It's true, the 1% makes a lot more than the averge working man. But, what's also true is that we have a massive welfare system that eats up a big portion of the national budget. If welfare is supposed to lift people out of poverty, and the amount of money our country spends on welfare has increased astronomically, then why is our country more economically divided than ever?
I think we get hung up on the 1% issue, without bothering to consider why so many people are stuck in the poverty cycle. It's not as if the 1% are pushing people into Poverty Valley off the cliff at the edge of "Richistan". People live their lives in that cycle. Welfare is a noble idea, but the way it's administered now is broken! Obviously everyone wants good opportunities for health care, access to food, and affordable housing, but carte blanche hand outs are bankrupting our government MUCH MORE than the lax tax policies allowing 400 people to run away with fat wads of cash (otherwise known as bling).
It's easy to point the blame at a few people who, admittedly, are doing wayyyy too well for the work their doing. It's much harder for us to accept the fact that the way we "protect" the poor has failed to empower them. The famous saying "teach a man to fish" is *extremely* relevant to the fiscal calamity our country is facing. Think about this: Poverty levels are at an all time high. Guess what else is at an all time high: Obesity. Anything else? Medical spending on obesity related illnesses. Anything else that might be relevant? Social Security payouts. Anything else? Penny slot gambling.
We're enabling a segment of our country to live off of government money, spend that money on unnecessary activities, and receive health care to help them recover from their poor habits. We're teaching people that effort isn't necessary, that the government has their back no matter what. We need to change this system. I don't think we should *end* it. I think we need to update it, based on 60+ years of firsthand knowledge regarding how the system has NOT worked. We need to teach people to fish: how to take care of themselves and their bodies, finances, children, neighborhoods.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Some smart guys
"An important clause of the constitution was that it could be re-written completely if this was deemed necessary, thus enabling it to evolve as a whole rather than being modified one amendment at a time." - Wikipedia, regarding Switzerland's constitution.
Smart guys.
Smart guys.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Simple Math
How important are the CEOs of companies? Let's use multiplication and division to figure it out!
First, let's find some of the biggest high rollers in business and compare it with the median wage, which is about $33,000.
The CEO at Hewlett Packard made $23,863,744 last year alone. How many people's wages does that equate to? Well, if they were all earning the median wage (which means that 50% of ALL OF AMERICA earns that or LESS) then we'd get 723 people. 723 people could live off of what this jerk off makes all by himself. Let's say that Mr. Doosh Van Hurl spent half of what he makes on our economy (which I doubt he actually does). That's $11,931,872. Those 723 people probably would end up spending a great deal more of their much smaller paychecks. Let's say each of them managed to save $5,000 a year (which is fairly unlikely if they are your average American family). Collectively, they'd save $3,615,000 vs the nearly 12 million that (we estimate, it's probably more) Mr. Hurl is chucking into his investment accounts.
Contrary to the trickle down theory, investment accounts do not translate into money going back to the economy. But those 723 people with their median paychecks are going to put most of their money back into the economy. Which is to say, the massive compensation that CEOs receive doesn't make any sense if we consider how it might benefit the economy as a whole.
First, let's find some of the biggest high rollers in business and compare it with the median wage, which is about $33,000.
The CEO at Hewlett Packard made $23,863,744 last year alone. How many people's wages does that equate to? Well, if they were all earning the median wage (which means that 50% of ALL OF AMERICA earns that or LESS) then we'd get 723 people. 723 people could live off of what this jerk off makes all by himself. Let's say that Mr. Doosh Van Hurl spent half of what he makes on our economy (which I doubt he actually does). That's $11,931,872. Those 723 people probably would end up spending a great deal more of their much smaller paychecks. Let's say each of them managed to save $5,000 a year (which is fairly unlikely if they are your average American family). Collectively, they'd save $3,615,000 vs the nearly 12 million that (we estimate, it's probably more) Mr. Hurl is chucking into his investment accounts.
Contrary to the trickle down theory, investment accounts do not translate into money going back to the economy. But those 723 people with their median paychecks are going to put most of their money back into the economy. Which is to say, the massive compensation that CEOs receive doesn't make any sense if we consider how it might benefit the economy as a whole.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Imagine a world...?
