Heading off to east central Ohio to visit relatives & help out my home town.
Government is part of the problem at all levels. The foolishness of the people running the government and their waste and favoritism puts private people in cement overshoes. Let's get rid of half of it.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, November 14, 2011
"Austerity" is simply Reality
Not knowing much about the finances and government of Italy, except that it's a typical unstable parliamentary system, I will describe the "Austerity" that America must implement to stop wasting borrowed and taxpayer money.
In simple, Reagan-esq terms, The Federal government and the states must stop wasting money: stop spending money like a drunken sailor.
1. Stop providing excessive retirement, health care and disability benefits.
2. Stop letting government employees retire before age 65
3. Stop letting retirement benefits be based on inflated pay of the last few years of work.
4. Make the public employees pay at least 50% of the cost of retirement and health care benefits.
5. Change disability benefits to require work - any work - except for the paraplegic or blind or deaf.
6. Get rid of government departments wholesale: eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Labor, Energy, Health & Human Services, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Homeland Security. Keep only a few bureaus with lean staffs.
7. Cut the pay of all Federal government employees making over $80,000 by 20% (that is, by 20% or to $80,000).
8. Streamline the firing process for governmental employees.
9. All governmental boards overseeing governmental employees relations should be staffed exclusively by private sector personnel.
10. Eliminate all 'bargaining' with public employee unions.
And implement the policies of Bunkerman's pamphlet, Common Sense II.
Word of the Day
"Satyriasis" - noun [$10] Medical
Satyriasis means excessive sexual desire in men.
Sentence: The popular term for satyriasis is the Wade Boggs syndrome. The ex-prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlosconi, has it, too. I'm not sure if Bill Clinton had it, or simply that Hillary cut him off. And then we have Tiger Woods ...
In simple, Reagan-esq terms, The Federal government and the states must stop wasting money: stop spending money like a drunken sailor.
1. Stop providing excessive retirement, health care and disability benefits.
2. Stop letting government employees retire before age 65
3. Stop letting retirement benefits be based on inflated pay of the last few years of work.
4. Make the public employees pay at least 50% of the cost of retirement and health care benefits.
5. Change disability benefits to require work - any work - except for the paraplegic or blind or deaf.
6. Get rid of government departments wholesale: eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Labor, Energy, Health & Human Services, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Homeland Security. Keep only a few bureaus with lean staffs.
7. Cut the pay of all Federal government employees making over $80,000 by 20% (that is, by 20% or to $80,000).
8. Streamline the firing process for governmental employees.
9. All governmental boards overseeing governmental employees relations should be staffed exclusively by private sector personnel.
10. Eliminate all 'bargaining' with public employee unions.
And implement the policies of Bunkerman's pamphlet, Common Sense II.
Word of the Day
"Satyriasis" - noun [$10] Medical
Satyriasis means excessive sexual desire in men.
Sentence: The popular term for satyriasis is the Wade Boggs syndrome. The ex-prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlosconi, has it, too. I'm not sure if Bill Clinton had it, or simply that Hillary cut him off. And then we have Tiger Woods ...
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Cutting the Fat
The bloviation about cutting the fat in government spending seems mindless. The Republicans always seems to want to cut Social Security, which provides income support for the elderly and which pays its own way. The Democrats always seem to want to cut defense and so-called tax loopholes (i. e., raise taxes). They blather about sacrifice. But whose sacrifice? Do they volunteer to sacrifice anything? Nope. Does one cut fat from those truly FAT, or cut "fat" from those with almost none, people with no reserves at all on starvation diets?
Obviously, we cut from the FAT first.
Where should we start - what type of cuts should be made first and would have broad public support?
Waste & bloat in the federal government would likely get an 80%+ vote in any fair poll.
Let's start with some true sacrifice from the "leaders", viz. a pay cut for the government itself and for government senior executives.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal have an article about an in-depth study by the General Accounting Office showing that the Federal government had overlapping, duplicative, inefficient and / or ineffective programs. Here are some snippets:
"The report says there are 18 federal programs that spent a combined $62.5 billion in 2008 on food and nutrition assistance, but little is known about the effectiveness of 11 of these programs because they haven't been well studied. "
"The agency found 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances, according to a draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal."
"The U.S. government has 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws, more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless and 80 programs for economic development."
"Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), who pushed for the report, estimated it identifies between $100 billion and $200 billion in duplicative spending. The GAO didn't put a specific figure on the spending overlap."
We start cutting there.
Next, what about federal executive pay and benefits? The line of those seeking those cushy positions is out the door and around the block. The Dark City in the Swamp is one of the highest income areas in the United States, virtually recession proof. That GAO reports shows that federal senior executives have failed in their jobs to provide effective management. They are fat and bloated.
More: they are mostly overpaid now. See the following:
"Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds ... Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available. ...
"These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis."
In other articles, one can find that Federal workers pay only about 28% of their health care cost. A sole proprietor at most gets a tax deduction worth about 28%. that means the private workers pay 72% while the government pays 72% for Federal workers. That's upside down.
This is grossly obese FAT: Federal workers are apparently overpaid in the range of 12% in salary and by 300% in benefits. Combining these numbers, it's certain that Federal compensation is well over 20% above the private sector, likely 30%.
Cut the pay of government senior executives by 20%, the pay of the rest by 10% and make them pay 72% of the cost of their benefits. AND APPLY THIS TO CONGRESS FIRST!!!
Sacrifice must start at those responsible and at the top. Cut Federal pay and benefits! Cut wasteful, duplicatative, inefficient and ineffective programs NOW!
CUT FEDERAL FAT FIRST!
Word of the Day
"Enounce" - verb, transitive [$100]
Enounce means 1. to utter or pronounce as words, enunciate; 2. to announce, decalre or proclaim.
Sentence: Bunkerman enounces this following principle that all budget deficit efforts should follow: CUT FEDERAL FAT FIRST!
Obviously, we cut from the FAT first.
Where should we start - what type of cuts should be made first and would have broad public support?
Waste & bloat in the federal government would likely get an 80%+ vote in any fair poll.
Let's start with some true sacrifice from the "leaders", viz. a pay cut for the government itself and for government senior executives.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal have an article about an in-depth study by the General Accounting Office showing that the Federal government had overlapping, duplicative, inefficient and / or ineffective programs. Here are some snippets:
"The report says there are 18 federal programs that spent a combined $62.5 billion in 2008 on food and nutrition assistance, but little is known about the effectiveness of 11 of these programs because they haven't been well studied. "
"The agency found 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances, according to a draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal."
"The U.S. government has 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws, more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless and 80 programs for economic development."
"Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), who pushed for the report, estimated it identifies between $100 billion and $200 billion in duplicative spending. The GAO didn't put a specific figure on the spending overlap."
We start cutting there.
Next, what about federal executive pay and benefits? The line of those seeking those cushy positions is out the door and around the block. The Dark City in the Swamp is one of the highest income areas in the United States, virtually recession proof. That GAO reports shows that federal senior executives have failed in their jobs to provide effective management. They are fat and bloated.
More: they are mostly overpaid now. See the following:
"Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds ... Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available. ...
"These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis."
In other articles, one can find that Federal workers pay only about 28% of their health care cost. A sole proprietor at most gets a tax deduction worth about 28%. that means the private workers pay 72% while the government pays 72% for Federal workers. That's upside down.
This is grossly obese FAT: Federal workers are apparently overpaid in the range of 12% in salary and by 300% in benefits. Combining these numbers, it's certain that Federal compensation is well over 20% above the private sector, likely 30%.
Cut the pay of government senior executives by 20%, the pay of the rest by 10% and make them pay 72% of the cost of their benefits. AND APPLY THIS TO CONGRESS FIRST!!!
Sacrifice must start at those responsible and at the top. Cut Federal pay and benefits! Cut wasteful, duplicatative, inefficient and ineffective programs NOW!
CUT FEDERAL FAT FIRST!
Word of the Day
"Enounce" - verb, transitive [$100]
Enounce means 1. to utter or pronounce as words, enunciate; 2. to announce, decalre or proclaim.
Sentence: Bunkerman enounces this following principle that all budget deficit efforts should follow: CUT FEDERAL FAT FIRST!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Something Changed
The famous quote by Virginia Woolf nags in my mind: "...on or about December 1910, human character changed ... The change was not sudden or definite ... but a change there was, nonetheless"
Looking back on the 20th century, we have much evidence that she was correct. The 20th century followed the 19th century - that gilded age and the era of Romanticism in art, literature and music. Relative peace existed worldwide: the principal post-Napoleonic conflict was the U. S. Civil war, but it brought forth freedom for millions of human beings from slavery.
The 20th century brought forth mass murder on an industrial scale by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and militarist Japan, and in the bloodlands in Eastern Europe. Human beings ceased to be seen as individual people, but as a number, a part of a class, and a bit of a nation. The passport system imposed regulations on free travel. "Your papers, please" became the stock bureaucratic and police greeting nearly worldwide. Even supposedly free America, a government ID is now required for much previously free activity.
In a now famous literary critical essay on the Metaphysical Poets of the 17th century, T. S. Eliot wrote: "In the seventeenth century a dissociation of sensibility set in, from which we never recovered ..." [Note 1; today's word of the day is "sensibility"]. He was postulating that sometime in the mid 17th century, "life [was] no longer felt to be a moral struggle and morality itself became abstract." [Note 2]
This seems to have happened again. Beyond the historical facts of the 20th century, consider today. Commonplace dialog now examines almost every public statement as that of the rich or the poor, or the blacks or whites, or Hispanics or whatever class. People are viewed as numbers or members of a class. Jobs and school admissions are assigned by racial/ethnic groups. Public debate has degraded to sloganeering and propaganda sound bites. Realpolitik is pervasive. Simple efforts for human rights receive snickers. Efforts to bring some moral (or religious) feelings into arguments are met with screeches about "inclusiveness", when such actions are meant to exclude morality from legitimate debate.
We need to have a debate on where we want to go as a nation and a world; morality and human (meaning individual) happiness must again become part of the debate. We cannot fix our short and long term problems without knowing the end point - the eschaton - of our efforts. The path must be chosen to go to the right place. Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan said, we want to go to the Shining City on the Hill where cumulative individual happiness is optimal, not to the Dark City in the Swamp where we all are numbered parts of a cruel machine.
Note 1: Selected Prose of T. S. Eliot, The Metaphysical Poets, page 64.
Note 2: Cambridge Companion to T. S. Eliot, page 54 mid.
Word of the Day
"Sensibility" - noun [$10]
Sensibility means 1. a. openness to emotional impressions, susceptibility, sensitiveness (sensibility to kindness); 1. b. (archaic) an exceptional or excessive degree of this (sense and sensibility); 2. a. (in plural) emotional capacities or feelings (was limited in his sensibilities); 2. b. (in sing. or pl.) a person's moral, emotional, or aesthetic ideas or standards; 3. sensitivity to sensory stimuli [USAGE: Sensibility should not be used in standard English as a noun corresponding to "sense" or "sensible"; it does not mean possession of common sense. Use sensibleness for that meaning.]
Sentence: On or about December 1910, much of humanity underwent a dissociation of sensibility, as it began to lose its moral compass for seeing each person as an individual person. Can we regain our sensibility?
Looking back on the 20th century, we have much evidence that she was correct. The 20th century followed the 19th century - that gilded age and the era of Romanticism in art, literature and music. Relative peace existed worldwide: the principal post-Napoleonic conflict was the U. S. Civil war, but it brought forth freedom for millions of human beings from slavery.
The 20th century brought forth mass murder on an industrial scale by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and militarist Japan, and in the bloodlands in Eastern Europe. Human beings ceased to be seen as individual people, but as a number, a part of a class, and a bit of a nation. The passport system imposed regulations on free travel. "Your papers, please" became the stock bureaucratic and police greeting nearly worldwide. Even supposedly free America, a government ID is now required for much previously free activity.
