Humanity's Bloom (and Do The Math link)

 I've often thought that the dramatic rise in global human population in response to the available energy provided by our exploitation of fossil fuels resembles an Algal Bloom. We are responding to a vast increase in available energy by increasing our population without limits.

 That is a little frightening, since we all 'know' (without really considering the consequences) that the Fossil Fuel Reserves are very finite - in fact, we believe we are approaching the midpoint (Peak Oil) of depletion soon (or maybe recently passed it!). 

 Just the other day, I ran across this blog: Do The Math by physicist Tom Murphy. He has cataloged and computed much more related to our probably energy starved future, along with potential changes that could at least create a reasonable wind-down to Sustainable levels. 

 A little bit of a bleak return to posting, but something not pulled directly from the bleak headlines currently occupying our media!  

Saturday Morning Phishing Call

Fairly early Saturday morning, my phone rang. Although I didn't recognize the number, I answered, learning during this election period that if I ignore the pollsters attempts to contact me, they just call back, again, and again...(I don't know if it is that my opinion is extremely valuable or if there are just lots of pollsters that I receive so many calls. I suspect the latter.)

“Hello?”

“Yes, hello, Lee. My name is Marcus, and our servers have detected some hacking in your computer, and I am calling to help you.”

I don't know about you, but it always throws me off a little when a stranger calls me by name. However, I was instantly alert, mostly due to the use of a verb (hacking) in place of a noun, and the accent. I would place Marcus in India. I would expect his servers to find a virus or malware – the results of hacking. Not completely certain how they would detect the act of hacking without detecting the results of hacking.

“Marcus, please tell me my computer IP address where you detected the hacking.”

“Lee, I don't have your IP address, but I do have the ID of your Windows computer.”

“Continue, Marcus. What is my computer's ID, and please, which version of Windows am I running?”

The version question was just to string him along a little. I realized as I asked it that there was a good chance he could guess correctly – I think there are only 3 versions remaining in widespread use. I chuckled, thinking of the scene in the movie Elf where Elf asks the department store Santa, who he believes is fake and wants to prove it, “Yeah? If you're the real Santa, what song did I sing for you on your birthday?” “Why, Happy Birthday, of course!”

I was really intrigued, and a little concerned, that he might actually have my computer ID. So, I wanted to play along just to see. While we continued talking I was busy pulling up the two values that he might have: My computer ID and my Windows ID, just to see which he might give me as 'proof' that his servers had indeed detected hacking on my machine.

Marcus was pretty slick, too. He didn't attempt to answer the Windows version question, deflecting with “I'm not talking about your OS. I'm talking about your computer ID”

“I'm ready, Marcus. Please, give me my computer ID.”

“888DCA60-FC0A-11CF-8F0F-00C04FD7D062”

Whew. That was neither my windows ID nor the number on the back of my computer. Didn't match my MAC address, either. But what was it, and why would Marcus think I would accept it as my number?

“That's not my computer ID, Marcus.”

“Sir, it is your CLSID. Please, press your windows key, and then 'r', and type the command 'assoc'”

Some more time occurred as I acted stupid and had him explain several times where the windows key was and how to recognize it. (For humor imagine a non-English speaker attempting to describe what that key looks like – nothing I was hearing made any sense!) I know well what windows+r would give me the command prompt, and I wasn't going to start running unfamiliar commands that some caller asked me to. So, while he was busy attempting to get through to me what to do, I was searching (I don't 'google', since, #1, Google is a noun, and should not be used as a verb, and #2, I don't use Google has my search engine, having switched to DuckDuckGo) for 'Assoc scam'. Which I found, here.

I also typed help assoc in the command window, and realizing that the assoc command by itself was only Marcus' attempt to 'prove' his legitimacy, I typed it. And sure enough, there is the CLSID that matches the string Marcus gave. Fortunately, the CLSID is not unique to any particular computer, and so I now knew that Marcus possessed no identifying information on my computer.

It was time to end this phishing call. “Marcus, that value is not unique. In fact, that is a known scam, and that makes you nothing more than a common thief, a worthless piece, a horrible human being, and a waste of resources. You should find something constructive and productive to do rather than attempt to steal.”