Every theory of governance and society has a utopian vision underpinning it. Communists hold to an ideal where all people share equally in the work and rewards of life. Anarcho-Capitalism is another of these perfect models.
I have issue with both systems, but perhaps less so with the latter, because it more closely resembles the manner in which people are commonly believed to operate in early tribal societies. People in early societies knew implicitly that humans were not made equal. Afterall, they could tell with their eyes that one man ran fast, or that another was good at fashioning tools. Some women became excellent basket weavers while others prefered to stalk wild fields for berries. I'm just making this up off the top of my head of course, I really have no idea what people were doing thousands of years ago, but they sure as hell weren't living in a perfect union of equality. They knew that each person was fundamentally different. Fundamental differences in the strength, endurance, and cunning of individual humans contributed then and continues today, to produce great differences in "success."
Recognizing these differences and harnessing them to the betterment of an individual's situation is the fundamental premise of Capitalism. It is what allows for resources to be allocated effectively and efficiently across a population. Or at least, that's the premise of Capitalism. And it works, to an extent. The problem so far, as the utopian theorists see it, is the State. The imposition of a single, unified government upon the masses creates greater subsequent inequality because it uses force to enact the market system. If all people were able to function voluntarily within society to enact their will, then the Capitalistic system of distributing resources via the profit motive would function more efficiently.
In such a society, say Utopians, a person could choose to opt-out of the Market and live somewhere else on their own. As long as they considered themselves personally satisfied, they would be allowed to exist in perpetuity outside the realm of the Market. Of course, if they chose to access the Market on occassion, then it would be permitted. Entry and exit is free in an Anarcho-Capitalistic system, whereas in a governed State, it is mandatory.
Consider this: it is illegal to squat on United States land. You could get away with it in certain parts of the country, but if an officer of the peace ever found you, he is within his jurisdiction to ask you for a permit and fine you if you don't have one. We live in a society by coercion! It's a startling and unsettling thought that, by mutual concensus, we have enslaved ourselves to yearly taxation and the ownership of property. Even if we wanted to give it all away and exit society, there would be few places to go! Society acts to prevent this kind of "insanity" and if it found you, would punish you for it.
Anarcho-capitalists say that by rejecting the State model, we can transcend a forceful enactment of the Market, and create an entirely voluntary system. They feel that people who recognize the value of the market can participate in one without the coercion of a State. Every individual or group of indviduals has ownership over themselves alone and acts to preserve his or her own interests in a nonviolent, market-based manner. If a man is hungry, he performs a service which is valuable to the market community. And what does he earn? Instead of returning to a barter based economy, this would be a society built around contractual obligation.
For example, the man above might enact a contract with a farmer to work in exchange for the fruits of his labor. Such a contract might be made along with a group of individuals, who communaly decide to till a plot of land together and enjoy the bounty as a community. Let's say you're a contracted member of that farm, you might then notice that there are other such farming communities and that by having each farming communes specialize, the overal production of all the farms combined would increase ten-fold. So another contract is made between all of the farms to produce certain goods farm-to-farm and to then distribute those goods among the farms in such a way that everyone is well-fed. Quickly, we can envision a sufficiently complex society that is based around on contracts, rather than Statehood. In form and function, it would resemble a State, but without any Public entity to govern and control certain aspects of society. And it would be completely voluntary since participation is on a contractual basis, which is implicitly mutual.
... I'll move into part 2, along with some of my misgivings about this system, at a later date. I hope.
I have issue with both systems, but perhaps less so with the latter, because it more closely resembles the manner in which people are commonly believed to operate in early tribal societies. People in early societies knew implicitly that humans were not made equal. Afterall, they could tell with their eyes that one man ran fast, or that another was good at fashioning tools. Some women became excellent basket weavers while others prefered to stalk wild fields for berries. I'm just making this up off the top of my head of course, I really have no idea what people were doing thousands of years ago, but they sure as hell weren't living in a perfect union of equality. They knew that each person was fundamentally different. Fundamental differences in the strength, endurance, and cunning of individual humans contributed then and continues today, to produce great differences in "success."