In a now famous literary critical essay on the Metaphysical Poets of the 17th century, T. S. Eliot wrote: "In the seventeenth century a dissociation of sensibility set in, from which we never recovered ..." [Note 1; today's word of the day is "sensibility"]. He was postulating that sometime in the mid 17th century, "life [was] no longer felt to be a moral struggle and morality itself became abstract." [Note 2]
This seems to have happened again. Beyond the historical facts of the 20th century, consider today. Commonplace dialog now examines almost every public statement as that of the rich or the poor, or the blacks or whites, or Hispanics or whatever class. People are viewed as numbers or members of a class. Jobs and school admissions are assigned by racial/ethnic groups. Public debate has degraded to sloganeering and propaganda sound bites. Realpolitik is pervasive. Simple efforts for human rights receive snickers. Efforts to bring some moral (or religious) feelings into arguments are met with screeches about "inclusiveness", when such actions are meant to exclude morality from legitimate debate.
We need to have a debate on where we want to go as a nation and a world; morality and human (meaning individual) happiness must again become part of the debate. We cannot fix our short and long term problems without knowing the end point - the eschaton - of our efforts. The path must be chosen to go to the right place. Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan said, we want to go to the Shining City on the Hill where cumulative individual happiness is optimal, not to the Dark City in the Swamp where we all are numbered parts of a cruel machine.
Note 1: Selected Prose of T. S. Eliot, The Metaphysical Poets, page 64.
Note 2: Cambridge Companion to T. S. Eliot, page 54 mid.
Word of the Day
"Sensibility" - noun [$10]
Sensibility means 1. a. openness to emotional impressions, susceptibility, sensitiveness (sensibility to kindness); 1. b. (archaic) an exceptional or excessive degree of this (sense and sensibility); 2. a. (in plural) emotional capacities or feelings (was limited in his sensibilities); 2. b. (in sing. or pl.) a person's moral, emotional, or aesthetic ideas or standards; 3. sensitivity to sensory stimuli [USAGE: Sensibility should not be used in standard English as a noun corresponding to "sense" or "sensible"; it does not mean possession of common sense. Use sensibleness for that meaning.]
Sentence: On or about December 1910, much of humanity underwent a dissociation of sensibility, as it began to lose its moral compass for seeing each person as an individual person. Can we regain our sensibility?
Monday, February 14, 2011
Engage the People
The People are the ultimate power in the United States, and they are often a sleeping giant. Today, important decisions must be made to choose the path of the United States for the next century. The old path has become wrecked, littered with trash from past mistakes and barriers created over at least the past 40 years. We need a new path to a better nation and a happier people.
A Great Debate must begin and that Great Debate must involve the people in their towns and homes. Arguments must engage them and draw on their beliefs and ideas. We must stop thinking that the Ruling Classes and their media and bureaucratic allies will find solutions. They don't even know the questions and they certainly don't know where the people want to go. Most of them have no connection with the common man and woman for their entire lives.
Ronald Reagan wanted to lead America to be a shining city on the hill. He had a visions and could explain his ideas; America understood and followed. But America left the path upon which he started us.
The Crucial Question now is not, "What is to be Done?", but it is "Where to we want to Go?" What kind of society do we want to be in 40 years?
Without a national consensus on the goal - the endpoint - we cannot choose a path. That's how the world works. We know (or learn) where we are know and we must decide where we want to go, and then, and only then, choose an optimal path to get there.
The People must be involved in that decision. They must accept the goal. And by not just a majority, but by a super majority. The center mass of the people - the middle two thirds, need to be engaged in The Great Debate to reach a consensus on where we want to be as a people in 40 years. The fringe 1/6 on either side are simply left aside. The center 2/3 - the center of mass of the nation - will control its trajectory.
We reject "solutions" imposed by DC, its hegemonic class and their bureaucratic and media allies (such as the DC-centric "Deficit Commission"). The People meet to become involved in debates across the nation; the people should communicate with new media in thoughtful ways. Don't let the screeches by the fringes control the debate. Ignore them.
Where do we want to Go?
Let the Great Debate begin.
Word of the Day
"Vatic" - adjective [$10] formal
Vatic means prophetic, inspired.
Sentence: We need a national consensus for where we want to go, where we want to be in 40 years, whether it's created from vatic leadership or from gritty debates in our homes and towns.
A Great Debate must begin and that Great Debate must involve the people in their towns and homes. Arguments must engage them and draw on their beliefs and ideas. We must stop thinking that the Ruling Classes and their media and bureaucratic allies will find solutions. They don't even know the questions and they certainly don't know where the people want to go. Most of them have no connection with the common man and woman for their entire lives.
Ronald Reagan wanted to lead America to be a shining city on the hill. He had a visions and could explain his ideas; America understood and followed. But America left the path upon which he started us.
The Crucial Question now is not, "What is to be Done?", but it is "Where to we want to Go?" What kind of society do we want to be in 40 years?
Without a national consensus on the goal - the endpoint - we cannot choose a path. That's how the world works. We know (or learn) where we are know and we must decide where we want to go, and then, and only then, choose an optimal path to get there.
The People must be involved in that decision. They must accept the goal. And by not just a majority, but by a super majority. The center mass of the people - the middle two thirds, need to be engaged in The Great Debate to reach a consensus on where we want to be as a people in 40 years. The fringe 1/6 on either side are simply left aside. The center 2/3 - the center of mass of the nation - will control its trajectory.
We reject "solutions" imposed by DC, its hegemonic class and their bureaucratic and media allies (such as the DC-centric "Deficit Commission"). The People meet to become involved in debates across the nation; the people should communicate with new media in thoughtful ways. Don't let the screeches by the fringes control the debate. Ignore them.
Where do we want to Go?
Let the Great Debate begin.
Word of the Day
"Vatic" - adjective [$10] formal
Vatic means prophetic, inspired.
Sentence: We need a national consensus for where we want to go, where we want to be in 40 years, whether it's created from vatic leadership or from gritty debates in our homes and towns.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Deficiency at the Deficit Commission
What is the huge missing piece in the proposal of the Deficit Commission?
Leadership is making the all Federal employees bear a fair share of austerity. Including Congress. Had the commission had a majority of persons from outside the DC Ruling Class, you can be certain it would have included something like a 20% pay & benefits cut for Federal employees with the cuts concentrated at the top of the pay scale. They are grossly overpaid, having received years of inflation and step increases while the common man & woman have borne pay stagnation or cuts, and large benefit cuts.
The same applies to Federal contractors. When a company has troubles, it goes to suppliers and demands price cuts. The Federal government has huge purchasing power - why didn't the Deficit Commission propose cuts in all contractor costs?
The answer to these glaring failures is simple: the Commission was almost all DC insiders, they are part of the problem.
Create a truly independent commission - with a supermajority of persons outside of government and outside of DC (and NYC and LA and Chicago). Get people who have experience in cutting costs.
And require ALL spending cuts come before ANY tax increases. Otherwise we will simply see the same old shell game: more taxes, no spending cuts implemented.
More
Is anyone amazed that with almost 10% unemployment and 17% underemployment, that a Democratic President has NO plan or program to help create jobs? Barry is a complete cluster FUBAR, with no ideas or leadership. The People chose badly. Remember who touted him as the great savior, and disregard them in the future.
And More
Uh ... with all the handwringing and anguish over QE2, has anyone bothered to look at the FACT that the monetary base is LOWER than it was a year ago. That's tightening, not easing. Battleship Ben: your shells are falling short, add more powder. Accelerate the buying of those Treasury securities.
Actions
Krypto wants me to sell some gold; that sector is now overinvested due to recent gains. I'll do it via a gold stocks fund. Proceeds to cash to await better bond prices.
Word of the Day
"Irrefragable" - adjective [$10] an Eliot word (i. e., from readings of T. S. Eliot)
Irrefragable means 1. (of a statement, argument or person) unanswerable, indisputable; 2. (of rules, etc.) inviolable.
Sentence: That the Deficit Commission was poorly and fatally constructed by Barry is irrefragable as it was dominated by the Congressmen who are part of the problem.
Leadership is making the all Federal employees bear a fair share of austerity. Including Congress. Had the commission had a majority of persons from outside the DC Ruling Class, you can be certain it would have included something like a 20% pay & benefits cut for Federal employees with the cuts concentrated at the top of the pay scale. They are grossly overpaid, having received years of inflation and step increases while the common man & woman have borne pay stagnation or cuts, and large benefit cuts.
The same applies to Federal contractors. When a company has troubles, it goes to suppliers and demands price cuts. The Federal government has huge purchasing power - why didn't the Deficit Commission propose cuts in all contractor costs?
The answer to these glaring failures is simple: the Commission was almost all DC insiders, they are part of the problem.
Create a truly independent commission - with a supermajority of persons outside of government and outside of DC (and NYC and LA and Chicago). Get people who have experience in cutting costs.
And require ALL spending cuts come before ANY tax increases. Otherwise we will simply see the same old shell game: more taxes, no spending cuts implemented.
More
Is anyone amazed that with almost 10% unemployment and 17% underemployment, that a Democratic President has NO plan or program to help create jobs? Barry is a complete cluster FUBAR, with no ideas or leadership. The People chose badly. Remember who touted him as the great savior, and disregard them in the future.
And More
Uh ... with all the handwringing and anguish over QE2, has anyone bothered to look at the FACT that the monetary base is LOWER than it was a year ago. That's tightening, not easing. Battleship Ben: your shells are falling short, add more powder. Accelerate the buying of those Treasury securities.
Actions
Krypto wants me to sell some gold; that sector is now overinvested due to recent gains. I'll do it via a gold stocks fund. Proceeds to cash to await better bond prices.
Word of the Day
"Irrefragable" - adjective [$10] an Eliot word (i. e., from readings of T. S. Eliot)
Irrefragable means 1. (of a statement, argument or person) unanswerable, indisputable; 2. (of rules, etc.) inviolable.
Sentence: That the Deficit Commission was poorly and fatally constructed by Barry is irrefragable as it was dominated by the Congressmen who are part of the problem.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Power Struggle
The Ruling Class was dissected in this blog yesterday - who it is and what it does and how it got its power over a few decades. In summary, the Ruling Class in America is a synthesis of wealthy people who seek power and educated people who seek power. They use that power to control government to move it in directions that increase their incomes and power. They hide their actions under a blanket of mind-numbing complexity in laws and regulations and procedures.
The major communication media are willing partners. Their parasitical coexistence with government gives them special access to "news" and broadcast spectrum; in turn they serve as the propaganda bullhorn for the Ruling Class. Why else would Davos get the nonstop coverage that it does?
The people's struggle now - as many, many seem to recognize now that we've lost control over our own government - is how to vanquish the Ruling Class and get power back to the people.
"Tea party" groups are a start, but they need to recognize that many are being manipulated and partly controlled by billionaires in the Ruling Class who want new rules to permit them to increase their wealth & power.
Elections are crucial. Winning primary and general elections with honest candidates having the backbone - courage - to stand up to the Ruling Class in DC and the State governments and to say NO! NO MORE! Many governmental procedures require consents (implicit or otherwise) of many groups. Getting right thinkers' into power and their noncooperation will gum up the works - throw sand in the gears. They can force the Ruling Class to begin to negotiate and back down. Once the Ruling Class is stopped, the rollback can begin.
Incremental success is crucial. Once some success occurs, more and more people will likely recognize that they can take back their government and then join the movement. The movement needs to by-pass traditional media, but not ignore them. Blogs, web pages, social networking, small meetings and major rallies can work better IF used to pressure traditional media to get onto the bandwagon,. Their own profit motive will help that process.
The people need to elect a few honest people to government at all levels. Then they need to be strident and serve the people. Oppose ALL the devices of the Ruling Class to keep and get more power and income. Expose their sleaze. Call their press sycophants what they are: tools of the Ruling Class. That hurts them; they need an aura of credibility to sell ads and get viewers & subscribers. Fight and don't give up. Don't compromise. Demand what's Right!