I suspect that Marcus did not want my (well meant) advice: He hung up on me! Oh well...

But my taking this call had become a useful teaching opportunity for me. My children had been following along wondering just what was going on. They were very excited by the conclusion, but we were able to go back over the details: How I had revealed nothing to the caller, not answering any of his questions, asking my own to stall, searching details, being very suspect of his motives. We talked about good security – I absolutely didn't run any command he asked me to, and that I could have just ended the call early (which is probably best) – and that legitimate companies will not call and ask you to allow a connection to your computer.

The final point is the most important: Your bank, your doctor, your credit card company, none will initiate a call to you and ask you for personally identifying information or a connection to carry out their business. Neither will the FBI or any other legitimate institution.

It is interesting, with all the high profile stories in the news about hacking, the majority of theft of ID or financial information still occurs through phishing – one person talking to another, and manipulating the victim into giving out the necessary information. As we've become more sophisticated in our understanding of phishing, so the phishers have gotten more clever at presenting 'proof' they are who they represent to be.

The stakes keep growing, too, as more and more personal information is gathered on us and stored on Internet connected devices. As we've seen, through the breach of Target, Home Depot, and Sony, large companies are not up to keeping our data safe.

Which poses the question: Should they even be allowed to maintain data on us? Should it even be a possibility that Marcus could have obtained (perhaps through a hack of a major computer reseller) my actual computer ID? Or my user profile as stored up by Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon, etc.?

Security expert Bruce Schneier thinks about this a lot. Through reading his book 'Data and Goliath' and rebuffing attempts like this morning, I've started thinking about it more, too.

Neal Stephenson's Anathem

I was struck by the depth of this book – both ideas and its insightful prose. Let's begin with a piece of prose:

So I looked with fascination at those people in their mobes, and tried to fathom what it would be like. Thousands of years ago, the work that people did had been broken down into jobs that were the same every day, in organizations where people were interchangeable parts. All of the story had been bled out of their lives. That was how it had to be; it was how you got a productive economy. But it would be easy to see a will at work behind this: not exactly an evil will, but a selfish will. The people who'd made the system thus were jealous, not of money and not of power but of story. If their employees came home at day's end with interesting stories to tell, it meant that something had gone wrong: a blackout, a strike, a spree killing. The Powers that Be would not suffer others to be in stories of their own unless they were fake stories that had been made up to motivate them. People who couldn't live without story had been driven into the concents or into jobs like Yul's. All others had to look somewhere outside of work for a feeling that they were part of a story, which I guessed was why Saeculars were so concerned with sports, and with religion. How else could you see yourself as part of an adventure?

[ mobes = cars

  concents = university, but cloistered with outside contact only once every ten years

  Yul = main character, his job is as a wilderness guide – think Alaska, Nepal

  Saecular = the world most people inhabit

]

Good Science Fiction is always part social commentary – by constructing another world that is often the same but subtly different, the author is allowed the freedom to make observations about the way people live and what gives life meaning. Stephenson does this by inverting some of our social institutions (the cloistered university), and changing the terms for many things which forces the reader to consider what exactly he is getting at, with the added insight he intends.

But all this is hung around the main story which is what really makes Anathem worth reading: Stephenson takes us on a romp through current theoretical physics which asks the following questions: Is ours the only universe, our could there be multiple? We can only see to the edge of our universe, which is the distance light has been able to travel since the formation – so anything beyond that boundary is invisible to us at this time. That doesn't preclude there being other 'universes' that are currently beyond that boundary...

Would other universes be the same as ours? Supporting this would be the observation that there is only a finite number of atoms (Hydrogen through Uranium, plus the few short-lived lab made ones). If there are an infinite number of universes, and finite types of atoms, then arrangements of atoms would necessarily repeat, and there would be virtual copies of the entities in this universe in other universes.

Throwing a monkey-wrench into this is the idea that the constants we observe (the charge of an electron, for example) needn't all be the same everywhere. This is where the anthropic principle comes into play: We could necessarily find ourselves only in a universe where the constants are very close to what they are – too large of deviations and 'we' wouldn't be present to observe them. But within some narrow boundaries, we, or beings very much like us, could exist and observe. Stephenson makes very good use of this last point late in the story...

