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.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
A new era
What's going on?
I just met a homeless man standing outside Taco Bell. He was begging for money so that he could stay at a hotel and get clean. I didn't want to just hand him money, because I wondered what he would really use it for. I asked him if he would want some food and he accepted my offer. But even after buying him the meal, he persisted in asking for money for a hotel room but I turned him down. I wished him luck and made my way home. I don't know how David ended up outside a San Mateo Taco Bell. I do know that here is a man who is very down on his luck. And meanwhile, as David and thousands like him struggle to find a place to stay for the night, the wealthiest 1% are looking into purchasing their next luxury home.
We need a change, America. We started with Obama. But we aren't done. If we are going to take on Big Business, we have to organize. Because they have more money than any of us do (combined), but we have our numbers. We have to unite. We have to stop being cowed by what we see as the status quo. We have to stand up and rise as one! For the sake of American humanity!
Here's what half the people who ever read this (ie, one of you) will undoubtedly think: David, the guy standing outside of Taco Bell, is an alcoholic, who complains about the woes in his life. Oh really? What about 90% of New York or San Francisco 20 somethings. Are they not alcoholics? Honestly, I think 20 somethings of all cities in this country consume more alcohol per capita than most homeless people. After all, they have a lot more money to their name. And who doesn't complain about their life?? Everyone does. It's human to complain about your life.
Those of you who think half of the Americans in this country are lazy welfare hogs, all I have to say is: Open your eyes to reality. Reality is this:
The fact is, the wealthiest command this country's resources. And despite all that capitalists might claim, the "trickle down" economics of Reagan fails. America, the people on Welfare got there because there are no opportunities available. Maybe some of these people aren't the most cunning. They aren't innovators like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, or titans of industry like Rockefeller or Carnegie. But should that preclude them from having a decent job? Don't they deserve an opportunity to have a job that pays them enough to make ends meet? 9% of Americans do not have that chance. 35% of Americans earn less than 25k a year, and 50% of American families earn less than 50k a year. Add that to the above. These aforementioned are struggling to get by while 1% of our population commands a significant proportion of our nation's wealth! What has happened to us America?! How much worse does this need to get?!
Now I know what I've said previously, and I mean what I said. I don't like complaining. What I like is action. What we need to do is stop talking. And start standing up. Aside from a few isolated cases, the banking industry foreclosed on America. The largest bailout in history was borne on the backs of Americans, and the status quo has continued. The rich have continued to get richer and the poor, poorer. Change needs to happen. This system of ongoing inequality will get worse before it gets better, but I hope that justice comes to all those who have stolen the treasure of the people and brought uncounted suffering into the lives of so many.
I just met a homeless man standing outside Taco Bell. He was begging for money so that he could stay at a hotel and get clean. I didn't want to just hand him money, because I wondered what he would really use it for. I asked him if he would want some food and he accepted my offer. But even after buying him the meal, he persisted in asking for money for a hotel room but I turned him down. I wished him luck and made my way home. I don't know how David ended up outside a San Mateo Taco Bell. I do know that here is a man who is very down on his luck. And meanwhile, as David and thousands like him struggle to find a place to stay for the night, the wealthiest 1% are looking into purchasing their next luxury home.
We need a change, America. We started with Obama. But we aren't done. If we are going to take on Big Business, we have to organize. Because they have more money than any of us do (combined), but we have our numbers. We have to unite. We have to stop being cowed by what we see as the status quo. We have to stand up and rise as one! For the sake of American humanity!
Here's what half the people who ever read this (ie, one of you) will undoubtedly think: David, the guy standing outside of Taco Bell, is an alcoholic, who complains about the woes in his life. Oh really? What about 90% of New York or San Francisco 20 somethings. Are they not alcoholics? Honestly, I think 20 somethings of all cities in this country consume more alcohol per capita than most homeless people. After all, they have a lot more money to their name. And who doesn't complain about their life?? Everyone does. It's human to complain about your life.
Those of you who think half of the Americans in this country are lazy welfare hogs, all I have to say is: Open your eyes to reality. Reality is this:
The fact is, the wealthiest command this country's resources. And despite all that capitalists might claim, the "trickle down" economics of Reagan fails. America, the people on Welfare got there because there are no opportunities available. Maybe some of these people aren't the most cunning. They aren't innovators like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, or titans of industry like Rockefeller or Carnegie. But should that preclude them from having a decent job? Don't they deserve an opportunity to have a job that pays them enough to make ends meet? 9% of Americans do not have that chance. 35% of Americans earn less than 25k a year, and 50% of American families earn less than 50k a year. Add that to the above. These aforementioned are struggling to get by while 1% of our population commands a significant proportion of our nation's wealth! What has happened to us America?! How much worse does this need to get?!
Now I know what I've said previously, and I mean what I said. I don't like complaining. What I like is action. What we need to do is stop talking. And start standing up. Aside from a few isolated cases, the banking industry foreclosed on America. The largest bailout in history was borne on the backs of Americans, and the status quo has continued. The rich have continued to get richer and the poor, poorer. Change needs to happen. This system of ongoing inequality will get worse before it gets better, but I hope that justice comes to all those who have stolen the treasure of the people and brought uncounted suffering into the lives of so many.
Why do people play games?
It all makes sense to me now. The reason why people play video games. The reason why I want to play video games even though I know it's just a waste of time.
Here's the reality of any war on Earth, the people who really end up suffering are the innocent civilians who just want to go about their daily lives:
The reality of war is that there is no Good and Evil. Americans look back to WWII with nostalgia because we've successfully convinced ourselves that it was a war between Us (Good) vs Them (Evil). Never again in the subsequent 60 years has there been such a war. America keeps getting itself into conflicts but fail in attempts to portray themselves as the Good guys. Why? Because of globalization and the availability of information, the humanity of our opponents is clearer than ever. Moreover, the reality of American global interests is ever clearer.
Rather than consider the fact that we're involved in two misguided war efforts, where we force American ideologies on other ethnic groups, we can instead turn to video games where our opponents look like this:
The enemy is evil! He wants to eat our brains! It's a whole lot easier to figure out who's evil in this game!
Video games are a great way to avoid thinking about difficult issues, ie, the reality of our world. Same thing goes for sports:
We root for OUR team. The other team is evil! It's that simple. We can turn our thinking brains off with this kind of competition.
In a real war, turning your brain off will get you killed. Turning your brain off will cause you to make stupid decisions. Stupid decisions like torturing prisoners:
Or maybe killing civilians:
Reality is a whole lot messier than a video game or a sporting match.
Maybe part of my desire for video games is that I want to avoid considering extremely complex and difficult issues.