This is really a 21st century class struggle (Common Man vs. Ruling Class), but I'm not going to use that term, as many, many people in the US have a negative reaction to that name. Fine. Why be dogmatic? Power Struggle is perfectly good name, too, and is more specific, too.
The movement needs an ideology for unity. An ideology lets people act in concert without direct coordination and cooperation. The ideology acts as a virtual bond between disparate people across the nation: it's like a long range force that permits a correlation of actions of otherwise independent people.
What is that ideology to be?
Long term readers can guess, but I will write about it tomorrow.
Word of the Day
"Trope" - noun [$10]
Trope means a figurative (e. g. metaphorical or ironical) usage of a word.
Sentence: Bunkerman's favorite trope is "hog"; it metaphorically fits the Ruling Class, all those overpaid CEOs and Wall Street leeches. Just imagine a passel of hogs slurping down they can get at the trough, jostling with each other, oinking away in delight and eating everything in sight. It fits perfectly.
The major communication media are willing partners. Their parasitical coexistence with government gives them special access to "news" and broadcast spectrum; in turn they serve as the propaganda bullhorn for the Ruling Class. Why else would Davos get the nonstop coverage that it does?
The people's struggle now - as many, many seem to recognize now that we've lost control over our own government - is how to vanquish the Ruling Class and get power back to the people.
"Tea party" groups are a start, but they need to recognize that many are being manipulated and partly controlled by billionaires in the Ruling Class who want new rules to permit them to increase their wealth & power.
Elections are crucial. Winning primary and general elections with honest candidates having the backbone - courage - to stand up to the Ruling Class in DC and the State governments and to say NO! NO MORE! Many governmental procedures require consents (implicit or otherwise) of many groups. Getting right thinkers' into power and their noncooperation will gum up the works - throw sand in the gears. They can force the Ruling Class to begin to negotiate and back down. Once the Ruling Class is stopped, the rollback can begin.
Incremental success is crucial. Once some success occurs, more and more people will likely recognize that they can take back their government and then join the movement. The movement needs to by-pass traditional media, but not ignore them. Blogs, web pages, social networking, small meetings and major rallies can work better IF used to pressure traditional media to get onto the bandwagon,. Their own profit motive will help that process.
The people need to elect a few honest people to government at all levels. Then they need to be strident and serve the people. Oppose ALL the devices of the Ruling Class to keep and get more power and income. Expose their sleaze. Call their press sycophants what they are: tools of the Ruling Class. That hurts them; they need an aura of credibility to sell ads and get viewers & subscribers. Fight and don't give up. Don't compromise. Demand what's Right!
This is really a 21st century class struggle (Common Man vs. Ruling Class), but I'm not going to use that term, as many, many people in the US have a negative reaction to that name. Fine. Why be dogmatic? Power Struggle is perfectly good name, too, and is more specific, too.
The movement needs an ideology for unity. An ideology lets people act in concert without direct coordination and cooperation. The ideology acts as a virtual bond between disparate people across the nation: it's like a long range force that permits a correlation of actions of otherwise independent people.
What is that ideology to be?
Long term readers can guess, but I will write about it tomorrow.
Word of the Day
"Trope" - noun [$10]
Trope means a figurative (e. g. metaphorical or ironical) usage of a word.
Sentence: Bunkerman's favorite trope is "hog"; it metaphorically fits the Ruling Class, all those overpaid CEOs and Wall Street leeches. Just imagine a passel of hogs slurping down they can get at the trough, jostling with each other, oinking away in delight and eating everything in sight. It fits perfectly.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The Good and the Bad on Democrats
Yesterday I both praised and flogged the Republicans. Today I do the same to Democrats.
The Good
"Most" Democrats have some true empathy for poor and marginalized persons and correctly recognize that much of this is simply bad luck. Luck has huge effects on how jobs, small business and careers turn out. "Most" Democrats want to even out this inherent volatility of life in the US; to do "something" to more equalize "happiness" across people.
"Most" Democrats are street fighters - they believe strongly that their "party" is correct and will do almost anything to win. This strength of beliefs is in sharp contrast to the spineless nature of many" Republicans, who dislike getting their hands a bit dirty.
"Most" Democrats want those who are receiving the most benefits of life in the US to pay a larger share of the cost of supporting the US.
That's about it.
The Bad
"Most" Democrats look at a human being and don't see one; they see instead a member of a class, a racial group, an ethnic group, or a union member, scab or boss.
"Most" Democrats think crime is not performed by people with free will, but by persons controlled by the forces of society and contaminated (or animated) by things like handguns.
"Most" Democrats think the solution to a problem is to prevent it by imposing restrictions and controls on everyone, not by simply dealing with the problem directly where it is and who is causing it.
"Most" Democrats think large segments of people should get a free ride in the US paid for by the amorphous class of the "Rich".
"Most" Democrats don't want those who are already rich and wealthy to pay to support the US - they prefer to tax those trying to get rich. This is perhaps caused by the huge financial support given to the Democratic Party by those with inherited wealth or those who are already rich.
"Most" Democrats see the US as the cause of most of the world's problems.
"Most" Democrats are opposed to having a militarily strong US. They seem to prefer a world government and put faith in paper treaties for US security.
"Most" Democrats love US labor unions as a source of political power, neglecting the historical facts that companies with such unions tend to be driven out of business over time, causing huge pain and suffering for huge numbers of union members who lose jobs over time.
"Most" Democrats love government rules and regulations as ways to control people, prevent "undue" competition and to protect those in power and with existing businesses (who can be shaken down for campaign contributions).
"Most" Democrats love government workers - especially unionized ones - who can be reliable campaign workers to help Democrats retain power.
"Most" Democrats think human beings are a contamination on the Planet Earth, and that people - and ALL their activities - need to be strictly controlled by government to prevent stupid people from damaging the Planet. Historical facts about true forces of nature and its variations and effects over the past few thousand years are ignored: free people are the problem.
"Most" Democrats think health care is a fundamental Right, but neglect to explain how it can be a Right when such would impose a positive burden on others. Health care can be a shared benefit of a wealthy society, but cannot be a right in any self-consistent political theory. To see this simply, consider two people on an island. One must work for the other's "right", hence is a slave.
"Most" Democrats think judges are the proper deciders of many, many social issues ... as long as they get the right answer. "Most" Democrats seem to dislike democracy - when those white, working class people actually go vote for laws that "Most" Democrats are against. They seem to prefer rule by the new Lords of Society.
"Most" Democrats want to use large corporations as arms of the State, to impose all sorts of rules and regulations from the treatment of employees to environmental actions. The definition of "large" to a Democrat is over 50 employees. Odd coincidence ... that was the upper limit in Communist Poland for a firm being privately owned.
"Most" Democrats think the US Constitution is not a written document with specific words. They like unelected judges to re-write it as needed, making it up as they go along, making it "say" whatever they believe at the time. This connects to the Democratic dislike of democracy - the people are prevented from having a role in this matter.
Conclusion
"Most" Democrats - that is, the philosophical underpinning of their thinking - has no respect for human beings as individuals. They don't like people and see free people as the problem: they must be controlled. In that sense, they don't like democracy, and seem to prefer a new feudal aristocracy led by the already wealthy living off trust funds and municipal bonds. The new Princes and their councils of Lords & Bishops (the professionals) lead legions of unionized public employees and have State officials from judges to department heads to issue edicts to control the people.
Tomorrow I dissect the new Ruling Class - who they are & where they came from.
Word of the Day
"Traduce" - verb, transitive [$10]
Traduce means to speak ill of; misrepresent
Sentence: When a political candidate spends all his time traducing his opponent, one must wonder what he's hiding about his own record.
The Good
"Most" Democrats have some true empathy for poor and marginalized persons and correctly recognize that much of this is simply bad luck. Luck has huge effects on how jobs, small business and careers turn out. "Most" Democrats want to even out this inherent volatility of life in the US; to do "something" to more equalize "happiness" across people.
"Most" Democrats are street fighters - they believe strongly that their "party" is correct and will do almost anything to win. This strength of beliefs is in sharp contrast to the spineless nature of many" Republicans, who dislike getting their hands a bit dirty.
"Most" Democrats want those who are receiving the most benefits of life in the US to pay a larger share of the cost of supporting the US.
That's about it.
The Bad
"Most" Democrats look at a human being and don't see one; they see instead a member of a class, a racial group, an ethnic group, or a union member, scab or boss.
"Most" Democrats think crime is not performed by people with free will, but by persons controlled by the forces of society and contaminated (or animated) by things like handguns.
"Most" Democrats think the solution to a problem is to prevent it by imposing restrictions and controls on everyone, not by simply dealing with the problem directly where it is and who is causing it.
"Most" Democrats think large segments of people should get a free ride in the US paid for by the amorphous class of the "Rich".
"Most" Democrats don't want those who are already rich and wealthy to pay to support the US - they prefer to tax those trying to get rich. This is perhaps caused by the huge financial support given to the Democratic Party by those with inherited wealth or those who are already rich.
"Most" Democrats see the US as the cause of most of the world's problems.
"Most" Democrats are opposed to having a militarily strong US. They seem to prefer a world government and put faith in paper treaties for US security.
"Most" Democrats love US labor unions as a source of political power, neglecting the historical facts that companies with such unions tend to be driven out of business over time, causing huge pain and suffering for huge numbers of union members who lose jobs over time.
"Most" Democrats love government rules and regulations as ways to control people, prevent "undue" competition and to protect those in power and with existing businesses (who can be shaken down for campaign contributions).
"Most" Democrats love government workers - especially unionized ones - who can be reliable campaign workers to help Democrats retain power.
"Most" Democrats think human beings are a contamination on the Planet Earth, and that people - and ALL their activities - need to be strictly controlled by government to prevent stupid people from damaging the Planet. Historical facts about true forces of nature and its variations and effects over the past few thousand years are ignored: free people are the problem.
"Most" Democrats think health care is a fundamental Right, but neglect to explain how it can be a Right when such would impose a positive burden on others. Health care can be a shared benefit of a wealthy society, but cannot be a right in any self-consistent political theory. To see this simply, consider two people on an island. One must work for the other's "right", hence is a slave.
"Most" Democrats think judges are the proper deciders of many, many social issues ... as long as they get the right answer. "Most" Democrats seem to dislike democracy - when those white, working class people actually go vote for laws that "Most" Democrats are against. They seem to prefer rule by the new Lords of Society.
"Most" Democrats want to use large corporations as arms of the State, to impose all sorts of rules and regulations from the treatment of employees to environmental actions. The definition of "large" to a Democrat is over 50 employees. Odd coincidence ... that was the upper limit in Communist Poland for a firm being privately owned.
"Most" Democrats think the US Constitution is not a written document with specific words. They like unelected judges to re-write it as needed, making it up as they go along, making it "say" whatever they believe at the time. This connects to the Democratic dislike of democracy - the people are prevented from having a role in this matter.
Conclusion
"Most" Democrats - that is, the philosophical underpinning of their thinking - has no respect for human beings as individuals. They don't like people and see free people as the problem: they must be controlled. In that sense, they don't like democracy, and seem to prefer a new feudal aristocracy led by the already wealthy living off trust funds and municipal bonds. The new Princes and their councils of Lords & Bishops (the professionals) lead legions of unionized public employees and have State officials from judges to department heads to issue edicts to control the people.
Tomorrow I dissect the new Ruling Class - who they are & where they came from.
Word of the Day
"Traduce" - verb, transitive [$10]
Traduce means to speak ill of; misrepresent
Sentence: When a political candidate spends all his time traducing his opponent, one must wonder what he's hiding about his own record.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Good and the Bad on Republicans
This week's blog posts will be a series on the US political system and its competing ideologies and groups. Today I dissect Republicans.
The Good
"Many" Republicans have, or at least sometimes have, an inherent distrust of increasing governmental power and raising taxes. "Many" Republicans tend to trust the private sector for solutions and have faith in the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith that private sector evolution will solve all problems over time with economic growth. Thus they have an inherent bias towards economic freedom, supporting free use of private property.