Finally, would it be possible for us to experimentally determine if ours is a lone universe or if it is just one of many (or one of an infinite many)? Are there interactions that could be observed that would reveal the existence of multiple universes – of other ways of being? Part of what leads physicists down this path is the indeterminate-ness of quantum electrodynamics. Is Schrodinger's cat alive or dead? How, exactly, does the quantum field collapse into the state we observe? Is there a universe in which the cat is alive even though it is dead in this one? When world tracks come close together, could there be transfer of information?

Neal Stephenson spins a yarn of 'What If?' around all these ideas that creates a top-notch story set in an instance of top-notch world building where everything plays out as it could – somewhere. And that somewhere is Arbre which has eerie parallels to the world in which we live – and astounding differences.

My Take on The Interview

I find myself fairly annoyed when someone says something patently stupid, or absurd, or hurtful (bigoted, misogynistic, racist), and, when called out for it, instead of retreating, apologizing, they double down, shouting 'Free Speech!' “I'm standing up for Freedom of Speech!”

Er, no.

When the First Amendment was penned, they were thinking of protecting the sorts of speech that could be silenced (and often had been, through imprisonment or worse) by those in power: Criticism of actions, Truth (that others wished to remain hidden), Alternative Viewpoints. They realized that a democracy could not long endure if potential candidates could be silenced before elections could take place.

Now, one of our improvements on the original thinking is the growing understanding that power also resides in locations other than our government: Corporations have power, Employers have power, Religions have power, even the Wealthy have power (although the Robert's Court seems intent on willfully ignoring this fact.) Protecting our ability to Speak Truth to Power, of bringing criminal activity to light, has led to a broadening of the sorts of speech that cannot be retaliated against. (Whistle-blower protections are a specific implementation that comes readily to mind.)

All of these thoughts have been rolling around in my mind as I've watched the unfolding brouhaha over the release, retraction, limited re-release of the movie “The Interview”. When Sony retracted the movie, many were shocked, claiming that it was a direct hit to artistic freedom, to free speech. Upon its limited re-release, many of those interviewed have acted like they are some sort of admirable patriot, standing up for freedom. I think they are wrong: Sony's actions vis-a-vis “The Interview” have nothing to do with freedom of speech. They have to do with ethics (or a lack thereof). An ethical person would not have made such a movie.

Have you ever noticed the disclaimer at the start of every work of fiction, or the end of every such movie? “The characters and events portrayed are fictitious, and any resemblance to actual persons or events is entirely coincidental...” By creating a work of fiction, artists are freed to explore actions that are taboo or criminal. By not tying the events or the characters to actual people, specific people are not called out, their reputations neither questioned nor harmed. Plus, there is a big difference between exploring the idea of killing an individual, with its attendant consequences, and writing about killing a specific, actual individual.

Here's where I have a beef with the movie and with the actions of those surrounding it. If someone were to text “I'm going to kill so-and-so”, we would not take that as something to be ignored under the guise of free speech. We would grow concerned, and probably call for a police investigation. If, upon investigation, the police uncovered detailed plans on how the first individual would carry out the deed, we would see that as proof of criminal intent, and call for prosecution.

I know. “The Interview” is not proof of Seth Rogan's intent to kill Kim Jung-un, nor proof that Mr Rogan has murderous thoughts. But, by calling out a specific world-leader, rather than a fictitious entity, Mr. Rogan has made it ambiguous. Those of us who believe assassination to be a criminal act expect any movie exploring such themes to take them seriously, (the upcoming movie American Sniper appears to take this tact), or, if satirized, to at least fictionalize the story enough that we can tell the creator agrees with us.

We certainly wouldn't stand by if, for instance, Bollywood were to release a movie depicting (even comically) an attempted assassination of President Obama. It would be much easier to see that has crossed a line, and is not the sort of movie we would like to see made.

Calling into question the ethics of “The Interview”, even motivating against its release (and hopefully, against anyone who would make such a movie in the future), is not an attack on either free speech nor artistic expression. It is simply indicating that there should be ethics that are adhered to, that there is a gulf between speaking truth to power and depicting (attempted) violence against an actual person.