Here's the reality of any war on Earth, the people who really end up suffering are the innocent civilians who just want to go about their daily lives:
The reality of war is that there is no Good and Evil. Americans look back to WWII with nostalgia because we've successfully convinced ourselves that it was a war between Us (Good) vs Them (Evil). Never again in the subsequent 60 years has there been such a war. America keeps getting itself into conflicts but fail in attempts to portray themselves as the Good guys. Why? Because of globalization and the availability of information, the humanity of our opponents is clearer than ever. Moreover, the reality of American global interests is ever clearer.
Rather than consider the fact that we're involved in two misguided war efforts, where we force American ideologies on other ethnic groups, we can instead turn to video games where our opponents look like this:
The enemy is evil! He wants to eat our brains! It's a whole lot easier to figure out who's evil in this game!
Video games are a great way to avoid thinking about difficult issues, ie, the reality of our world. Same thing goes for sports:
We root for OUR team. The other team is evil! It's that simple. We can turn our thinking brains off with this kind of competition.
In a real war, turning your brain off will get you killed. Turning your brain off will cause you to make stupid decisions. Stupid decisions like torturing prisoners:
Or maybe killing civilians:
Reality is a whole lot messier than a video game or a sporting match.
Maybe part of my desire for video games is that I want to avoid considering extremely complex and difficult issues.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Aren't we glad we live in the 21st century?
I was thinking back to that amazing book, What is the What. We learn about how awful circumstances were during the second civil war between Arab Sudan and the Dinka-held South. There are some terrifying scenes in that book, that make you question humanity. But just think about how such a situation played out in previous centuries. An ethnic group travels to another territory. This traveling tribe possesses superior weaponry than the current occupants. Fast forward a decade, and you have a new resident ethnic group: the one's with the guns. Where did that old group who had been living there for centuries and who had a "rightful claim" to the land go? They either died, fled, or were assimilated by gun-toting oppressors.
Nowadays, whenever an ethnic group tries to do what is historically prudent for our species, they get shouted out from all corners of the world! All they want to do is use superior technology to wipe out an ethnicity that's sitting on valuable land resources. What's the harm in that? Now, UN Peacekeeping forces try (rarely successfully) to mediate these conflicts and set up refugee cities to accommodate displaced ethnic groups. Meanwhile, international pressure slowly builds against these nefarious would-be oppressors, until they have little recourse but to stop the fighting or go extinct themselves!
Even though there are cases in this world where genocides continue, world opinion has never been so focused against it. See, there is a good reason for globalization, San Jose Mercury News!
Nowadays, whenever an ethnic group tries to do what is historically prudent for our species, they get shouted out from all corners of the world! All they want to do is use superior technology to wipe out an ethnicity that's sitting on valuable land resources. What's the harm in that? Now, UN Peacekeeping forces try (rarely successfully) to mediate these conflicts and set up refugee cities to accommodate displaced ethnic groups. Meanwhile, international pressure slowly builds against these nefarious would-be oppressors, until they have little recourse but to stop the fighting or go extinct themselves!
Even though there are cases in this world where genocides continue, world opinion has never been so focused against it. See, there is a good reason for globalization, San Jose Mercury News!
Thursday, August 18, 2011
I must be stupid
We have two political parties in our country, and there's little difference between them. Both claim that the other screwed up the country while in power, and yet realistically, BOTH have been in power for over a hundred years! They may have lost a majority here or there over the decades, but their power and influence is the major reason for the face of our current government. Everyone at this point claims that our government is a wreck, that our country is falling to pieces. And it's always someone else's fault. Democrats blame the Republicans, Republicans blame the Democrats, Union leaders blame Big Business, Big Business blames lazy people sitting on welfare. We've seen the same kind of people come and go from government, and we ask ourselves how we got this point in our country. Why is our country "declining"? How could we have gotten to this miserable point?
Plenty of people have grandiose visions of where they think the country should be. But they never ask questions that are far more important, How are we going to realistically get to where we want to go? If now sucks big time, what do we think is needed to make our lives and status not suck? Instead of lopping people's heads off, let's start making some changes. And realistically, if matters are so bad in this country, then why the hell aren't we seeing an uprising? Why aren't people taking to the streets? In the 1960s, millions marched on Washington. What happened to that kind of activism? We are in the midst of two wars! We have soaring debt! Money market managers are walking away with untold millions while 50% of our country gets by on less than the federally established poverty levels!!
The last great march on Washington I heard about was not a call for drastic changes in our legal code regarding the status of race or the rights of the impoverished. It was a call for people to stop acting like crazy fanatical idiots in politics.
If we were really pissed about all this, we would do something about it. And there's the rub of it. We blame congressmen, but I bet those guys are working a hell of a lot harder than the average Joe. Really, We as a people have failed ourselves because we fail to get active. So there's your answer of who's to blame. We are. Wake up America. We are electing all these "corrupt officials" who are taking this country to hell with their "inane" government policies. We are supporting these wars with our bodies and our blood and our treasure. We are giving out the taxes that support welfare programs and bail out the rich. We are working at jobs that don't provide an adequate living wage for our families.
Why did we let this happen? Because we work 40 hours a week and then we go home to take care of our families? Or because we've convinced ourselves that we need to look fit to impress all the people around us, so we spend hours at a gym every week? Or because we have dreams of being the next Hendrix so we spend hours a day playing guitar? And let's be even more realistic, is it because after a "long hard day" at work, we think we deserve a break so we go home to our televisions and video games and let the evening dribble away from us?
If this country sucks America, it's OUR fault. We stood by and let it get as far as it has. Stop acting like it's all the politicians' fault. If you see something wrong in your life that you think the government is responsible for, stand up and make your voice heard. This country was founded on the idea of populist democracy. Elected officials are meant to serve the people, of which we are all a part of. Take a stand for something, for anything, if you're feeling so inclined. But otherwise, understand this: Our country is only "going to shit" if you think it is. If you don't have any particular reason for thinking otherwise, then you might as well concede the fact that you, personally, are doing FINE and that as far as you can tell, the economy and the country are doing fine as well.
Stop listening to the pundits, America. Listen to yourselves. If you are managing to get by, chances are, YOU ARE FINE. If other people are not doing fine, then they have a responsibility to try and get their voices heard. And if you hear their voice, and it resonates with you, THEN it is time to act.