"Many" Republicans tend to favor conservative, slow evolution of social values and reject actions by government to impose social values on free people. Just leave us alone, they would say. They like to override states in this context.
"Many" Republicans tend to favor governmental power in the context of promoting the commercial system, including money and credit. They like to override state laws in this context and favor national solutions in this context.
"Many" Republicans favor a strong military and a strong US to project power over the world to promote freedom; they distrust treaties and leftwing dictators and Communists. They distrust leftist governments in general.
"Most" Republicans oppose using governmental power to increase power of labor unions. For example, they support the current secret union ballot requirement over "card check", which would permit union goons to extort public 'yes' votes from individuals.
"Most" Republicans think much of governmental bureaucracy is a colossal waste of money and creates massive "red tape" that hampers economic development.
"Most" Republicans believe the US is a force of good in the world.
Historically, many of the greatest US presidents and political leaders were, or would have been, Republicans: Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan. To the extent Whigs are a predecessor of Republicans, Henry Clay could be counted in the Republican camp.
Enough ... you get the general drift.
The Bad
"Most" Republicans are wimps. They just aren't willing to fight to the end for their "values" They cave in and go along with proposals that sell out their principals. The most famous recent case is George H. W. Bush breaking his public promise and raising taxes. The inability of Republicans to beat Democrats in many, many elections that end up in recounts and courts again illustrates their spineless character. The Democrats break rules, and do anything to win; Republican operatives tend to want to play by the rules, hence they lose. Figuratively, one should prefer a Democrat in a foxhole in combat over a Republican.
Most Republicans seem unable to empathize with the truly needy on a national level. They ignore them, while looking to examples of abuse by fakers in gaming the system. A Republican would tell a poor person who has worked hard for his/her entire life and paid taxes for years, but now suffering a string of bad luck, to "pull himself up by his bootstraps". But have you every thought about that cliche? It's a parody - not real: try it sometimes with a real boot. All you accomplish is pulling yourself to the ground to collapse.
"Most" Republicans seem to disbelieve that government can help the national economy improve. They object to taxes for national improvements in a knee jerk fashion, conveniently forgetting the national Interstate highway system built in mid 20th century ... and the building of the national rail networks in the 19th century, both done with government support. Is that historical stupidity or ?
They object to governmental regulation or intervention in financial markets. They say, 'just let the chips fall' and it will all come out better. Hmm ... that worked great in the "flash crash" and in the Panic of 2008 when all money market funds and corporate commercial paper markets were in danger of collapse. "Most" Republicans support policies that favor financial Vikings over the common investor.
They tend to favor those with Money over those without Money in the use of governmental power. Using courts to collect debts is good, but using courts for debt relief is bad. Lenders can lie in courts and get a free pass; borrowers are to be punished for similar acts.
"Most" Republicans tend to oppose maximal personal freedom with regard to "social" or "family values" issues.
"Most" Republicans tend to believe big corporations are generally a force for good for the people and economic development; they ignore massive corporate dislocations and malfeasance: shipping jobs overseas, gross overpayment of the executive suite, huge corporate tax loopholes (really barn doors!).
"Most" Republicans favor the corporation over the union in labor issues. The third class in this battle - the people - are ignored. "Most" Republicans favor the CEOs & management in corporate governance, to the detriment of shareholder power.
"Most" Republicans tend to favor increases in governmental power for "crime" control and "security"; they do not give much weight to personal liberty or privacy in this conflict.
"Most" Republicans tend to favor right wing dictators over left wing dictators who might confiscate multinational corporate property; They tend to favor using governmental power (even via IMF-World Bank) in third world nations to shift property from government to the "private sector", viz., multinational corporations or (corrupt) national private interests.
"Most" Republicans ignore or "brush under the rug" or overtly support US policy around the world that does or tends to enrich its multinational corporations and private persons: they favor economic imperialism for private ends.
"Most" Republicans want no restrictions at all on the growth and power of the wealthy: they seem to positively ignore that such power and wealth is used to corrupt government into granting them more power & wealth. Historical and current evidence of that tendency is ignored.
Conclusion
The doctrine of "most" Republicans fails in both its historicity and in protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all the people. The best one can say is that it does not failure completely. There is some good in it, but much bad.
That's enough. Tomorrow I dissect Democrats.
Word of the Day
"Subsume" - verb [$10]
Subsume means to place in a more comprehensive category.
Sentence: This week's blog series will attempt to elevate our current political debates from the level of a football game, and subsume them into broad philosophical context that, I hope, will make a solution obvious. Often phasing the question correctly makes an answer obvious.
The Good
"Many" Republicans have, or at least sometimes have, an inherent distrust of increasing governmental power and raising taxes. "Many" Republicans tend to trust the private sector for solutions and have faith in the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith that private sector evolution will solve all problems over time with economic growth. Thus they have an inherent bias towards economic freedom, supporting free use of private property.
"Many" Republicans tend to favor conservative, slow evolution of social values and reject actions by government to impose social values on free people. Just leave us alone, they would say. They like to override states in this context.
"Many" Republicans tend to favor governmental power in the context of promoting the commercial system, including money and credit. They like to override state laws in this context and favor national solutions in this context.
"Many" Republicans favor a strong military and a strong US to project power over the world to promote freedom; they distrust treaties and leftwing dictators and Communists. They distrust leftist governments in general.
"Most" Republicans oppose using governmental power to increase power of labor unions. For example, they support the current secret union ballot requirement over "card check", which would permit union goons to extort public 'yes' votes from individuals.
"Most" Republicans think much of governmental bureaucracy is a colossal waste of money and creates massive "red tape" that hampers economic development.
"Most" Republicans believe the US is a force of good in the world.
Historically, many of the greatest US presidents and political leaders were, or would have been, Republicans: Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan. To the extent Whigs are a predecessor of Republicans, Henry Clay could be counted in the Republican camp.
Enough ... you get the general drift.
The Bad
"Most" Republicans are wimps. They just aren't willing to fight to the end for their "values" They cave in and go along with proposals that sell out their principals. The most famous recent case is George H. W. Bush breaking his public promise and raising taxes. The inability of Republicans to beat Democrats in many, many elections that end up in recounts and courts again illustrates their spineless character. The Democrats break rules, and do anything to win; Republican operatives tend to want to play by the rules, hence they lose. Figuratively, one should prefer a Democrat in a foxhole in combat over a Republican.
Most Republicans seem unable to empathize with the truly needy on a national level. They ignore them, while looking to examples of abuse by fakers in gaming the system. A Republican would tell a poor person who has worked hard for his/her entire life and paid taxes for years, but now suffering a string of bad luck, to "pull himself up by his bootstraps". But have you every thought about that cliche? It's a parody - not real: try it sometimes with a real boot. All you accomplish is pulling yourself to the ground to collapse.
"Most" Republicans seem to disbelieve that government can help the national economy improve. They object to taxes for national improvements in a knee jerk fashion, conveniently forgetting the national Interstate highway system built in mid 20th century ... and the building of the national rail networks in the 19th century, both done with government support. Is that historical stupidity or ?
They object to governmental regulation or intervention in financial markets. They say, 'just let the chips fall' and it will all come out better. Hmm ... that worked great in the "flash crash" and in the Panic of 2008 when all money market funds and corporate commercial paper markets were in danger of collapse. "Most" Republicans support policies that favor financial Vikings over the common investor.
They tend to favor those with Money over those without Money in the use of governmental power. Using courts to collect debts is good, but using courts for debt relief is bad. Lenders can lie in courts and get a free pass; borrowers are to be punished for similar acts.
"Most" Republicans tend to oppose maximal personal freedom with regard to "social" or "family values" issues.
"Most" Republicans tend to believe big corporations are generally a force for good for the people and economic development; they ignore massive corporate dislocations and malfeasance: shipping jobs overseas, gross overpayment of the executive suite, huge corporate tax loopholes (really barn doors!).
"Most" Republicans favor the corporation over the union in labor issues. The third class in this battle - the people - are ignored. "Most" Republicans favor the CEOs & management in corporate governance, to the detriment of shareholder power.
"Most" Republicans tend to favor increases in governmental power for "crime" control and "security"; they do not give much weight to personal liberty or privacy in this conflict.
"Most" Republicans tend to favor right wing dictators over left wing dictators who might confiscate multinational corporate property; They tend to favor using governmental power (even via IMF-World Bank) in third world nations to shift property from government to the "private sector", viz., multinational corporations or (corrupt) national private interests.
"Most" Republicans ignore or "brush under the rug" or overtly support US policy around the world that does or tends to enrich its multinational corporations and private persons: they favor economic imperialism for private ends.
"Most" Republicans want no restrictions at all on the growth and power of the wealthy: they seem to positively ignore that such power and wealth is used to corrupt government into granting them more power & wealth. Historical and current evidence of that tendency is ignored.
Conclusion
The doctrine of "most" Republicans fails in both its historicity and in protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all the people. The best one can say is that it does not failure completely. There is some good in it, but much bad.
That's enough. Tomorrow I dissect Democrats.
Word of the Day
"Subsume" - verb [$10]
Subsume means to place in a more comprehensive category.
Sentence: This week's blog series will attempt to elevate our current political debates from the level of a football game, and subsume them into broad philosophical context that, I hope, will make a solution obvious. Often phasing the question correctly makes an answer obvious.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Deep Six the Deficit Commission
You don't even have to read their report. Just look at its members. Here they are:
Deficit Commission Members
NAMED BY OBAMA
ERSKINE BOWLES, co-chairman; Bill Clinton’s chief of staff from 1996 to 1998.
ALAN SIMPSON, co-chairman; Simpson was the No. 2 Republican in the Senate for a decade.
DAVID COTE, a Republican, has served as Honeywell International chairman, chief executive and president since 2002.
ALICE RIVLIN is a former Federal Reserve vice chair who was also budget director under Bill Clinton. She was the founding director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office from 1975 to 1983.
ANN FUDGE, chairman and chief executive of Young & Rubicam Brands from 2003 to 2006.
ANDREW STERN, president of the Service Employees International Union, which covers 2.2 million workers such as healthcare staffers, security officers and public employees.
NAMED BY SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADER HARRY REID
SENATOR RICHARD DURBIN, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, from Illinois.
SENATOR KENT CONRAD, Budget Committee Chairman, from North Dakota.
SENATOR MAX BAUCUS, the Finance Committee chairman.
NAMED BY SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL
SENATOR JUDD GREGG, from New Hampshire.
SENATOR TOM COBURN
SENATOR MIKE CRAPO
NAMED BY HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SPRATT, chairman of the House Budget Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA, from California
REPRESENTATIVE JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois Democrat.
NAMED BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER JOHN BOEHNER
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RYAN, from Wisconsin,.
REPRESENTATIVE JEB HENSARLING
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE CAMP
How ridiculous is the composition of that commission? Every single person is a member of the Ruling Classes. Most are members of Congress, person who are coddled and cossetted as no other group. They know nothing about running a business, nothing about actually doing a tax form, and know noting about the common man and woman - their lives and problems and what government truly does, and does NOT do.
For nongovernmental representatives, they toss in a couple CEOs - another group of chief hogs. Does any of them live in a small town? Nope. Does any of them do their own tax form ? Nope. Does any of them work with their hands ? Nope. Does any of them run a business on the ground level ? Nope. Is any of them poor ? Nope. Heck, they are probably all multimillionaires.
Does any of them have intellectual experience in practical matters ? Nope. Can any of them do calculations themselves ? Nope. It's totally dependent on the government for basic information - a fine example of garbage in, garbage out.
That commission is a disgrace and has been a disgrace since the day it was named. Toss that report in the circular file - the trash bin.
Word of the Day
"Consanguineal" - noun [$10]; "Consanguineous" - adjective [$10]; "Consanguine" - adjective [$10]
Consanguineous means (A) descended from the same ancestor; (B) of the same lineage or origin, esp. related by blood.