Agreed: The actions of the hackers were particularly ham-fisted and criminal, and I would like to explore that (and its fall-out) in a little more depth (later). But just because someone acted criminally to call out the stupidity of some speech doesn't make the speech any better, any more legitimate. “The Interview” is still perverse, and not anything that should have been said.

It Only Takes A Few Facts To Refute Paul Ryan

This article by Michael Hiltzik in the LATimes caught my eye. He very carefully lays out the evidence that private charity is not the solution to the widespread problems of the needy, that, in fact (spoiler alert!) giving to private charity falls just when it is needed most. Compounding that, giving to private charity is just as likely to be beneficial to the giver (think of giving to the school your child attends) rather than beneficial to someone less fortunate in society.


Our society built the social safety net when it was needed most due in large part to the failure of private charity to meet the needs of a society facing the worst and most prolonged depression in its history. It appears that we need to be reminded often of our history to avoid destroying our useful institutions and repeating the errors of our ancestors.


And, it is worth noting: men like Paul Ryan, having won the economic lottery, don't care about people in general, nor about maintaining those institutions that support them. Note  how easily Hiltzik refutes Ryan's myths...leaving no doubt that Ryan says what Ryan believes will help Ryan, everyone else be damned.

Freedom vs. Technology

Quick: Which Amendment to the Constitution goes furthest in protecting our freedom?

Of course, there is no clear answer: The First, Fourth and Fifth all play a crucial role in maintaining that which we call freedom. The Fourth (unreasonable searches) and Fifth (self-incrimination) appear to be the most susceptible to changes from technology, and we are constantly forced to re-evaluate our stances and interpretation.

Every time we get an advance in electronic technology, it is easier for law enforcement to think, "Ah, what we could do to ferret out the criminals in our society!" However, there is usually a trade-off involving a loss of privacy for us, and it is these trade-offs that we constantly need to evaluate.

Very interesting article up at The New Yorker this morning concerning Lavabit's (Lavabit is a secure email service) brief to the 4th Circuit of Appeals to allow it to resurrect its secure email service. Lavabit was shut down by its owner and founder after the government asked that it 1) hand over its encryption keys 2) create an easily traceable system wherein every email could be used to identify sender and recipient.

While it is easy to think "but I don't do anything wrong, why should I care?" I think the analogy that the orders "constitute that a city give the police a key to every home in search of one man" places it in perspective. We routinely find criminals without going to such intrusive lengths, why should we trade our privacy? More importantly, we only have much to lose if we do so, with no proven gain to offset the loss.

Fun With Units (or I am 5.8 nanoseconds Tall)

The other morning over coffee my colleagues and I started talking about measurements, and it occurred to us that we could express our heights (or lengths) differently. All we needed were constants that would allow us to convert our commonly expressed height, in meters, into something else. Of course, we immediately thought of c, the speed of light in a vacuum, as one such constant.

Light is one of those intriguing things because its speed is a constant – no matter where you are in the universe, no matter how fast your are moving, within your (inertial) reference frame, you will always measure the same speed for light. This doesn't hold true for most other items that we measure: Sound, objects: the speed of each is always relative to our speed when we measure them. This makes light unique.

The International Bureau of Standards has defined the speed of light to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. As Neil Degrasse-Tyson wryly observes* 'if improvements to our means of measuring the speed of light lead to refinements, it is the length of a meter that will change, not our expression for the speed'.

So, taking my commonly expressed height in meters and dividing by c, (meters per second), the meters cross out, and you are left with a value of just seconds. 1.74 meters / 299,792,458 meters / second gives us the value of 5.8 nanoseconds (billionths of a second). This represents the time it would take a photon of light to travel from my head to my feet (or how much older my feet are by the time I observe them with my eyes.)

But, is it valid to express my height thus? I think so. Light is the only entity that moves with constant speed, and, in recognition of this fact, we are constantly redefining our other expressions of measurement from the various facets of light (we use the number of wavelengths emitted by a cesium atom to determine time, for instance, emitted wavelengths being the inverse of the speed of light and the energy of the particular atom). So, although not common, expressing my height in seconds isn't ambiguous, which is what we would want to avoid.