Take this unemployment fiasco for example. Pundits talk about our high unemployment rate constantly. You know who I never hear about? The unemployed people. They never say word one about this whole thing. I don't see them on the street, I don't see them marching on Washington. It's not as if they are being locked away in sweatshops all day, they don't work! Maybe it's important for us to find work for the 8-9% of Americans. But if the shit were really bad for these guys, don't you think they'd be on the streets shouting about it? Don't you think they would try and organize? If you're reading this and you're thinking, "Umm, shut up, guy! My life IS crappy. I AM unemployed and it's AWFUL. I look for jobs everyday and I don't find anything." Well, in that case. GET UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Chances are, if you are unemployed and struggling to get by, then there's likely to be someone else out there who isn't doing so hot either. Social media has made organizing easier than ever. You must have SOME TIME in your day to try and do this??
Government has no incentive to enforce actual changes to our jobs situation because it's always just the usual clamoring. They don't get inundated by the unemployed. Their days are consumed with phone calls from special interest and lobbying groups. The days of popular activism seems to have ended. Yet we act as if the problems facing this country are historic. If that's the case, then sholdn't we stand up in defiance? I think the reason we don't is that our country isn't actually as bad off as everyone makes it out to be. Actually, let me rephrase that. Our country could be going in the shitter, I have no idea as an individual citizen whether that's true or false. Here's what I do know: Basically, my life is fine. And my guess is that the lives of a lot of other people are fine. So many people's lives are fine, in fact, that they don't really think it's necessary to get off their couches and do something drastic like stand outside of Washington for days on end.
Until the day comes that the fan stops moving from all the poop clogging it's mechanical arteries, true change will not come to this country. That's what I foresee. Until enough people are out of work and actually starving no great change will come to the state of this country. Circumstances are simply not dramatic enough for radical change.
So until our Julius comes, complain on America. I know you don't have the balls to actually do anything about it.
Plenty of people have grandiose visions of where they think the country should be. But they never ask questions that are far more important, How are we going to realistically get to where we want to go? If now sucks big time, what do we think is needed to make our lives and status not suck? Instead of lopping people's heads off, let's start making some changes. And realistically, if matters are so bad in this country, then why the hell aren't we seeing an uprising? Why aren't people taking to the streets? In the 1960s, millions marched on Washington. What happened to that kind of activism? We are in the midst of two wars! We have soaring debt! Money market managers are walking away with untold millions while 50% of our country gets by on less than the federally established poverty levels!!
The last great march on Washington I heard about was not a call for drastic changes in our legal code regarding the status of race or the rights of the impoverished. It was a call for people to stop acting like crazy fanatical idiots in politics.
If we were really pissed about all this, we would do something about it. And there's the rub of it. We blame congressmen, but I bet those guys are working a hell of a lot harder than the average Joe. Really, We as a people have failed ourselves because we fail to get active. So there's your answer of who's to blame. We are. Wake up America. We are electing all these "corrupt officials" who are taking this country to hell with their "inane" government policies. We are supporting these wars with our bodies and our blood and our treasure. We are giving out the taxes that support welfare programs and bail out the rich. We are working at jobs that don't provide an adequate living wage for our families.
Why did we let this happen? Because we work 40 hours a week and then we go home to take care of our families? Or because we've convinced ourselves that we need to look fit to impress all the people around us, so we spend hours at a gym every week? Or because we have dreams of being the next Hendrix so we spend hours a day playing guitar? And let's be even more realistic, is it because after a "long hard day" at work, we think we deserve a break so we go home to our televisions and video games and let the evening dribble away from us?
If this country sucks America, it's OUR fault. We stood by and let it get as far as it has. Stop acting like it's all the politicians' fault. If you see something wrong in your life that you think the government is responsible for, stand up and make your voice heard. This country was founded on the idea of populist democracy. Elected officials are meant to serve the people, of which we are all a part of. Take a stand for something, for anything, if you're feeling so inclined. But otherwise, understand this: Our country is only "going to shit" if you think it is. If you don't have any particular reason for thinking otherwise, then you might as well concede the fact that you, personally, are doing FINE and that as far as you can tell, the economy and the country are doing fine as well.
Stop listening to the pundits, America. Listen to yourselves. If you are managing to get by, chances are, YOU ARE FINE. If other people are not doing fine, then they have a responsibility to try and get their voices heard. And if you hear their voice, and it resonates with you, THEN it is time to act.
Take this unemployment fiasco for example. Pundits talk about our high unemployment rate constantly. You know who I never hear about? The unemployed people. They never say word one about this whole thing. I don't see them on the street, I don't see them marching on Washington. It's not as if they are being locked away in sweatshops all day, they don't work! Maybe it's important for us to find work for the 8-9% of Americans. But if the shit were really bad for these guys, don't you think they'd be on the streets shouting about it? Don't you think they would try and organize? If you're reading this and you're thinking, "Umm, shut up, guy! My life IS crappy. I AM unemployed and it's AWFUL. I look for jobs everyday and I don't find anything." Well, in that case. GET UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Chances are, if you are unemployed and struggling to get by, then there's likely to be someone else out there who isn't doing so hot either. Social media has made organizing easier than ever. You must have SOME TIME in your day to try and do this??
Government has no incentive to enforce actual changes to our jobs situation because it's always just the usual clamoring. They don't get inundated by the unemployed. Their days are consumed with phone calls from special interest and lobbying groups. The days of popular activism seems to have ended. Yet we act as if the problems facing this country are historic. If that's the case, then sholdn't we stand up in defiance? I think the reason we don't is that our country isn't actually as bad off as everyone makes it out to be. Actually, let me rephrase that. Our country could be going in the shitter, I have no idea as an individual citizen whether that's true or false. Here's what I do know: Basically, my life is fine. And my guess is that the lives of a lot of other people are fine. So many people's lives are fine, in fact, that they don't really think it's necessary to get off their couches and do something drastic like stand outside of Washington for days on end.
Until the day comes that the fan stops moving from all the poop clogging it's mechanical arteries, true change will not come to this country. That's what I foresee. Until enough people are out of work and actually starving no great change will come to the state of this country. Circumstances are simply not dramatic enough for radical change.
So until our Julius comes, complain on America. I know you don't have the balls to actually do anything about it.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
What is the What?
Do you want to find out the truth about the What? I think you should! It's a dreadfully real and frightening story about the precariousness of life. It will teach you the preciousness of your own life and the chances and opportunities that have been afforded you. And it will show you that even with all the obstacles that you have had to face, opportunity is still abounding.
Afterward, you can look into the Valentino Achak Deng Foundation, and know that something good has come out of the terrible suffering that a single man endured in Africa.
Afterward, you can look into the Valentino Achak Deng Foundation, and know that something good has come out of the terrible suffering that a single man endured in Africa.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Cool article about government debt increases
Here's a cool blog post about how much government debt increased under different administrations. It's not the most accurate reflection of a President's actions; a policy that one president enacted might not begin to add to debt until after that President leaves office. For example, Obama already has a higher yearly percentage increase of debt than his forebear, Bush II but most of the policies that add to this debt are the wars and tax cuts which Bush implemented before leaving office. It's a nifty little graph nonetheless.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
GDP as a measure of Economic Health
Amidst a dearth of work in the office, my coworkers and I began to engage in an office taboo: discussing politics in the workplace. One made an excellent point about the state of financial affairs in our country, GDP is the commonly accepted measure for economic health, but she felt it was too simple a measure of economic reality.