Sentence: All persons on the Deficit Commission are consanguine members of the Ruling Class.
Deficit Commission Members
NAMED BY OBAMA
ERSKINE BOWLES, co-chairman; Bill Clinton’s chief of staff from 1996 to 1998.
ALAN SIMPSON, co-chairman; Simpson was the No. 2 Republican in the Senate for a decade.
DAVID COTE, a Republican, has served as Honeywell International chairman, chief executive and president since 2002.
ALICE RIVLIN is a former Federal Reserve vice chair who was also budget director under Bill Clinton. She was the founding director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office from 1975 to 1983.
ANN FUDGE, chairman and chief executive of Young & Rubicam Brands from 2003 to 2006.
ANDREW STERN, president of the Service Employees International Union, which covers 2.2 million workers such as healthcare staffers, security officers and public employees.
NAMED BY SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADER HARRY REID
SENATOR RICHARD DURBIN, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, from Illinois.
SENATOR KENT CONRAD, Budget Committee Chairman, from North Dakota.
SENATOR MAX BAUCUS, the Finance Committee chairman.
NAMED BY SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL
SENATOR JUDD GREGG, from New Hampshire.
SENATOR TOM COBURN
SENATOR MIKE CRAPO
NAMED BY HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN SPRATT, chairman of the House Budget Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE XAVIER BECERRA, from California
REPRESENTATIVE JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois Democrat.
NAMED BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER JOHN BOEHNER
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RYAN, from Wisconsin,.
REPRESENTATIVE JEB HENSARLING
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE CAMP
How ridiculous is the composition of that commission? Every single person is a member of the Ruling Classes. Most are members of Congress, person who are coddled and cossetted as no other group. They know nothing about running a business, nothing about actually doing a tax form, and know noting about the common man and woman - their lives and problems and what government truly does, and does NOT do.
For nongovernmental representatives, they toss in a couple CEOs - another group of chief hogs. Does any of them live in a small town? Nope. Does any of them do their own tax form ? Nope. Does any of them work with their hands ? Nope. Does any of them run a business on the ground level ? Nope. Is any of them poor ? Nope. Heck, they are probably all multimillionaires.
Does any of them have intellectual experience in practical matters ? Nope. Can any of them do calculations themselves ? Nope. It's totally dependent on the government for basic information - a fine example of garbage in, garbage out.
That commission is a disgrace and has been a disgrace since the day it was named. Toss that report in the circular file - the trash bin.
Word of the Day
"Consanguineal" - noun [$10]; "Consanguineous" - adjective [$10]; "Consanguine" - adjective [$10]
Consanguineous means (A) descended from the same ancestor; (B) of the same lineage or origin, esp. related by blood.
Sentence: All persons on the Deficit Commission are consanguine members of the Ruling Class.
Monday, September 13, 2010
There is No Safety Net
Public dialogue in the US has a serious flaw: the myth that a safety net exists for people who have had unfortunate circumstances, such as losing a good job and running through all their savings. There is none if you have no young children. Almost all "welfare" benefits are available only to people with children.
Income levels for single people being eligible for Medicaid (health care) are very, very low. For NY for 2010, the limit is $8,479. If you earn more, you aren't eligible.
The Right often spouts that the poor pay no taxes due to the "Earned Income Credit". I guess they don't check the tax forms. For a single person, the earned income credit is only 7.65% of earned income below $5,970 for 2009. That's the employee share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, but not the employer share. Yet the Right always says the worker effectively pays that part, too. That's called "double talk". For incomes over $5,970, the credit is capped at $457, then phases out from phases out from $7,470 to $13,440. The phase out rate is the same 7.65%, hence the working poor in that income level is paying a double Social Security + Medicare, hence has a very, very high marginal tax rate (higher than private equity fund billionares thanks to their 'carried interest' tax at only 15%).
Emergency rooms ? That works for "emergencies" for now, until the hospitals go broke and close [that is happening in some communities]. Simple procedures like a potentially dangerous cyst are not "emergencies". Many very important health care needs are not emergencies.
Housing support: you get nothing unless you have children.
WIC program: children and recent mothers only.
In Massachusetts, the federal poverty limit for a single person is $10,836. Above that and food stamps go away.
How much money is $10,836 per year ?
A work year is about 50 weeks at 40 hours per week, hence 2,000 hours. That poverty line then equates to $5.42 per hour. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour. Uh ... does this make sense ? A single person working the minimum wage for a year is NOT poor ?
Notice that such a person is right in the middle of the Earned Income Credit phase out, hence that person's marginal tax rate is very high. How can person work & climb out of such a hole ? The system's barriers to exit poverty are very, very high.
Worse: the banking system. A person who has lost all their savings and gone bankrupt has likely had his/her bank account closed. Banks do that when one defaults on a credit card from the same bank. Now that unfortunate person has no bank account to cash pay checks and must use check cashing services and pay those huge fees.
Worse again: a home. One loses the home in foreclosure, then must rent. Renting in a safe place often requires security deposits and credit checks. Bingo, the working poor gets the door slammed in their face again.
More worse: credit checks. Did you know that many employers now do credit checks ? Hence a person suffering from unfortunate circumstances has another barrier to return to normalcy.
Look at the entirety of this : a person working hard for years, not bad, not evil, not a criminal, but a good person who has had unfortunate circumstances is (metaphorically) tossed into a deep pit to suffer, and that pit has high walls. It's very difficult to escape.
There is no safety net for many, many good people with unfortunate circumstances. It's quite wrong. We, the taxpayers who pay a LOT of taxes are being lied to by the Left and Right.
The Left says it's working for the poor, but it is not. 40+ years of huge taxes and government payments and those who are certainly very, very deserving get no help. All these programs of the Left are incredibly complex, requiring many, many well paid state and local employees (unionized) with fine benefits to administer.
The Right says there is a safety net, but as you can see, there is none for the taxpayer who has some bad luck. Good people - like the voters whom the Right panders to - get tossed into the pit and ground up by the system, effectively enserfed.
What else do we see ? Benefits for the poor are massively concentrated on people with children. What is a relevant law of economics and behavior ? IF one subsidizes something, one gets more of it. Thus the US gets MORE children from the poor. That's the very thing the right loves to gripe about, yet they do nothing.
This downturn has exposed the lies of the past four decades on both the left and right, and the corrupt system of government that feeds off our taxes yet does NOTHING for those very people who deserve some help. It's just wrong and must be reformed.
All these programs need reformed and made simple. As does the US tax system. We need honest people in government. Not deal makers, not negotiators, not good speakers, not people who can work the system. Honest people who will implement real reform - simple reform.
We need a Square Deal: fair and simple.
Actions
I am still riding that Brontosaurus to the next water hole. Futures look good this AM. I'll contemplate taking some sugar at the 1150 area on the S&P 500. [sugar = profits]
Word of the Day
"Festoon" - verb, transitive [$10] and "Festoon" - noun [$10]
Festoon means (verb) to hang or form festoons, to shape into festoons; (noun) 1. a decorative chain or strip hanging between two points; 2. a carved, molded or painted ornament representing a decorative chain.
Sentence: The Left piles program upon program to make themselves look good to voters, to cause voters to think the Left is helping them, but it's all phony festoons to hide the core reality: the Left cares primarily about having more and more well-paid, unionized government workers for their power base.
Income levels for single people being eligible for Medicaid (health care) are very, very low. For NY for 2010, the limit is $8,479. If you earn more, you aren't eligible.
The Right often spouts that the poor pay no taxes due to the "Earned Income Credit". I guess they don't check the tax forms. For a single person, the earned income credit is only 7.65% of earned income below $5,970 for 2009. That's the employee share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, but not the employer share. Yet the Right always says the worker effectively pays that part, too. That's called "double talk". For incomes over $5,970, the credit is capped at $457, then phases out from phases out from $7,470 to $13,440. The phase out rate is the same 7.65%, hence the working poor in that income level is paying a double Social Security + Medicare, hence has a very, very high marginal tax rate (higher than private equity fund billionares thanks to their 'carried interest' tax at only 15%).
Emergency rooms ? That works for "emergencies" for now, until the hospitals go broke and close [that is happening in some communities]. Simple procedures like a potentially dangerous cyst are not "emergencies". Many very important health care needs are not emergencies.
Housing support: you get nothing unless you have children.
WIC program: children and recent mothers only.
In Massachusetts, the federal poverty limit for a single person is $10,836. Above that and food stamps go away.
How much money is $10,836 per year ?
A work year is about 50 weeks at 40 hours per week, hence 2,000 hours. That poverty line then equates to $5.42 per hour. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour. Uh ... does this make sense ? A single person working the minimum wage for a year is NOT poor ?
Notice that such a person is right in the middle of the Earned Income Credit phase out, hence that person's marginal tax rate is very high. How can person work & climb out of such a hole ? The system's barriers to exit poverty are very, very high.
Worse: the banking system. A person who has lost all their savings and gone bankrupt has likely had his/her bank account closed. Banks do that when one defaults on a credit card from the same bank. Now that unfortunate person has no bank account to cash pay checks and must use check cashing services and pay those huge fees.
Worse again: a home. One loses the home in foreclosure, then must rent. Renting in a safe place often requires security deposits and credit checks. Bingo, the working poor gets the door slammed in their face again.
More worse: credit checks. Did you know that many employers now do credit checks ? Hence a person suffering from unfortunate circumstances has another barrier to return to normalcy.
Look at the entirety of this : a person working hard for years, not bad, not evil, not a criminal, but a good person who has had unfortunate circumstances is (metaphorically) tossed into a deep pit to suffer, and that pit has high walls. It's very difficult to escape.
There is no safety net for many, many good people with unfortunate circumstances. It's quite wrong. We, the taxpayers who pay a LOT of taxes are being lied to by the Left and Right.
The Left says it's working for the poor, but it is not. 40+ years of huge taxes and government payments and those who are certainly very, very deserving get no help. All these programs of the Left are incredibly complex, requiring many, many well paid state and local employees (unionized) with fine benefits to administer.
The Right says there is a safety net, but as you can see, there is none for the taxpayer who has some bad luck. Good people - like the voters whom the Right panders to - get tossed into the pit and ground up by the system, effectively enserfed.
What else do we see ? Benefits for the poor are massively concentrated on people with children. What is a relevant law of economics and behavior ? IF one subsidizes something, one gets more of it. Thus the US gets MORE children from the poor. That's the very thing the right loves to gripe about, yet they do nothing.
This downturn has exposed the lies of the past four decades on both the left and right, and the corrupt system of government that feeds off our taxes yet does NOTHING for those very people who deserve some help. It's just wrong and must be reformed.
All these programs need reformed and made simple. As does the US tax system. We need honest people in government. Not deal makers, not negotiators, not good speakers, not people who can work the system. Honest people who will implement real reform - simple reform.
We need a Square Deal: fair and simple.
Actions
I am still riding that Brontosaurus to the next water hole. Futures look good this AM. I'll contemplate taking some sugar at the 1150 area on the S&P 500. [sugar = profits]
Word of the Day
"Festoon" - verb, transitive [$10] and "Festoon" - noun [$10]
Festoon means (verb) to hang or form festoons, to shape into festoons; (noun) 1. a decorative chain or strip hanging between two points; 2. a carved, molded or painted ornament representing a decorative chain.
Sentence: The Left piles program upon program to make themselves look good to voters, to cause voters to think the Left is helping them, but it's all phony festoons to hide the core reality: the Left cares primarily about having more and more well-paid, unionized government workers for their power base.
Friday, July 2, 2010
234
Sunday is Independence Day in the USA; 234 years ago the Continental Congress, which the 13 colonies had organized to coordinate resistance to encroachments on the freedom of the people over the prior decade, declared those 13 colonies were henceforth free and independent States.
Why ? The Declaration of Independence was not a propaganda screed. Reading it, one sees a reasoned argument. The document states principals of liberty, fundamental concepts of human liberty and then a long list of actions of the English king and government that violated those concepts. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Wonderful language, no ?