It is also nice in that it gives us a reminder of just how fast light moves, but that it isn't instantaneous. We could apply this to other items as well: An average 6^th grader is 5.1 nanoseconds tall, a 1^st grader almost 4.1 nanoseconds. An Olympic Swimming pool is 167 nanoseconds, a soccer field twice that.

Hoover Dam is 221 meters tall, or 737 nanoseconds tall. So, the splashes of water you see while standing on top of the dam occurred, literally, 737 nanoseconds before you see them, and have already changed shape and location by the time you become conscience of them!

Henceforth, I am 5.8 nanoseconds tall – How tall (in seconds) are you?

* Tyson. 'Death By Black Hole and other Cosmic Quandaries'

Another Term?

I had an interesting conversation with a couple of co-workers today. We were discussing the potential for changes to our country's laws to eliminate the discrimination against gays and lesbians with regards to marriage.

Now, I've a long time felt that justice should be blind, and a blind application of our current marriage laws would not even ask the gender of the applicants – just the basics: Are you currently married? Are you of age? Do you consent? (Are you not too closely related?)

However, I've also felt that the term marriage is so embedded in our lexicon, in our society that we will have to continue to use it to describe the exclusive partnership that is two people coming together to share, care for and love each other. We will continue to go to the local government to obtain our Marriage License, we will still have the overseer of our ceremony sign the Marriage Certificate to show to all that we have publicly affirmed the required vows.

What was interesting in my co-workers' view was that the term marriage is not that central to our concepts: They maintained that the majority of America would be willing to jettison the term if it meant creating equality before the law for all. That instead of having marriage and 'skim milk' unions, we could simply (for the purposes of the law) replace 'marriage' with some other term, and re-write our current laws to eliminate the discrimination of asking the applicants if they represent one of each sex.

In this implementation, 'marriage' and 'wedding' would be non-legal terms reserved for use whenever and however people wished, but the set of laws that governed co-ownership, rights of survivorship, divorce, would collectively be referred to under a separate term – we would get a 'Legal Union' License, have a 'Legal Union' Certificate signed by the proper witness.

I find this intriguing for a couple of reasons. Number one, it eliminates the the arguments of many that 'marriage' is something that cannot be defined by our democratic legal system; i.e., if we take 'marriage' out of the legal lexicon and no longer use it to refer to a set of laws, they cannot argue that we have redefined it or dirtied it, etc. Want to use 'marriage' to refer to something specific? Fine. Our laws don't recognize 'marriage' as a legal construct, so use it as you wish.

Second, I find it intriguing simply because I had not considered that it would be a possibility – that Americans were ready to remove the term from our legal system and simply move on. My co-workers give more credit to the ingrained fairness and lack of historical concern to our fellow citizens. So I am curious: Are they correct? Are we ready to just drop this whole affair, rename our laws, restore the veil of blindness to justice, and move on?

One of the unsolved points will be, of course, what terms do we use to refer to the collection of laws that currently govern the union of two individuals? I used 'Legal Union' above as place-holders only, not suggested replacements. One co-worker suggested we appeal to our Latin roots, and use terms such as 'Nodus' (Knot), Ligo (Bind), or perhaps (and our favorite): Caveo (Beware)!

Try them out! Does it work? Imagine our children going to City Hall to get their Nodus License, signing their Ligo Certificate, or perhaps, exchanging their vows in an elaborate Caveo Ceremony (after presenting their license and completing with the solemn signing of the Caveo Certificate.)

Are we ready for that? Is this really a simpler solution to moving forward towards Equality Before The Law with regards to two-person joinings? If we just sweep aside the freighted term, can we achieve the fairness we seek and believe we should give to every member of society?

Stop The Violence Fetish!