Afterall, GDP only considers production as a determinate of economic health. A developed economy like the United States doesn't have the need for tremendous levels of production like a developing country such as Brazil, India or China. So why are developed countries with high standards of living attempting to operate at growth of GDP levels equivalent to the developing world? The standard of living in developing countries is much lower, and the need for basic goods and services much greater in these countries. Their GDP levels are much lower than developed countries. Basically, if incomes in a developed country are already higher, then why is it even important to have high GDP growth if we're already adjusting for inflation?
What exactly does GDP factor in?
Really, the United States has an EXTREMELY healthy economy. So does most of Europe (EU has the #2 largest GDP). What worries economists is not that their GDP might be shrinking, but that it is increasing at a much lower rate than it used to. Is this actually a cause for concern? Per capita, the US is still one of the most affluent countries in the world. The countries with higher per capita incomes all have extremely small populations and half are oil exporters. A lot of those countries may have high per capita incomes but their income disparity is even higher than the US' (which is already high).
US citizens do not need to worry about their economy as a whole, it's already producing an enormous amount every year! So what's the deal, why are Americans not happy if their economy is actually doing really well? As far as I can tell, the reason Americans continue to hurt despite a vibrant economy is that the dividends of production are being felt increasingly by an upper class minority rather than a broader middle class. Put another way, the rich are getting richer, the poor are increasing in number, and the middle is shrinking. As the middle shrinks, the number of families with less money to spend in our economy grows, and they become more dependent on government aid (the government has to spend more).
People spend money in an economy because they have to, the market is our capitalistic means of handling the self-interest of an entire nation's worth of people. The premise of such a system is that people are receiving money for services/goods that they provide, which they can then exchange for the goods/services that they desire. If people are receiving less money for the services they provide, they have less money to spend on all that they desire. And if you're not able to get much of anything that you need to survive, you're going to be unhappy.
Polls claim that Americans are most concerned about the job situation, companies are claiming that Americans aren't spending enough to warrant job creation. Other people claim that the government taxes too much, and that's stopping job creation. Let's remember that we have a booming economy, the biggest in the world by far. Even though it's not growing at the rate it used to, it's still massive and corporations are reaping huge profits. High unemployment exists because corporations, the biggest employers in our country, eek out higher rates of production from fewer employees. Even as employees are working harder than ever, it's the management and executives who are reaping most of the benefits. Our economy is FINE, it's the balancing act that redistributes wealth to lower income earners that is suffering.
One of these balancing acts is the minimum wage. People long ago realized that living in a city like New York would be impossible even with the minimum wage laws Congress has passed. Cities in similar situations have passed living wage ordinances. Here's a cool website that tracks the minimum living wage estimate for any particular geographic region of our country, compared to the actual minimum wage of that State. Our extremely low minimum wage compared to our extremely high per capita income compounded by the fact that almost half of our country is barely earning a living wage means that those lucky few who consider themselves upper income earners are in vastly better shape than the majority!
What has happened here? We are the wealthiest country on Earth. Our economy is booming, don't let any analyst or pundit fool you. Just look at our GDP for crying out loud. GDP doesn't need to grow for it to still be HUGE. And yet, our country has returned to the dark days of the depression and industrial revolution! We are not in the midst of an economic recession. We are in the midst of economic robbery.
Afterall, GDP only considers production as a determinate of economic health. A developed economy like the United States doesn't have the need for tremendous levels of production like a developing country such as Brazil, India or China. So why are developed countries with high standards of living attempting to operate at growth of GDP levels equivalent to the developing world? The standard of living in developing countries is much lower, and the need for basic goods and services much greater in these countries. Their GDP levels are much lower than developed countries. Basically, if incomes in a developed country are already higher, then why is it even important to have high GDP growth if we're already adjusting for inflation?
What exactly does GDP factor in?
- Wages, Salaries, Income
- Corporate Profits
- Interest on Investments
- Farmer's Income
- Income from non-farm unincorporated businesses (small business)
- Savings (ie, investments) - if you have money in a bank account, it's technically not money your earning, only the interest is income which is why that is included in the above and not the investment itself.
- International products owned by the country's company - GDP only reflects domestic products. If China is producing your country's goods, then that's not a domestically produced product. However, the corporation is likely reaping profit and that would be reflected in the GDP? (I dunno)
Really, the United States has an EXTREMELY healthy economy. So does most of Europe (EU has the #2 largest GDP). What worries economists is not that their GDP might be shrinking, but that it is increasing at a much lower rate than it used to. Is this actually a cause for concern? Per capita, the US is still one of the most affluent countries in the world. The countries with higher per capita incomes all have extremely small populations and half are oil exporters. A lot of those countries may have high per capita incomes but their income disparity is even higher than the US' (which is already high).
US citizens do not need to worry about their economy as a whole, it's already producing an enormous amount every year! So what's the deal, why are Americans not happy if their economy is actually doing really well? As far as I can tell, the reason Americans continue to hurt despite a vibrant economy is that the dividends of production are being felt increasingly by an upper class minority rather than a broader middle class. Put another way, the rich are getting richer, the poor are increasing in number, and the middle is shrinking. As the middle shrinks, the number of families with less money to spend in our economy grows, and they become more dependent on government aid (the government has to spend more).
People spend money in an economy because they have to, the market is our capitalistic means of handling the self-interest of an entire nation's worth of people. The premise of such a system is that people are receiving money for services/goods that they provide, which they can then exchange for the goods/services that they desire. If people are receiving less money for the services they provide, they have less money to spend on all that they desire. And if you're not able to get much of anything that you need to survive, you're going to be unhappy.
Polls claim that Americans are most concerned about the job situation, companies are claiming that Americans aren't spending enough to warrant job creation. Other people claim that the government taxes too much, and that's stopping job creation. Let's remember that we have a booming economy, the biggest in the world by far. Even though it's not growing at the rate it used to, it's still massive and corporations are reaping huge profits. High unemployment exists because corporations, the biggest employers in our country, eek out higher rates of production from fewer employees. Even as employees are working harder than ever, it's the management and executives who are reaping most of the benefits. Our economy is FINE, it's the balancing act that redistributes wealth to lower income earners that is suffering.