And if you read history, you'll find that all those claimed "abuses and usurpations" truly did occur and some were occurring at the time of the Declaration. A scholar could put footnotes to every one of those violations. I found myself the other day explaining one of those events to an intern who is working for me this summer. It arose as we discussed the rights & powers of juries.
Here's the applicable quote from the Declaration of Independence: "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury". American juries in Boston and neighboring towns had been refusing to convict colonists who were engaged in resistance. The King then ordered those trials to be held in Halifax in Admiralty courts. This deprived the colonists of the rights to jury trial that went back over 500 years to the Magna Carta in 1215.
Also this: "For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States."
What is quartering ? Quartering is a mechanism that a King-tyrant could use to avoid raising taxes to support troops. For taxes, a King needed Parliament. But if he simply quartered troops in people's homes and forced them to pay for their food & shelter, then he didn't need Parliament. This had occurred in the English Civil war. Here's the quote from the English Bill of Rights of 1689: "By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law"
This is a real abuse and a very dangerous one as it sidesteps legislature's taxing power (and its obligation to pay for government by taxation) by imposing those costs directly onto the people. That's why the Third Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits quartering of soldiers. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." There's never been a precise case to date as no President has tried to sidestep Congress to quarter troops, but it's there. By the way, here's an intriguing analogy. Obama's health care bill contains a provision that would (initially) fine people for not using their own money to buy health insurance. Is that not a different form of the abusive power prohibited by the Third Amendment ? "Quartering " is a direct imposition of cost obligation onto people, avoiding the power (or obligation thereto) of taxation in Congress. In my analysis (presented on this site in prior posts), this is a strong argument from principals that Obama's health care requirement is a violation of the spirit of the Third Amendment.
And here's another abuse: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." I think we all agree that abuse is ongoing now and has been occurring, on & off, for many decades.
Re-reading the Declaration of Independence and thinking over its words imbues us with sense of our heritage and freedoms and the reasons why our nation's founders declared their Independence. The US is a nation built not on ethnicity nor religion nor nationalism, but on words and ideas applied in one place. Anyone of any ancestry, ethnicity, religion, place of birth, race or creed can be an American equal in rights to any other American. We have a written Constitution and written founding documents. Abraham Lincoln saw the Declaration of Independence as a crucial founding document. Many Constitutional scholars say the Civil war amendments to the Constitution (13th, 14th and 15th) effectively incorporated its concepts into the US Constitution (written 11 years later in 1787).
For this Independence Day, if you can, fly the flag and read the Declaration of Independence.
Word of the Day
"Evince" - verb [$10]
Evince means 1. indicate, to make evident; 2. show that one has (a quality).
Sentence: (from Declaration of Independence quoted above) "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Why ? The Declaration of Independence was not a propaganda screed. Reading it, one sees a reasoned argument. The document states principals of liberty, fundamental concepts of human liberty and then a long list of actions of the English king and government that violated those concepts. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Wonderful language, no ?
And if you read history, you'll find that all those claimed "abuses and usurpations" truly did occur and some were occurring at the time of the Declaration. A scholar could put footnotes to every one of those violations. I found myself the other day explaining one of those events to an intern who is working for me this summer. It arose as we discussed the rights & powers of juries.
Here's the applicable quote from the Declaration of Independence: "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury". American juries in Boston and neighboring towns had been refusing to convict colonists who were engaged in resistance. The King then ordered those trials to be held in Halifax in Admiralty courts. This deprived the colonists of the rights to jury trial that went back over 500 years to the Magna Carta in 1215.
Also this: "For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States."
What is quartering ? Quartering is a mechanism that a King-tyrant could use to avoid raising taxes to support troops. For taxes, a King needed Parliament. But if he simply quartered troops in people's homes and forced them to pay for their food & shelter, then he didn't need Parliament. This had occurred in the English Civil war. Here's the quote from the English Bill of Rights of 1689: "By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law"
This is a real abuse and a very dangerous one as it sidesteps legislature's taxing power (and its obligation to pay for government by taxation) by imposing those costs directly onto the people. That's why the Third Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits quartering of soldiers. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." There's never been a precise case to date as no President has tried to sidestep Congress to quarter troops, but it's there. By the way, here's an intriguing analogy. Obama's health care bill contains a provision that would (initially) fine people for not using their own money to buy health insurance. Is that not a different form of the abusive power prohibited by the Third Amendment ? "Quartering " is a direct imposition of cost obligation onto people, avoiding the power (or obligation thereto) of taxation in Congress. In my analysis (presented on this site in prior posts), this is a strong argument from principals that Obama's health care requirement is a violation of the spirit of the Third Amendment.
And here's another abuse: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." I think we all agree that abuse is ongoing now and has been occurring, on & off, for many decades.
Re-reading the Declaration of Independence and thinking over its words imbues us with sense of our heritage and freedoms and the reasons why our nation's founders declared their Independence. The US is a nation built not on ethnicity nor religion nor nationalism, but on words and ideas applied in one place. Anyone of any ancestry, ethnicity, religion, place of birth, race or creed can be an American equal in rights to any other American. We have a written Constitution and written founding documents. Abraham Lincoln saw the Declaration of Independence as a crucial founding document. Many Constitutional scholars say the Civil war amendments to the Constitution (13th, 14th and 15th) effectively incorporated its concepts into the US Constitution (written 11 years later in 1787).
For this Independence Day, if you can, fly the flag and read the Declaration of Independence.
Word of the Day
"Evince" - verb [$10]
Evince means 1. indicate, to make evident; 2. show that one has (a quality).
Sentence: (from Declaration of Independence quoted above) "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Monday, April 26, 2010
Rome
Understanding the nature and beliefs of the civilization of ancient Rome is a crucial building block for understanding the modern world. This is not only because so many modern institutions trace elements of their structure to Roman institutions, but also cultural and behavioral dimensions of modern human beings do (or should) draw on the early Roman models. For the former, I'm talking about law, courts a Senate and assembly of the People, a Republic versus kings, an army drawn from the middle class (in the Republic); for the later I'm referring to honor, duty, integrity, rhetoric, family.
From Roman examples we learn about greatness and honor in real people: Julius and Augustus Caesar for the former; and Cato and Cicero for the latter.
From Rome we also learn about tyranny and depravity: Sulla and Caligula.
Stories one reads learning Latin are very uplifting. The language brings this out with its simple, inflected forms and sparsity of fluff and adjectives. A Latin epigram or proverb is beautifully precise. Of course, few people learn Latin nowadays. I'm re-learning Latin and am enjoying it immensely, but if you didn't have it in high school, I can't recommend that path to learn from Rome.
Instead, I recommend the combination of books and CD courses.
From antiquity: Plutarch, Lives, and Suetonius, Twelve Caesars, Julius Caesar, Gallic Wars (aka Commentaries).
The Teaching Company courses on Rome: Famous Romans, History of Ancient Rome.
And now I can recommend a historical novel as a Book of the Week: The First Man in Rome, by Colleen McCullough. This is a fine book, very well researched. The author builds from a foundations of facts about Rome and its culture, then adds the human side in dialog and thoughts very, very plausibly. I started reading it on Saturday and am enjoying it immensely. Nothing yet contradicts my own understanding of Roman culture and history. The book through its characters is an excellent learning tool for one to better understand Rome and the Romans.
NOTE: The First Man in Rome is a first of a series of seven books which were well received by the public and critics. I plan to read the first two, then perhaps over time more.
MORE: The book is pleasantly written in a fine style and includes a few $10 words; it's definitely not dumbed down. I've found four good $10 words already - three new ones and one old one in the file I had forgotten.
Word of the Day
"Ken" - noun and verb [$10] from The First Man in Rome. Not Barbie's boyfriend !
Ken means (noun) a range of sight or knowledge (it's beyond my ken); (verb) 1. recognize at sight; 2. know [past & participle: kenning; kenned or kent]
Sentence: One's ken expands greatly with more understanding of Rome and the Romans.
From Roman examples we learn about greatness and honor in real people: Julius and Augustus Caesar for the former; and Cato and Cicero for the latter.
From Rome we also learn about tyranny and depravity: Sulla and Caligula.
Stories one reads learning Latin are very uplifting. The language brings this out with its simple, inflected forms and sparsity of fluff and adjectives. A Latin epigram or proverb is beautifully precise. Of course, few people learn Latin nowadays. I'm re-learning Latin and am enjoying it immensely, but if you didn't have it in high school, I can't recommend that path to learn from Rome.
Instead, I recommend the combination of books and CD courses.
From antiquity: Plutarch, Lives, and Suetonius, Twelve Caesars, Julius Caesar, Gallic Wars (aka Commentaries).
The Teaching Company courses on Rome: Famous Romans, History of Ancient Rome.
And now I can recommend a historical novel as a Book of the Week: The First Man in Rome, by Colleen McCullough. This is a fine book, very well researched. The author builds from a foundations of facts about Rome and its culture, then adds the human side in dialog and thoughts very, very plausibly. I started reading it on Saturday and am enjoying it immensely. Nothing yet contradicts my own understanding of Roman culture and history. The book through its characters is an excellent learning tool for one to better understand Rome and the Romans.
NOTE: The First Man in Rome is a first of a series of seven books which were well received by the public and critics. I plan to read the first two, then perhaps over time more.
MORE: The book is pleasantly written in a fine style and includes a few $10 words; it's definitely not dumbed down. I've found four good $10 words already - three new ones and one old one in the file I had forgotten.
Word of the Day
"Ken" - noun and verb [$10] from The First Man in Rome. Not Barbie's boyfriend !
Ken means (noun) a range of sight or knowledge (it's beyond my ken); (verb) 1. recognize at sight; 2. know [past & participle: kenning; kenned or kent]
Sentence: One's ken expands greatly with more understanding of Rome and the Romans.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
We Need a Rebellion ...
in attitudes, not violence. Yesterday at noon I crawled out of a two month session in Tax Preparation Purgatory, having suffered many, many torments imposed on me ... and the rest of US population even if they might not realize it. It's mandatory - the government says do it, or they'll jail or even kill you (if you resist). After that annual oppression, I needed to get some rebellious entertainment last evening: I watched that great, hilarious movie of rebellion of the 1970s - Gumball Rally.
Xers - and certainly not the Y and Z generations - might not know about the experience of the 1970s in government mandates: wage & price controls, a multitude of new regulations on business and products, and "gasp" that symbol of oppression - the 55 mph national speed limit. Double nickels, it was called. I remember it well - the drive to/from Harvard to my hometown in Ohio became an interminable 16 hours versus the prior 12-13 hours.
Gumball Rally is about an illegal, unofficial cross-country auto race from New York City to Long Beach, California: no 55 mph speed limit, all means of smoky [aka highway patrol] detection permitted, the hottest cars roaring down the highway at over 120 mph all the way. The characters are wonderful, and since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, that its entire plot and many characters were copied in the 1981 hit movie, Cannonball Run and its sequels, is certainly high flattery.
In our times, the government has imposed so many insidious mandates on us that we forget that first one (in our lifetime) from another era, it seems. There are toilet mandates, soon there will be light bulb mandates. And sooner than you think, the IRS will enforce the health insurance mandate. What next ? What part of the word FREEDOM do the seigneurs in DC not understand ? As for that first mandate - "Double Nickels" - people fought it and eventually won - the 55 mph national speed limit was repealed under President Reagan.
Assert your freedom. Say to yourself every morning - I am not a number, I am a free man !
[That memorable line is from the intriguing TV show of the late 1960s - The Prisoner].
And don't just get angry - unfocused anger accomplishes nothing. And the enemies of freedom will pejoratively label mere anger as ignorant. Join the debate, use good arguments for freedom, and claim victory when the opposition resorts to ad hominem fallacies to close off debate.
Do something to save our freedom ! And it you want some humorous, motivational entertainment - watch Gumball Rally.