Recognizing these differences and harnessing them to the betterment of an individual's situation is the fundamental premise of Capitalism. It is what allows for resources to be allocated effectively and efficiently across a population. Or at least, that's the premise of Capitalism. And it works, to an extent. The problem so far, as the utopian theorists see it, is the State. The imposition of a single, unified government upon the masses creates greater subsequent inequality because it uses force to enact the market system. If all people were able to function voluntarily within society to enact their will, then the Capitalistic system of distributing resources via the profit motive would function more efficiently.
In such a society, say Utopians, a person could choose to opt-out of the Market and live somewhere else on their own. As long as they considered themselves personally satisfied, they would be allowed to exist in perpetuity outside the realm of the Market. Of course, if they chose to access the Market on occassion, then it would be permitted. Entry and exit is free in an Anarcho-Capitalistic system, whereas in a governed State, it is mandatory.
Consider this: it is illegal to squat on United States land. You could get away with it in certain parts of the country, but if an officer of the peace ever found you, he is within his jurisdiction to ask you for a permit and fine you if you don't have one. We live in a society by coercion! It's a startling and unsettling thought that, by mutual concensus, we have enslaved ourselves to yearly taxation and the ownership of property. Even if we wanted to give it all away and exit society, there would be few places to go! Society acts to prevent this kind of "insanity" and if it found you, would punish you for it.
Anarcho-capitalists say that by rejecting the State model, we can transcend a forceful enactment of the Market, and create an entirely voluntary system. They feel that people who recognize the value of the market can participate in one without the coercion of a State. Every individual or group of indviduals has ownership over themselves alone and acts to preserve his or her own interests in a nonviolent, market-based manner. If a man is hungry, he performs a service which is valuable to the market community. And what does he earn? Instead of returning to a barter based economy, this would be a society built around contractual obligation.
For example, the man above might enact a contract with a farmer to work in exchange for the fruits of his labor. Such a contract might be made along with a group of individuals, who communaly decide to till a plot of land together and enjoy the bounty as a community. Let's say you're a contracted member of that farm, you might then notice that there are other such farming communities and that by having each farming communes specialize, the overal production of all the farms combined would increase ten-fold. So another contract is made between all of the farms to produce certain goods farm-to-farm and to then distribute those goods among the farms in such a way that everyone is well-fed. Quickly, we can envision a sufficiently complex society that is based around on contracts, rather than Statehood. In form and function, it would resemble a State, but without any Public entity to govern and control certain aspects of society. And it would be completely voluntary since participation is on a contractual basis, which is implicitly mutual.
... I'll move into part 2, along with some of my misgivings about this system, at a later date. I hope.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
What the devil..!?
A new government report is out talking about all the wasted billions lost over the course of the Iraq war. Can our government do anything right?! Can the American people get anything right?! It's not looking so good for us, eh? Basically, the congressional report claims that the extensive use of "contractors" (which now outnumber all Federal employees in Iraq) is the greatest contributor to fraud and theft. Let's be a little clearer on what they mean by "contractor" and "Federal Employee". Contractors are better known as Mercenaries or private construction/paramilitary companies like Halliburton, who were awarded billions of dollars by their former CEO, Cheney, during the early days of the Iraq war. Federal Employees are, for the most part, our military.
All this report says is more of the same: the government has become this massive, rusty derelict, but the broken system doesn't end there. Big Business is just as guilty of corruption and excess. And it doesn't end there. Our people don't know how to take care of themselves, a large number are dependent on government aid and entitlement programs. We're a sick country.
There is a silver lining to all of this, and it's unnerving that no one seems to acknowledge it. Both Republicans and Democrats are at each other's throats, but think about what they are fighting so viciously about: They both care a lot about the sad state of our country. Both parties are making legitimate points about where there is a real need for reform. The Republicans are right, Big Government is wasting money on programs that aren't helping this country and it's costing billions. But Democrats are right as well, a larger percentage of the American people than ever before are struggling to get by, and the government has a responsibility to help those people. Regulation is needed, but existing regulations that are hindering business need to be addressed as well. We need to streamline the process by which our politicians tackle these all important issues. Every day, dollars are being wasted as debate after debate gets nothing done. Instead of coming up with one-party solutions that will never be implemented because we live in an era of division, both parties need to suck it up and cross the aisle!