Alright. Enough. You are a fool, ethically immoral, and a purveyor of violence if you believe that death is a fair retribution for petty theft. What I don't understand is how many people I formerly thought well of have revealed their heartless, violent tendencies after the awful shooting at Sandy Hook: Those of us who reel at the though of innocent youngsters losing their lives in a pointless act, who believe that one action (of the many) that may counter such future occurrences is reasonable, considered limitations on the types of weapons that may be privately owned are suddenly under a barrage from those who see (and are posting) that violence is the solution to everything, that bigger, more lethal means are their right:
Stop.
We have been attempting for 6000 years of recorded human civilization to reduce violence, to build peaceful means of co-existing, teaching understanding, tolerance, and that the first response should not be to reach for a knife, sword, or gun.
We have attempted to build a judicial system second to none that metes fair punishment for the crimes committed, that accords all individuals equality before the law, that gives every individual the forum to argue their innocence, or at least to explain any mitigating circumstances that their fellow citizens (the jurors) should perhaps take into account when declaring guilt or innocence, that the judge should consider when declaring punishment. All that is taken away when a citizen takes it into their own hands and shoots and kills another - and is an action that we should always inspect carefully and with prejudice towards the shooter until it can be justified as an act of self-preservation.
Granted, we have much work to do: Neither the system nor the means to implement it are perfect - but that is exactly the point: We only can reduce violence in society if we err on the side of withholding our own violent actions, our own violent thoughts, and consider carefully the small (and hopefully diminishing) situations where we would allow violence.
Considered push back if we attempt to define those situations too tightly is welcome, but wholesale glorification of those who use violence inappropriately, glorification of means of inflicting extreme violence, and glorification of vigilantism is wrong and should and will be met with disapproval by the rest of us.
 There is no reason for those who wish a peaceful society to remain silent - your violence fetish needs to be called for what it is: A desire to circumvent the laws and traditions of our land, a lack of respect for your fellow citizens and for the lives of others. Your violence fetish is a desire for the return of vigilantism and an overturn of the institutions we have built in for the goal of creating a fair, just, and non-violent society. We, as the citizens of that society are speaking. Put your gun away, look at the darkness of your heart, shut your mouth, and join us in exploring means to improving the project we have started. 
We are not free when that freedom is tenuously held by the threat of violence: We are free when thoughts of violence are replaced by thoughts of mutual respect, when we move through society secure that the non-violent ideals we hold are held by those around us. We are largely there, and any Faux-Neanderthal that would take us back needs to be reminded of the accomplishments of non-violence, and of the accomplishments of the society we have built, and that the rest of us are not willing to consider a return and are fed up with those who would take us back.

Dear Paul Krugman (from Angry Bear): Please Read This About Social Security

Sometimes President Obama upsets me. Especially when he follows the illegitimate framing of the issues surrounding our budget, deficit, and debt. It is worth noting that Social Security DOES NOT contribute to the deficit, the debt, nor any real (or manufactured) budget/debt crises. If we want  to cut government spending, we need to cut UNFUNDED government spending (which is largely the cuts called out in sequestration: You know, the major cuts to the military and pentagon budgets) not FUNDED spending...

So, I particularly enjoy when real economists take the time to write it up, like this blog by Dale Coberly of Angry Bear writing about Social Security, with the hopes that it will be cross-posted by Paul Krugman who has a much wider audience. A very well supported post that shows that Social Security shouldn't even be in the discussions about budgets and deficits, etc. 

So, read the article here, but in summary (the key points!):

Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit...  

... and therefore should not be part of the "deficit reduction" hysteria.

Social Security is not going broke.

The Trust Fund is NOT Social Security. It does not matter at all when it "runs out."   

The "Eight Trillion Dollar Actuarial Deficit" can be paid for by raising the payroll tax eighty cents per week each year.

Social Security was designed...insisted upon by Roosevelt...to be worker paid: "So that no damn politician can take it away from them." 

One has to only follow the money to see where the "Big Liar's" desire to take SS: Remove it from the public's control (via the government) to private control so that a few can extract (extort) money from the flows into the fund.  

No doubt this will be much wider read if taken up by Mr. Krugman (as Angry Bear hopes!), but I am more than willing to spread the word if I can... 

As Mr Coberly closes:
The Big Lie is that "Social Security is going broke, causing huge deficits that will burden our children."
Tell the people.

Read the article, and please, Spread The Word!   

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.