and, if not discount, at least tend very carefully to its influence on our thinking.

So, for instance: We cannot take at face value the movie's assertion that his mother was his rock, his mentor until her death (when Hoover was well into adulthood, perhaps his 40's, the exact timing of certain events was difficult to ascertain giving the movie's habit of jumping back and forth in time), that he had not 'grown up' until then and was instead still in some Freudian relationship. Maybe, maybe not. We cannot trust the exact nature of his friendship with Clyde, either: so much of what was portrayed takes place behind closed doors – certainly Clyde never spoke of it to another? That their friendship was profound, that they placed almost complete trust and gave complete loyalty to one another we can see, but...again, the intimations, giving from two un-verifiable scenes, one with his mother discussing a childhood friend, the other in a hotel room of a fight with Clyde, we cannot take as true.

Which leaves us to contemplate the remainder comprised of stuff that certainly is true: That J. Edgar oversaw and drove a burearu from its nascent, 1919 form to the powerful entity that it was in the 1960's. That he was both instrumental to its success and prone to exaggerate his own importance. That he surrounded himself with two individuals who appear to have had a like-minded pursuit of the work they were in: That catching criminals and preventing a radical take-over of America took precedence over all else in life. That he was profoundly paranoid of that possibility.

Which I think is the invitation the movie gives us: We are to consider the differences between the as portrayed useful paranoia of J. Edgar which drives him to ask of congress for more power for the Bureau, for the ability for its agents to carry guns, for Bureau jurisdiction of kidnapping, and retention of all fingerprints, and the establishment of a well-staffed and well-funded forensics lab; and the as portrayed over-blown paranoia which drives him to write an inflammatory letter to Martin Luther King, to keep his own set of 'confidential' files on the private doings of others in power, to exaggerate his participation to his memoirs, and to stoop to blackmail when he sees his or the Bureau’s power threatened.

The fact that the two levels of paranoia co-exist and exert themselves throughout his life is an interesting insight into the complexity of Edgar Hoover and his actions. We can see, wrapped up in a single individual, a drive that gives him insights and the will to pursue them that is beneficial, at the same time the very same forces are driving him beyond to actions many would consider self-serving and to a degree contradictory to his mission (for blackmail and un-warranted eavesdropping are certainly illegal activities.)

Finally, the movie, in an amazingly neutral manner, does give us something to think about: J. Edgar Hoover was certainly participating in pre-emptive surveillance; intelligence gathering of the individuals who may or may not prove a threat to his power or the nation, individuals who had committed no crimes other than show that they had a following, individuals both within and without government. That he used that information a few times is certainly true, but what should give us pause as to its true purpose: He commanded (and it was apparantly carried out) of his secretary to destroy the files if ever anything became of him.

That level of paranoia certainly is not healthy for an individual, or a nation.

Rethinking Daylight Saving Time

The annual switch forward from standard to daylight saving time is always greeting with a moan and a sigh (and sometimes even greater anguish!) around my house. I didn't mind it too much when it came in April, but the recent switch 3 weeks sooner into March has bothered me. I normally rise fairly early, and I tolerate getting up in the dark all winter, but look forward to the spring and summer when I can rise with the sun – it is just so much easier to get up when it is a little light out than before! So, I've been fairly critical of the change for the past couple years, and often wished it could go back (or at least match the UK and have it the final Sunday in March!)

This morning, however (4 days since the change), I finally rose at my normal time, now in complete darkness, got ready, and headed off to work. I was greeted by a wonderfully colored pre-sunrise sky as I drove, something I hadn't seen for weeks. I enjoyed the colors and the awakening world, and realized how much I do enjoy catching the very earliest hours of the day. I thought back to the previous evening, where after dinner, still light, the kids were able to head out to play. It becomes tiresome during the winter months: As Lord Baden-Powell observed, “Boys are not sitting animals.” In my house, and I suspect in many others, neither are girls sitting animals, and as they run and play inside, sometimes the energy and noise becomes a tad overwhelming.

So, the switch to Daylight Saving brought my wife and I a glorious hour of house quiet, able to sit and converse as the sun dropped to the west and the kids ran off their youthful energy. The slanting golden sunbeams, the warmth, and the relative quiet raised our spirits, and the sounds coming through the open windows from the kids indicated that their enthusiasm for life was elevated, too.

All would have been perfect had little girl, not yet a shoe-wearing animal, not gotten a sliver in her toe from the winter-worn and dried playset. Nevertheless, it was cleaned and partially removed in pretty short order and the relative magic of the evening restored.

As I parked my vehicle and made the walk into work this morning as the last pinks and purples of dawn splashed across our mountains, recalling the wonderful evening before, I realized that perhaps I've been too harsh on the earlier switch. It certainly hasn't been a hardship this year, and if we were still on Standard time, we would have missed all these experiences.

Maybe ol' Benjiman Franklin was onto something, and institutionalizing it isn't such a bad idea after all!