One of these balancing acts is the minimum wage. People long ago realized that living in a city like New York would be impossible even with the minimum wage laws Congress has passed. Cities in similar situations have passed living wage ordinances. Here's a cool website that tracks the minimum living wage estimate for any particular geographic region of our country, compared to the actual minimum wage of that State. Our extremely low minimum wage compared to our extremely high per capita income compounded by the fact that almost half of our country is barely earning a living wage means that those lucky few who consider themselves upper income earners are in vastly better shape than the majority!
What has happened here? We are the wealthiest country on Earth. Our economy is booming, don't let any analyst or pundit fool you. Just look at our GDP for crying out loud. GDP doesn't need to grow for it to still be HUGE. And yet, our country has returned to the dark days of the depression and industrial revolution! We are not in the midst of an economic recession. We are in the midst of economic robbery.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Vacuous Hole
Work can be a great experience. It's chock full of the sort of lessons that school just cannot provide.
It can also, on occassion, be mind numbingly dull. It is the very rare astute and brilliant individuals, who amidst all that inane sleep-inducing nothing time, manage to get something productive done. I am not one of those people.
Shochu
Kiken Na Aneki
Economist
Xianjiang
Specialty cookies
Water recovery!
My blog
Oh well.
It can also, on occassion, be mind numbingly dull. It is the very rare astute and brilliant individuals, who amidst all that inane sleep-inducing nothing time, manage to get something productive done. I am not one of those people.
Shochu
Kiken Na Aneki
Economist
Xianjiang
Specialty cookies
Water recovery!
My blog
Oh well.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
TH White at his best
"Argument is only a display of mental force, a sort of fencing with points in order to gain a victory, not for truth. Opinions are blind alleys of lazy or of stupid men, who are unable to think. If ever a true politician really thinks a subject out dispassionately, even Homo stultus will be compelled to accept his findings in the end. Opinion can never stand beside truth."T. H. White, The Book of Merlyn
What a guy. Good grief.
Did you know?
With all this talk of debt limits, we the lay people get a special peak into the political chaos surrounding the US budget. A lot of the elements that are typical of an American budget debate are missing, however. University political scientists will tell you with disdain that it's a sign of how far right the political base of America has shifted. Republican leaders insist to the press that this is how much the people have come to mistrust Big Government with their money. Both seem to be playing counterpoint, but they're really just talking about two sides of the same coin. The annual budget has grown astronomically as a percentage of GDP (note that the CBO graph I just linked to offers much more conservative views of government spending than this one by Paul Ryan supporters).
Democratic pundits claim that income tax revenue has fallen dramatically since the Tax Reform Acts in the 1980s. Even so, government programs (and therefore, government spending), have continued to rise unabated. Even as recently as 1981, highest earners expected taxation rates as high as 70% of total earnings!! This was the status quo for two decades, a sigh of relief compared to their previous levels of taxation. For the highest earners before 1964, it was 90% of yearly earnings! How did the 1980s implementation of such a different system of taxation affect our government?
When talking about our historically low tax rates, Democrats typically refer to tax rates in the 1960s... Which country's income taxation rates are we referring to here? Even in 1960, when the the average household was earning somewhere around $35,000 a year, their income tax was 44.5%! That means they paid nearly half their income in taxes! That's not a lot of discretionary spending money left to the family by today's standards. The equivalent of the 60th percentile nowadays pays a meager 25% of income. That's nearly half the amount, and the next highest quintile is also covered by that percentage and the 28% tax bracket. That brings up another odd point about taxation rates in our country nowadays: married couples earning $70,000 pay the same percentage on taxes as people earning nearly twice their levels (up to $139,000 pay the same percentage)! Our country has grown a great deal richer, but actually pays less percentage-wise, in taxes. That begs the question, how is it that taxation rates now resemble the 1960s, when taxation rates were so much higher back then?
I've found graphs from 3rd parties that describe the above situation, but I've grown tired of using graphs from sources that aren't necessarily deserving of trust. Whether or not the government defaults, their graphs are the best; the data gold mine. I want to examine government income tax revenue.
 |
| All data from IRS.gov |
There's total government income (which includes not only income tax, but corporate, commodity, etc), which seems to rise steadily until 1994 where it really takes off... until a sharp fall in 2001 (tax cut?). Looking through the federal tax brackets, it's difficult to find any reason for the steady increase of government income tax revenue. Now let's take a look at total income throughout America compared to the total income tax the IRS took in:
Income tax has never made a huge dent in the total personal incomes of Americans. Although it might seem from this graph that the percentage of income tax taken into government coffers compared to total income has gone down... it's actually at about the same levels as the 1960s (there it is!). And compared to total GDP, income tax revenue stands at just a percentage point below the average (let's keep in mind though, that a single percentage point adds up to A LOT of money at these levels). The conclusion? Despite a tax bracket system that seemed much more severe, the 1980s on have seen very little change in the percentage of total income earned to taxation, in fact, that percentage has been higher on average than in previous decades!
I'm left wondering a few things: What's the deal with those crazy percentages for tax brackets before the 1980s? My guess would be a huge reform of the tax code in the 1980s which took away many of the complicated deductions allowing people to avoid actually paying over 50% of their yearly income in taxes. Otherwise, the amount of money going to government coffers in the 1960s would have been much greater than they were.
What conclusions can we draw from all of this? Income taxation (and therefore government revenue) may be lower than it was in the '90s, but that still doesn't excuse the massive increase in government spending compared to total tax received. Of course, we haven't been looking at other forms of taxation (corporate, commodity, excise, etc)... have those levels changed dramatically in recent years? Should government be limited in the amount it spends related to GDP? That makes a lot of sense, after all, a government shouldn't spend more than it's people are generating. But if there's a limit, what's the target? Is government efficient when it comes to spending? I tend to think that private forces are more efficient than the public sector, but that this does not necessarily mean that public forces are unnecessary. Despite being less efficient, public services are extremely important when a service needs to be provided universally on moral grounds. Either that, or a private provider needs to be heavily monitored and regulated by the government when providing a universal service (as in the case of electrical services through PG&E).
Friday, July 22, 2011
Incomprehension
As I drive to my desk job every morning, a 50 minute or longer journey through the poorly maintained freeways of the East Bay, there's ample time to ponder the mysteries of modern life. The Kevin and Bean show was the thematic vaulting point for today's musings. As the host geeked out over Wired magazine and the latest movie craze, it occurred to me just how artificial our world has become. The editor and talk show host bantered about humanity's journey into the "realm of science fiction," without ever stopping to mention how most of the world doesn't feel the results of this so-called future-tech. Just yesterday, an embedded reporter talked about the sprawling refugee camp in Somalia, 20 years in the making!!