Markets
I will check with Krypto today to see if she has any sell orders for me - one regarding selling a bit of US stock was close last time she checked. Look for a PS here later.
Word of the Day
"Obnubliate" - verb, transitive [$100]
Obnubliate means becloud; to cloud over; obscure
Sentence: Don't let the use of ad hominem fallacies obnubliate your mind or arguments in a critical discussion or debate. Screechs of racism when one criticizes Barry's policies are truly an admission that the screecher has no rational rebuttal for you: you've won - claim victory over the point loudly and move ahead.
Xers - and certainly not the Y and Z generations - might not know about the experience of the 1970s in government mandates: wage & price controls, a multitude of new regulations on business and products, and "gasp" that symbol of oppression - the 55 mph national speed limit. Double nickels, it was called. I remember it well - the drive to/from Harvard to my hometown in Ohio became an interminable 16 hours versus the prior 12-13 hours.
Gumball Rally is about an illegal, unofficial cross-country auto race from New York City to Long Beach, California: no 55 mph speed limit, all means of smoky [aka highway patrol] detection permitted, the hottest cars roaring down the highway at over 120 mph all the way. The characters are wonderful, and since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, that its entire plot and many characters were copied in the 1981 hit movie, Cannonball Run and its sequels, is certainly high flattery.
In our times, the government has imposed so many insidious mandates on us that we forget that first one (in our lifetime) from another era, it seems. There are toilet mandates, soon there will be light bulb mandates. And sooner than you think, the IRS will enforce the health insurance mandate. What next ? What part of the word FREEDOM do the seigneurs in DC not understand ? As for that first mandate - "Double Nickels" - people fought it and eventually won - the 55 mph national speed limit was repealed under President Reagan.
Assert your freedom. Say to yourself every morning - I am not a number, I am a free man !
[That memorable line is from the intriguing TV show of the late 1960s - The Prisoner].
And don't just get angry - unfocused anger accomplishes nothing. And the enemies of freedom will pejoratively label mere anger as ignorant. Join the debate, use good arguments for freedom, and claim victory when the opposition resorts to ad hominem fallacies to close off debate.
Do something to save our freedom ! And it you want some humorous, motivational entertainment - watch Gumball Rally.
Markets
I will check with Krypto today to see if she has any sell orders for me - one regarding selling a bit of US stock was close last time she checked. Look for a PS here later.
Word of the Day
"Obnubliate" - verb, transitive [$100]
Obnubliate means becloud; to cloud over; obscure
Sentence: Don't let the use of ad hominem fallacies obnubliate your mind or arguments in a critical discussion or debate. Screechs of racism when one criticizes Barry's policies are truly an admission that the screecher has no rational rebuttal for you: you've won - claim victory over the point loudly and move ahead.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Fraternal Libertarianism
This post sketches out a proof from first principles for a coherent political economic system herein called Fraternal Libertarianism. This system has the teleological* End as the maximization of happiness of all the people under its purview.
Axiom I: Based on Aristotle’s thinking in “Ethics”: Humans seek to and make decisions to maximize Happiness.
A person acts rationally in many dimensions to maximize his happiness. Not only his actual actions, but his thoughts of possible paths are virtual explorations of other paths that will maximize his happiness.
This Axiom also connects to the “pursuit of happiness” concept in the US Declaration of Independence. Jefferson changes the Lockean “life, liberty and property” to “life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, perhaps following and generalizing “property” along Aristotle’s thinking. Individual freedom for the pursuit of happiness would be essential in a State to maximize happiness.
Generalization: The political and economic structure of a State should be such to aid or assist or promote the maximization of some kind of aggregation of the happiness of all citizens.
Axiom II: All Men are Created Equal. To generalize from that classic formulation, All People are Created Equal.
Immediate Results
1. Then applying the “all men are created equal” axiom, for the happiness of a State, the aggregation of individual happiness is a simple sum – equally weighted happiness of every citizen.
2. This philosophic system justifies crime controls as just behaviors by a few (that increase the criminal happiness) reduce happiness of many more.
3. Such a state would also permit a very large amount of personal freedom as the self-interest of each person to maximize his own happiness is then harnessed to maximize national happiness.
Assumed Economic-Behavioral Laws
These laws will be used to derive some general indication how the State would go about maximizing the aggregate happiness of its citizens.
Law of Diminishing Returns: After a moderate or large amount of wealth and power has been achieved, further unit accretions to an individual produce diminishing unit accretions of happiness.
Risk Aversion: Risk aversion is the reluctance of a person to choose an action with an uncertain addition to his happiness rather than another action with a more certain, but possibly lower, incremental happiness.
Results
4. Controls on the ruling classes would justified and necessary as they use power (economic or state) to enhance their own happiness often at the expense of the many. While the actions of a person in the ruling class would tend to increase his own happiness, by taking more and more resources and control over others, he depresses the happiness of the masses. And that aggregate amount of depression is larger than his increase, according to the law of diminishing returns for him and risk aversion for them.
5. A social support system can also increase the happiness of the entire community as the happiness of the masses is increased MORE than the costs of support system reduces the happiness of the wealthy & powerful classes (who pay for that system), also due to the principles of risk aversion and diminishing returns. By protecting the masses from the small risks of catastrophic loss and / or marginalization of their lives, the happiness of the nation is increased. The costs would be borne by the rich and powerful.
[NOTE: it also shows how a society can breakdown IFF a majority of its members become criminals – maximizing happiness then is the path of crime as in Somalia.]
This political system is called Fraternal Libertarianism, as it promotes maximum freedom for the common man, some restrictions on the ruling classes, and a social support system to prevent catastrophic individual human degradation.
One can think of this as a "trimmed" Libertarianism. The State and political economic system is largely Libertarian with maximal freedom for the common man, combined with the trimming done on each end of the distribution of happiness of its citizens. The vast middle part of the distribution is free to act according to their own individual choices to increase their own happiness. The accumulation of power and resources by the ruling classes is controlled - that is the "high end" trim. The happiness of the citizens at the lower end of the distribution is supported to reduce their degradation / poverty / marginalization. The "trimming" increases the total happiness of the State according to the laws of behavior of diminishing returns and risk aversion.
Historical support for such a System is quite strong and abundant. Innumerable great empires were destroyed by the rapacious greed of the ruling classes in creating more and more powerful aristocracies at the expense of the common man. And not aiding the masses in attaining some happiness led to inordinately destructive revolutions. And the freeing of the masses of people to lead their own lives as they chose individually (when by successful reforms or mass emigrations) led to a huge increase in happiness of the citizens.
Formerly I thought that what I called Populist Libertarianism was the correct political economic system for humanity, but as you can see, I was wrong. I had incorrectly maximized freedom, which is a means, instead of an End, which is happiness. Freedom can lead to more happiness. The above proof, however, shows that perfect freedom does NOT maximize aggregate happiness of all the people.
Markets
I re-bought some FCX and MT as short or intermediate term trade in 1-2-3 Fund. I'll buy more on a further pullback. These stocks hit my (mentally) pre-determined re-buy points. My reading of the charts suggests some support around S&P 1085. It might not hold. But I'll swing my bat here a few times to see if I can get a hit.
PS: Added to my usual suspects, the resource trading stocks. Re-buy BHP, add MT.
Word of the Day
Teleological - adjective [$10]
Teleological means exhibiting or relating to design of purpose especially in nature.
Sentence: Fraternal Libertarianism has the teleological* End as the maximization of happiness of all the people under its purview. That is its design and purpose.
Axiom I: Based on Aristotle’s thinking in “Ethics”: Humans seek to and make decisions to maximize Happiness.
A person acts rationally in many dimensions to maximize his happiness. Not only his actual actions, but his thoughts of possible paths are virtual explorations of other paths that will maximize his happiness.
This Axiom also connects to the “pursuit of happiness” concept in the US Declaration of Independence. Jefferson changes the Lockean “life, liberty and property” to “life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, perhaps following and generalizing “property” along Aristotle’s thinking. Individual freedom for the pursuit of happiness would be essential in a State to maximize happiness.
Generalization: The political and economic structure of a State should be such to aid or assist or promote the maximization of some kind of aggregation of the happiness of all citizens.
Axiom II: All Men are Created Equal. To generalize from that classic formulation, All People are Created Equal.
Immediate Results
1. Then applying the “all men are created equal” axiom, for the happiness of a State, the aggregation of individual happiness is a simple sum – equally weighted happiness of every citizen.
2. This philosophic system justifies crime controls as just behaviors by a few (that increase the criminal happiness) reduce happiness of many more.
3. Such a state would also permit a very large amount of personal freedom as the self-interest of each person to maximize his own happiness is then harnessed to maximize national happiness.
Assumed Economic-Behavioral Laws
These laws will be used to derive some general indication how the State would go about maximizing the aggregate happiness of its citizens.
Law of Diminishing Returns: After a moderate or large amount of wealth and power has been achieved, further unit accretions to an individual produce diminishing unit accretions of happiness.
Risk Aversion: Risk aversion is the reluctance of a person to choose an action with an uncertain addition to his happiness rather than another action with a more certain, but possibly lower, incremental happiness.
Results
4. Controls on the ruling classes would justified and necessary as they use power (economic or state) to enhance their own happiness often at the expense of the many. While the actions of a person in the ruling class would tend to increase his own happiness, by taking more and more resources and control over others, he depresses the happiness of the masses. And that aggregate amount of depression is larger than his increase, according to the law of diminishing returns for him and risk aversion for them.
5. A social support system can also increase the happiness of the entire community as the happiness of the masses is increased MORE than the costs of support system reduces the happiness of the wealthy & powerful classes (who pay for that system), also due to the principles of risk aversion and diminishing returns. By protecting the masses from the small risks of catastrophic loss and / or marginalization of their lives, the happiness of the nation is increased. The costs would be borne by the rich and powerful.
[NOTE: it also shows how a society can breakdown IFF a majority of its members become criminals – maximizing happiness then is the path of crime as in Somalia.]
This political system is called Fraternal Libertarianism, as it promotes maximum freedom for the common man, some restrictions on the ruling classes, and a social support system to prevent catastrophic individual human degradation.
One can think of this as a "trimmed" Libertarianism. The State and political economic system is largely Libertarian with maximal freedom for the common man, combined with the trimming done on each end of the distribution of happiness of its citizens. The vast middle part of the distribution is free to act according to their own individual choices to increase their own happiness. The accumulation of power and resources by the ruling classes is controlled - that is the "high end" trim. The happiness of the citizens at the lower end of the distribution is supported to reduce their degradation / poverty / marginalization. The "trimming" increases the total happiness of the State according to the laws of behavior of diminishing returns and risk aversion.
Historical support for such a System is quite strong and abundant. Innumerable great empires were destroyed by the rapacious greed of the ruling classes in creating more and more powerful aristocracies at the expense of the common man. And not aiding the masses in attaining some happiness led to inordinately destructive revolutions. And the freeing of the masses of people to lead their own lives as they chose individually (when by successful reforms or mass emigrations) led to a huge increase in happiness of the citizens.
Formerly I thought that what I called Populist Libertarianism was the correct political economic system for humanity, but as you can see, I was wrong. I had incorrectly maximized freedom, which is a means, instead of an End, which is happiness. Freedom can lead to more happiness. The above proof, however, shows that perfect freedom does NOT maximize aggregate happiness of all the people.
Markets
I re-bought some FCX and MT as short or intermediate term trade in 1-2-3 Fund. I'll buy more on a further pullback. These stocks hit my (mentally) pre-determined re-buy points. My reading of the charts suggests some support around S&P 1085. It might not hold. But I'll swing my bat here a few times to see if I can get a hit.
PS: Added to my usual suspects, the resource trading stocks. Re-buy BHP, add MT.
Word of the Day
Teleological - adjective [$10]
Teleological means exhibiting or relating to design of purpose especially in nature.
Sentence: Fraternal Libertarianism has the teleological* End as the maximization of happiness of all the people under its purview. That is its design and purpose.
