"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.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