The way forward is clear: Instead of constantly working to block the other party's ideas and legislation, compromises that take into account the validity of both arguments needs to be put into effect. We need pragmatism, not idealism.
All this report says is more of the same: the government has become this massive, rusty derelict, but the broken system doesn't end there. Big Business is just as guilty of corruption and excess. And it doesn't end there. Our people don't know how to take care of themselves, a large number are dependent on government aid and entitlement programs. We're a sick country.
There is a silver lining to all of this, and it's unnerving that no one seems to acknowledge it. Both Republicans and Democrats are at each other's throats, but think about what they are fighting so viciously about: They both care a lot about the sad state of our country. Both parties are making legitimate points about where there is a real need for reform. The Republicans are right, Big Government is wasting money on programs that aren't helping this country and it's costing billions. But Democrats are right as well, a larger percentage of the American people than ever before are struggling to get by, and the government has a responsibility to help those people. Regulation is needed, but existing regulations that are hindering business need to be addressed as well. We need to streamline the process by which our politicians tackle these all important issues. Every day, dollars are being wasted as debate after debate gets nothing done. Instead of coming up with one-party solutions that will never be implemented because we live in an era of division, both parties need to suck it up and cross the aisle!
The way forward is clear: Instead of constantly working to block the other party's ideas and legislation, compromises that take into account the validity of both arguments needs to be put into effect. We need pragmatism, not idealism.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Remember BattleTanx?
This article in the Economist about dwindling populations reminded me of one of my favorite N64 games, BattleTanx.
With women quickly vanishing from the face of the Earth, thank the Lord that humanity was smart enough to band together into deranged tank-driving hordes! That'll solve the problem! I can remember whipping around the pixelated corners of "skyscrapers" (more like small-town tenaments) firing rockets at my evil, hoe-stealing enemies. I also remember being a huge fan of the fastest "tank", which resembled a post-Armaggedon era Beetle:
All my friends would pick those big bulky Abrams and I'd be laughing my butt off, blasting them with machine gun fire. Now that I'm old, wise and have a lot of thinking time on my brain, all I can think about is: When do I get to play some more Capture the Booty?! I mean, the premise of this game is: kick the crap out of all the other dudes so you can grab some booty! Considering how poor I'd fair at such a scenario in real life, I'm happy that there are virtual options open to me. Ya, things in the BattleTanx universe don't sound so good for women, but what can you do!? A woman-only virus has killed off 99.99% of the female population! That brings me to my next conundrum, why are these guys getting so organized if it's all to get a single woman. Yikes.
In the Storyline part of the game, you're playing a married man, who recruits an army of fellow tank drivers in his quest to get his Woman back (wooooman). Here's what I wanna know: How the hell did he convince these other tank drivers to help?? Assuming he's a moral sort of stand-up tank driver, Our Hero would only be able to say something along the lines of:
"Help me get my woman back and I'll allow you to help raise my children! You might even get to be the child's Wetnurse!"
If he were an evil sort of leader, I don't even want to know how he got his homies to grab their 'nines and come a-runin'.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Proof
Liberterian economists think that regulation hampers the proper running of capitalism. I think what they intend to say is, regulation stops the market from functioning efficiently. Capitalism and the market are two different things. Capitalism being a method for running a market.
Here's all the evidence you need for the profits of industry being aided by regulation. South Korean anti-piracy laws regulate the downloading of media products. The media industry is then able to profit from their labors. Media companies are producing goods, correct? They should be compensated for those goods, correct? At least, that's what a capitalistic system would have everything be. Hence the need for regulation, in the form of anti-piracy laws.
Here's all the evidence you need for the profits of industry being aided by regulation. South Korean anti-piracy laws regulate the downloading of media products. The media industry is then able to profit from their labors. Media companies are producing goods, correct? They should be compensated for those goods, correct? At least, that's what a capitalistic system would have everything be. Hence the need for regulation, in the form of anti-piracy laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