While Americans fret over the release date of the iPhone 5, thousands are struggling to survive amidst bloody conflict in Africa. I'm not saying Americans have an obligation to be concerned. All I am saying is, while people in America waited in line a couple of hours for the midnight showing of Captain America, another line of people were waiting for a meager hand-out of food and water in Somalia. California is the technological hub of America, where new ideas are blooming every day. What is the actual value of these new ideas though? How important is it that we have tablet technology?
From the perspective of finance and economics, the tech industry is hugely important. Far more important than the millions of starving people who live on less than a dollar a day. After all, just think about how little they survive on! From a financial perspective, these people are simply not a profitable demographic. News corporations would be more inclined to cover issues of extreme poverty if the deep pocketed first-worlders sank more money into the non-profit industries that supports these people, rather than waiting feverishly for the latest movie, restaurant or tech gadget. Although the suffering of the far-off masses might pull at our heartstrings for a moment, the seductive draw of American society is designed to be undeniable. The latest food fad, concert diva, and explosive action flick are all carefully presented to the public for maximum appeal that translates into ultimate profits. This isn't commentary, it's just the way our society has evolved amidst the Market Economy.
Our society has benefited hugely from an economic system rewarding cunning, intelligence, and gamesmanship. Even the lower classes in our country have more than the have-nots of other, less developed nations. This economic model works so well because it depends upon novelty. Throughout history, establishing new methods and dismantling inefficient routines has been beneficial to humankind. I don't know if "modern" society is any different from past eras. I do know that the massive financial success of blockbuster movies juxtaposes oddly with farmers struggling to get by. One is actually a necessity and therefore undervalued, the other is a frivolity. And now we're back at the beginning. As Somalis struggle to survive, a couple of nerds interview the stars of the latest movies about their favorite app. I guess this is truly the age old struggle. Now that we live placid, fundamentally safe lives, we have the leisure to either confront the vapid emptiness of our culture, where our fleeting pleasure is merely a vehicle for finance, or lose ourselves in it. Maybe one day, we'll hear from the embedded reporter whose standing at the premier of Captain Somalia.
While Americans fret over the release date of the iPhone 5, thousands are struggling to survive amidst bloody conflict in Africa. I'm not saying Americans have an obligation to be concerned. All I am saying is, while people in America waited in line a couple of hours for the midnight showing of Captain America, another line of people were waiting for a meager hand-out of food and water in Somalia. California is the technological hub of America, where new ideas are blooming every day. What is the actual value of these new ideas though? How important is it that we have tablet technology?
From the perspective of finance and economics, the tech industry is hugely important. Far more important than the millions of starving people who live on less than a dollar a day. After all, just think about how little they survive on! From a financial perspective, these people are simply not a profitable demographic. News corporations would be more inclined to cover issues of extreme poverty if the deep pocketed first-worlders sank more money into the non-profit industries that supports these people, rather than waiting feverishly for the latest movie, restaurant or tech gadget. Although the suffering of the far-off masses might pull at our heartstrings for a moment, the seductive draw of American society is designed to be undeniable. The latest food fad, concert diva, and explosive action flick are all carefully presented to the public for maximum appeal that translates into ultimate profits. This isn't commentary, it's just the way our society has evolved amidst the Market Economy.
Our society has benefited hugely from an economic system rewarding cunning, intelligence, and gamesmanship. Even the lower classes in our country have more than the have-nots of other, less developed nations. This economic model works so well because it depends upon novelty. Throughout history, establishing new methods and dismantling inefficient routines has been beneficial to humankind. I don't know if "modern" society is any different from past eras. I do know that the massive financial success of blockbuster movies juxtaposes oddly with farmers struggling to get by. One is actually a necessity and therefore undervalued, the other is a frivolity. And now we're back at the beginning. As Somalis struggle to survive, a couple of nerds interview the stars of the latest movies about their favorite app. I guess this is truly the age old struggle. Now that we live placid, fundamentally safe lives, we have the leisure to either confront the vapid emptiness of our culture, where our fleeting pleasure is merely a vehicle for finance, or lose ourselves in it. Maybe one day, we'll hear from the embedded reporter whose standing at the premier of Captain Somalia.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
I made a pie
I took a gander at Obama's proposed budget and came up with a pie chart for it:
For the sake of simplifying the pie chart, I took about ten departments with smaller budgets related to the workings of government and lumped them into "Internal Affairs". Anything with a significant budget though was left with it's own label.
I simplified things further with a second pie chart that lumps all military spending together, with another segment for Health Care/Social Security:
I was surprised at how massive Welfare ends up being compared to the rest of the budget. Our "Defense" spending is also huge. Without the wars added in though, it's actually less than either Health Care or Social Security. Service members are getting a lot of benefits through the VA program, a much greater dollar for dollar proportion of welfare services than the rest of the population.
I haven't really had a chance to consider this very carefully, but the massive cost of Health Care and Social Security is more than a little disheartening. Is this the baseline from which we can expect higher costs in the future? Or have we reached some theoretical peak in that kind of spending? Because otherwise, it's very easy to see how these welfare programs could eat up the entire country's budget.
For the sake of simplifying the pie chart, I took about ten departments with smaller budgets related to the workings of government and lumped them into "Internal Affairs". Anything with a significant budget though was left with it's own label.
I simplified things further with a second pie chart that lumps all military spending together, with another segment for Health Care/Social Security:
I was surprised at how massive Welfare ends up being compared to the rest of the budget. Our "Defense" spending is also huge. Without the wars added in though, it's actually less than either Health Care or Social Security. Service members are getting a lot of benefits through the VA program, a much greater dollar for dollar proportion of welfare services than the rest of the population.
I haven't really had a chance to consider this very carefully, but the massive cost of Health Care and Social Security is more than a little disheartening. Is this the baseline from which we can expect higher costs in the future? Or have we reached some theoretical peak in that kind of spending? Because otherwise, it's very easy to see how these welfare programs could eat up the entire country's budget.
New Circle running route
My biggest problem with running on a treadmill was that I never got anywhere. That's why I always rode my bike in Japan, because in addition to being great exercise, it was also a fun and environmentally friendly way of getting around the rural area I lived in.
Now that I'm back in the US, I once again have a car and the distances are so much greater that cycling to work is out of the question. Luckily there are great running routes to be had, with spectacular views of the Bay Area to boot.
I've been wearing the five fingers shoes... Not gonna win any fashion contests, and I can already hear all my friends making off-handed remarks, but I really feel light on my feet during the run. It's a totally different feeling than my previous experiences with running shoes, where my knees have felt the brunt of the pain.
I've been warming up the past couple of weeks on smaller 2-4 mile circle routes, but I had visions of something bigger:
Everything started out fine, but by the time I had reached Cipriani in Belmont, the padding under the balls of my feet were KILLING. I've got blisters all over the padding there. By Cipriani, I could only run in short bursts because I'd get this awful pain caused by the blisters rubbing against the "shoe". I've got work tonight, so hopefully my dainty feet won't be suffering too badly with socks and shoes.
At least the five finger contraptions don't make my feet stinky, which I can't say for the Pumas I wear to work.
Now that I'm back in the US, I once again have a car and the distances are so much greater that cycling to work is out of the question. Luckily there are great running routes to be had, with spectacular views of the Bay Area to boot.
I've been wearing the five fingers shoes... Not gonna win any fashion contests, and I can already hear all my friends making off-handed remarks, but I really feel light on my feet during the run. It's a totally different feeling than my previous experiences with running shoes, where my knees have felt the brunt of the pain.
I've been warming up the past couple of weeks on smaller 2-4 mile circle routes, but I had visions of something bigger:
Everything started out fine, but by the time I had reached Cipriani in Belmont, the padding under the balls of my feet were KILLING. I've got blisters all over the padding there. By Cipriani, I could only run in short bursts because I'd get this awful pain caused by the blisters rubbing against the "shoe". I've got work tonight, so hopefully my dainty feet won't be suffering too badly with socks and shoes.
At least the five finger contraptions don't make my feet stinky, which I can't say for the Pumas I wear to work.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Economic conundrum
I think the real reason why the Left and Right in this country can't get along is that they aren't even talking about the same Universe.
Progressive models point out our wars and Federal tax cuts when describing the explosive growth of debt in our country since the turn of the century.
Then there is the Tea Party. I'll be honset, I like their Pie Chart. I'll always take a pie chart over a bunch of words on the screen or shaky looking two-dimensional charts. Their breakdown therefore, looks a lot more complete. But I'm left with a lot of questions. First, they don't even list the wars, they just lump it into Defense. Defense doesn't even look like all that much money when put into perspective of the whole budget. Really though, that's not as big an issue as the other seemingly non-existent data....
Where did the tax cuts go?? Wasn't that a massive contributor to our debt?? I don't even see tax cuts? Did it get put into pensions?? Welfare?? What are the Progressives talking about with all the tax cut contribution to debt?? Based on their charts, it's the single largest contributor by far, but I don't even see it listed in the budget pie chart the Tea Party provides. Their website doesn't even mention a tax cut.
Why doesn't the Federal Government provide their own pie chart??
Progressive models point out our wars and Federal tax cuts when describing the explosive growth of debt in our country since the turn of the century.
Then there is the Tea Party. I'll be honset, I like their Pie Chart. I'll always take a pie chart over a bunch of words on the screen or shaky looking two-dimensional charts. Their breakdown therefore, looks a lot more complete. But I'm left with a lot of questions. First, they don't even list the wars, they just lump it into Defense. Defense doesn't even look like all that much money when put into perspective of the whole budget. Really though, that's not as big an issue as the other seemingly non-existent data....
Where did the tax cuts go?? Wasn't that a massive contributor to our debt?? I don't even see tax cuts? Did it get put into pensions?? Welfare?? What are the Progressives talking about with all the tax cut contribution to debt?? Based on their charts, it's the single largest contributor by far, but I don't even see it listed in the budget pie chart the Tea Party provides. Their website doesn't even mention a tax cut.
Why doesn't the Federal Government provide their own pie chart??
Standard & Poor, the most evil of them all?
Standard & Poor's rating scales are watched closely by financial experts all over the world. Investors base their decisions on the ratings. That's why today's announcement of Greece's poor credit rating could further exacerbate their debt crisis. It's a statement that certainly isn't neecessary. Everyone already knows Greece is in financial poopoo. So why did S&P need to remind the entire world that Greek debt is a bad thing to be holding onto?
I think far more important for all of us to keep in mind, is just how good S&P's credit ratings ACTUALLY are. Just three years ago, Standard & Poor had given triple-A ratings to Mortgage Backed Securities that were doomed to fail. How far can we really trust these ratings agencies? Not at all. Hell, even a bum on the street can give the kind of information that S&P provides. (I would like to point out that the S&P website has completely revised their data on the Subprime market, now listing massive "projected" losses for securities issued during the heydey of stupid bond investments, also, none of the information that shows or admits to any errors on their part is listed)
Meanwhile, the major headlines in US news are the Republican candidate debates, which are taking place more than a half a year before the Republican party even needs to begin primary voting procedures. Also, Obama is visiting Puerto Rico. Our country needs to start reevaluating what's truly valuable. Who is going to be facing up against Obama in the upcoming election? Or how many billions do the New York financial markets continue to siphon from the American people?
The only thing I'm wondering is, HOW DO WE HELP TO STOP ALL OF THIS UNREGULATED MADNESS!!?!?!?!?
(notice that the person who writes in FAVOR of regulation is the Cheif Economist of CitiGroup!!)
I think far more important for all of us to keep in mind, is just how good S&P's credit ratings ACTUALLY are. Just three years ago, Standard & Poor had given triple-A ratings to Mortgage Backed Securities that were doomed to fail. How far can we really trust these ratings agencies? Not at all. Hell, even a bum on the street can give the kind of information that S&P provides. (I would like to point out that the S&P website has completely revised their data on the Subprime market, now listing massive "projected" losses for securities issued during the heydey of stupid bond investments, also, none of the information that shows or admits to any errors on their part is listed)
Meanwhile, the major headlines in US news are the Republican candidate debates, which are taking place more than a half a year before the Republican party even needs to begin primary voting procedures. Also, Obama is visiting Puerto Rico. Our country needs to start reevaluating what's truly valuable. Who is going to be facing up against Obama in the upcoming election? Or how many billions do the New York financial markets continue to siphon from the American people?
The only thing I'm wondering is, HOW DO WE HELP TO STOP ALL OF THIS UNREGULATED MADNESS!!?!?!?!?
(notice that the person who writes in FAVOR of regulation is the Cheif Economist of CitiGroup!!)
Monday, June 6, 2011
Poisson Distributes his madness unto me!
I've been looking into studies of marriage rates in interesting circumstances. I was originally hoping to investigate the coming Chinese marriage experiment, which has just begun as a result of the law set almost three decades ago which only allowed a single child to each household. In the end, I found a study about French marriage rates following WWI, and another about marriage rates immediately following the aforementioned law's ratification.
There were a few mathematical terms I had never heard of, including the Poisson Distribution that I'm currently geeking out over. What a nifty little statistical device! And I think I'm completely failing to apply it properly.
There were a few mathematical terms I had never heard of, including the Poisson Distribution that I'm currently geeking out over. What a nifty little statistical device! And I think I'm completely failing to apply it properly.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Obama is the only probable candidate?
All this talk of the debt ceiling is starting to get serious! Mitt Romney's announcement of his candidacy was on the exact day that Moody's threatened to lower the US's credit rating if the debt ceiling is not raised. Romney says that Obama is responsible for rising unemployment levels, higher gas prices, and the higher national debt. Woops! Let's remember that these are all problems that started in Bush II's presidency. Realistically though, unless a specific policy can be identified as the sole culprit for a crisis, how can any blame be assigned? Let's look at Bush II as an example.
During Bush II's reign two wars were started, our debt skyrocketted, and he captained the ship when the economy tanked. Now I am not blaming Bush II for all of these things. He can't be held accountable for the entire state of the economy, that's like getting mad at your Captain when a bad storm hits and the waves are bad... he didn't make the storm! The housing bubble and lack of regulation on Wall Street that allowed for the 2008 financial crisis were ongoing problems that spanned multiple presidencies.
Starting yet another doublet of unending American Imperial wars on the other hand, is Bush's fault and a huge burden on our nation's budget. That's part of the reason why Obama inherited debt of such mind-blowing proportions. That and a massive tax break (also Bush's fault, and still contributing to our debt). In fact, it's the Republican party with their support for both policies that has resulted in the largest debt increase in US history. Even on this issue of debt though, it's important to remember that there has been an ongoing debt crisis in this country that was not being properly considered until the financial crisis forced us to consider debt very seriously.
Now we turn to Obama, who is being blamed by Republicans for skyrocketing debt, a calamity-to-be that really only became a huge issue after Republicans messed everything up during their last presidency. I am proud of our current president for his political savvy and gamesmanship. When he had a Democratic congress to support progressive policies, he made sure to pass the legislation that represented the goals of plurality and social welfare. Now that the conservatives are back in town, Obama's become more moderate by catering to Republican policy, even when it meant short-term increases to national debt. Obama has also made every effort to halt partisan bickering by bringing the major rabble-rousers to the negotiating table. He's showing a willingness to compromise for the good of the country.
Even in our foreign policy, I am proud to have Obama as our #1. Outside a select circle of elite pissants, I don't think there is a soul on this earth who can say with certainty what we are doing in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In the face of so much uncertainty, Obama's approach to these wars has been transparent and realistic. He's not about to desert all the hard work that our soldiers have already put into Iraq. But he's made it clear that the pull-out has to happen at some point, and that now is as good a time as any.
The region centering around Afghanistan and it's unending war is the only area where I feel that the Obama administration might be dragging their feet. America's position there seems to be deteriorating, with our only "ally" in the region being a hot-bed of conflict and political turmoil. I think American foreign policy of the past few years is partly to blame for Pakistan's current woes. We've bribed the country into lending us military support, but we haven't been demanding any accountability on their part, which has led to a terrorized civilian population. Recent Pakistani outrage at our covert assassination of Osama Bin-Laden is understandable, because it's indicative of how little we trust and respect Pakistan. Maybe Obama could have notified Pakistan's intelligence service of the strike before it was happening (in the hours immediately before the raid so that, if there was a spy for Osama, there wouldn't be much time to get the word out). More than that single decision though, US-Pakistan relations have become strained over the course of this long war. .
Of course, Obama's performance in political issues abroad hasn't even been criticized by Republican presidential candidates. The frontrunners are full of specious statements lamenting our economic woes under Obama, without ever presenting their own concrete agenda (and ignoring all I've discussed above). The outliers are full of big ideas with more specifics than their opponents, but the policy they recommend would be devastating to our economy (does Ron Paul live in a vacuum? if so, it's definitely an Oreck.. one built in the 18th century where the kind of society he espouses might still be possible). Republicans talk a lot about getting down to brass tax, but I think it's pretty clear that Obama and his administration have actually been all about that.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Are we taxing too much or too little?
I'm reading a book called Winner-Take-All Politics, which argues that the rich in America are being benefited by public policy that protects their earnings to the detriment of our economy. The authors argue that, in addition to loopholes in the tax code that already allow for tax avoidance, corporations are being subsidized to such a degree that the seemingly high corporate taxes they owe are virtually eliminated.
Conflicting opinions by some economics suggest that the decline in economic growth in America is a result of high corporate taxation. They point out that only a few other countries have taxation rates as high as ours. I don't know if this is necessarily an accurate position to take. Brazil's economy is developing more swiftly than ours despite higher taxation rates. Ireland has one of the lowest corporate taxation rates in the EU, but it had negative GDP growth and received a tremendous bailout. You also have countries that are apparently a model of corporate taxation like Singapore, and again, you find negative GDP growth. I don't think lower taxation rates necessarily have a huge impact on GDP growth. There must be other factors that play a larger role in a sluggish or bullish economy.
Time for work.
Conflicting opinions by some economics suggest that the decline in economic growth in America is a result of high corporate taxation. They point out that only a few other countries have taxation rates as high as ours. I don't know if this is necessarily an accurate position to take. Brazil's economy is developing more swiftly than ours despite higher taxation rates. Ireland has one of the lowest corporate taxation rates in the EU, but it had negative GDP growth and received a tremendous bailout. You also have countries that are apparently a model of corporate taxation like Singapore, and again, you find negative GDP growth. I don't think lower taxation rates necessarily have a huge impact on GDP growth. There must be other factors that play a larger role in a sluggish or bullish economy.
Time for work.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Articles worth checking out
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/05/201151322834765706.html
Reprisals for the killing of Osama Bin Laden have begun, and of course, Pakistani forces take the first blow. This reminds me of two years back, when a Pakistani police academy was assaulted and 90 officers were killed. What followed was a mass exodus of policemen and soldiers who feared they would be next.
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2011/05/201151014338715787.html
Osama Bin Laden video memoir, with interviews from those who knew/met with him. There are some strange points brought up, including an extended look into the man's alleged kidney problems.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-industry-executives-defend-tax-breaks-2011-05-12
The game of "don't cut my money" begins. How the hell are we going to cut enough money when we have to go through a battle like this every time?
Reprisals for the killing of Osama Bin Laden have begun, and of course, Pakistani forces take the first blow. This reminds me of two years back, when a Pakistani police academy was assaulted and 90 officers were killed. What followed was a mass exodus of policemen and soldiers who feared they would be next.
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2011/05/201151014338715787.html
Osama Bin Laden video memoir, with interviews from those who knew/met with him. There are some strange points brought up, including an extended look into the man's alleged kidney problems.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-industry-executives-defend-tax-breaks-2011-05-12
The game of "don't cut my money" begins. How the hell are we going to cut enough money when we have to go through a battle like this every time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