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Spectrum of Politics and Government
In common writings this spectrum is the line from the far left to the far right - the "Standard Model" of politics. In that paradigm, those two styles are purported opposites. How this mode of analysis and concomitant metaphor and metonymy* arose, I don't know. But it's so obviously completely wrong that everyone needs to stop using it. [*Word of the Day]
Why ?
The systems characterized as far left are truly EQUAL to those of the far right in substance and ideology. Here is a list of qualities for which communism has in common with naziism taken from God's Playground: A History of Poland, Volume II 1795 to present, page 476. [Poland and the Polish people suffered from occupation by both totalitarian systems.]
A national-socialist ideology
collectivism
pseudo-science
utopian goals
a dualist party-state
a Füherprinzip (leader principle)
gangsterism
bureaucratic elephantitis
propaganda
the Aesthetics of Power
the Dialectical Enemy
moral nihilism
the psychology of hatred
pre-emptive censorship
coercion
universalism
contempt for liberal democracy
"The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and trade union boss will never make a good National Socialist, but the Communist will" [Adolf Hitler as cited in "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer, page 17]. Hannah Arendt provided very detailed ideological analysis of those identity. Alan Bullock's several history books about Hitler and Stalin provide plenty of details to support the identity of naziism and communism practice.
The "Standard Model" of the modern press and pundits is wrong.
What works for the classification of governments and political systems and thinking ?
One can use the same simple line, but place pure libertarianism on one side and pure totalitarianism on the other. Pure human freedom versus pure non-freedom. Pure individual choice versus pure control by one man/party. A free person versus a slave. That works. A system them is evaluated by where it is on that line on many attributes such as economics, elections, movement of peoples, etc.
Actions
Today I await the jobs number and the market's reaction to it. My S&P call options speculation anticipates an improved number. The market seems to have built some of that in already, but if a truly good number comes, my S&P year-end target of 1200 comes into play. Tactically, I'll sell a big rip looking to re-buy on the correction. If I'm wrong, I'll probably just bail out.
Word of the Day
"Metonymy" - noun [$10]
Metonymy means the substitution of a name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant. [e. g., Crown for King, White House for US executive authority]. Alternate definition: a figure of speech in which an attribute or commonly associated feature is used to name or designate somethings, as in 'the pen is mightier than the sword'.
Sentence: Writing has to use metonymy to be succinct and colorful and playful; why use "the radical environmental movement" when "greenies" conveys the message better.
Why ?
The systems characterized as far left are truly EQUAL to those of the far right in substance and ideology. Here is a list of qualities for which communism has in common with naziism taken from God's Playground: A History of Poland, Volume II 1795 to present, page 476. [Poland and the Polish people suffered from occupation by both totalitarian systems.]
A national-socialist ideology
collectivism
pseudo-science
utopian goals
a dualist party-state
a Füherprinzip (leader principle)
gangsterism
bureaucratic elephantitis
propaganda
the Aesthetics of Power
the Dialectical Enemy
moral nihilism
the psychology of hatred
pre-emptive censorship
coercion
universalism
contempt for liberal democracy
"The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and trade union boss will never make a good National Socialist, but the Communist will" [Adolf Hitler as cited in "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer, page 17]. Hannah Arendt provided very detailed ideological analysis of those identity. Alan Bullock's several history books about Hitler and Stalin provide plenty of details to support the identity of naziism and communism practice.
The "Standard Model" of the modern press and pundits is wrong.
What works for the classification of governments and political systems and thinking ?
One can use the same simple line, but place pure libertarianism on one side and pure totalitarianism on the other. Pure human freedom versus pure non-freedom. Pure individual choice versus pure control by one man/party. A free person versus a slave. That works. A system them is evaluated by where it is on that line on many attributes such as economics, elections, movement of peoples, etc.
Actions
Today I await the jobs number and the market's reaction to it. My S&P call options speculation anticipates an improved number. The market seems to have built some of that in already, but if a truly good number comes, my S&P year-end target of 1200 comes into play. Tactically, I'll sell a big rip looking to re-buy on the correction. If I'm wrong, I'll probably just bail out.
Word of the Day
"Metonymy" - noun [$10]
Metonymy means the substitution of a name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant. [e. g., Crown for King, White House for US executive authority]. Alternate definition: a figure of speech in which an attribute or commonly associated feature is used to name or designate somethings, as in 'the pen is mightier than the sword'.
Sentence: Writing has to use metonymy to be succinct and colorful and playful; why use "the radical environmental movement" when "greenies" conveys the message better.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Declare Victory ...
A brilliant new idea has broken onto the front pages on how to improve the national mood: let's just have the State declare that national happiness has been achieved. Here's how the French are doing it -
From FT: "France to Count Happiness in GDP - Happiness, long holidays and a sense of well-being may not be everyone’s yardstick for economic performance, but Nicolas Sarkozy believes they should be embraced by the world in a national accounting overhaul. France’s president on Monday urged other countries to adopt proposed new measures of economic output unveiled by a panel of international economists led by Joseph Stiglitz, the US Nobel Prize winner. Mr Sarkozy, who set up the Stiglitz-led commission last year, said the world had become trapped in a “cult of figures”.
"One consequence of the commission’s proposed enhancements to gross domestic product data would be to improve instantly France’s economic performance by taking into account its high-quality health service, expensive welfare system and long holidays."
And here's how Bhutan does it: "Bhutan has warned its citizens over cutting down thousands of young trees every year to make prayer flags, a threat to the tiny kingdom’s lush scenery and the government’s duty to bring “Gross National Happiness”. Himalayan Buddhists put up prayer flags for good luck or to help the dead find the right path to their next life. The more flag poles put up for the departed the better, and Buddhist monks say fresh poles must be used each time.
Having failed to convince its citizens to switch from wood to steel for prayer flags, the government of the Himalayas’ last Buddhist kingdom is growing bamboo, which it hopes will be an attractive alternative. "The pressure on forest is from all sides – from flagposts to hydropower. We are discussing this every day,” agriculture secretary Sherub Gyaltshen, said.
Bhutan’s constitution, which emphasises the importance of Gross National Happiness over Gross Domestic Product, stipulates the country must have at least 60 per cent forest cover.
Himalayan Buddhists believe winds will carry positive vibrations of tantric symbols written on the prayer flags in yellow, green, red, white and blue to represent the five elements, and 108 prayer flags are put up when someone dies."
Can it be long before La Grande Bouche declares that the US GDP numbers will be adjusted for the "benefits" of his National Health Care plan ?
Why not ? The US already adjusts GDP and the CPI for the "value" of alleged safety and environmental mandates. So why not for that squishy feeling of security that the nanny state will provide ... as long as you obey it.
Actions
Doing nothing.
The official new name for my most aggressive fund is The 1-2-3 Fund. It's named after that boxing staple, the 1-2-3 combination of punches, viz., a snappy left jab, a powerful straight right and the finishing left hook: by punch numbers, it's 1-2-3. The 1-2-3 Fund is doing OK on its options book ... so far.
By the way in French, the fund's name will be the Bonjour Fund, as idiom in French uses "simple comme bonjour" for "simple as 1-2-3"
Word of the Day
"Euphony" - noun [$10]
Euphony means 1.a. a pleasant of sound, especially of a word or phrase; harmony; 1.b. a pleasant sound; 2. a tendency to make a phonetic change for ease of pronunciation.
Sentence: Perhaps the new National Health Plan will mandate that we all start the day with some euphony by saying "ommmmmmmmmmmm" as we thank heaven for the new god that has entered the pantheon, viz., Ted Kennedy.
Le Mot du Jour
"Heureux, -euse" - adjective
Heureux means (after noun) 1. a. happy; b. pleased; (before noun) 2. fortunate, lucky, propitious.
La Phrase: Obama dit, "ne vous inquiétez pas, soyez heureux."
Sentence: Obama says, "don't worry, be happy."
From FT: "France to Count Happiness in GDP - Happiness, long holidays and a sense of well-being may not be everyone’s yardstick for economic performance, but Nicolas Sarkozy believes they should be embraced by the world in a national accounting overhaul. France’s president on Monday urged other countries to adopt proposed new measures of economic output unveiled by a panel of international economists led by Joseph Stiglitz, the US Nobel Prize winner. Mr Sarkozy, who set up the Stiglitz-led commission last year, said the world had become trapped in a “cult of figures”.
"One consequence of the commission’s proposed enhancements to gross domestic product data would be to improve instantly France’s economic performance by taking into account its high-quality health service, expensive welfare system and long holidays."
And here's how Bhutan does it: "Bhutan has warned its citizens over cutting down thousands of young trees every year to make prayer flags, a threat to the tiny kingdom’s lush scenery and the government’s duty to bring “Gross National Happiness”. Himalayan Buddhists put up prayer flags for good luck or to help the dead find the right path to their next life. The more flag poles put up for the departed the better, and Buddhist monks say fresh poles must be used each time.
Having failed to convince its citizens to switch from wood to steel for prayer flags, the government of the Himalayas’ last Buddhist kingdom is growing bamboo, which it hopes will be an attractive alternative. "The pressure on forest is from all sides – from flagposts to hydropower. We are discussing this every day,” agriculture secretary Sherub Gyaltshen, said.
Bhutan’s constitution, which emphasises the importance of Gross National Happiness over Gross Domestic Product, stipulates the country must have at least 60 per cent forest cover.
Himalayan Buddhists believe winds will carry positive vibrations of tantric symbols written on the prayer flags in yellow, green, red, white and blue to represent the five elements, and 108 prayer flags are put up when someone dies."
Can it be long before La Grande Bouche declares that the US GDP numbers will be adjusted for the "benefits" of his National Health Care plan ?
Why not ? The US already adjusts GDP and the CPI for the "value" of alleged safety and environmental mandates. So why not for that squishy feeling of security that the nanny state will provide ... as long as you obey it.
Actions
Doing nothing.
The official new name for my most aggressive fund is The 1-2-3 Fund. It's named after that boxing staple, the 1-2-3 combination of punches, viz., a snappy left jab, a powerful straight right and the finishing left hook: by punch numbers, it's 1-2-3. The 1-2-3 Fund is doing OK on its options book ... so far.
By the way in French, the fund's name will be the Bonjour Fund, as idiom in French uses "simple comme bonjour" for "simple as 1-2-3"
Word of the Day
"Euphony" - noun [$10]
Euphony means 1.a. a pleasant of sound, especially of a word or phrase; harmony; 1.b. a pleasant sound; 2. a tendency to make a phonetic change for ease of pronunciation.
Sentence: Perhaps the new National Health Plan will mandate that we all start the day with some euphony by saying "ommmmmmmmmmmm" as we thank heaven for the new god that has entered the pantheon, viz., Ted Kennedy.
Le Mot du Jour
"Heureux, -euse" - adjective
Heureux means (after noun) 1. a. happy; b. pleased; (before noun) 2. fortunate, lucky, propitious.
La Phrase: Obama dit, "ne vous inquiétez pas, soyez heureux."
Sentence: Obama says, "don't worry, be happy."
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The Files
Life under an omnipotent government or even a collusive private sector is quite dehumanizing.
For an good example of such in Red China, see this fascinating example from FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b5194a40-997d-11de-ab8c-00144feabdc0.html
In the US, the "credit score" system seems similar to me. Those services for the banks report much false and inaccurate information about people, which can then hurt individuals not only for obtaining credit but also for employment, getting insurance and many other things. I've often wondered why, if the service reports incorrect information, it isn't liable for defamation.
In fact, the entire "identity theft" issue seems a case of defamation by the credit services, banks and other lending services. They get scammed and then proceeded to defame an innocent person, forcing him to clean up his record. That's just wrong. The credit services and banks SHOULD be liable for defamation.
I've complained to a well-positioned US senator about this, but the message just doesn't get across. Or the banks have too much power. I suppose they have some secret legal protection.
Medical information is another problem about "The Files". Who can see them, who can check them, are they accurate, and who corrects errors ? I once asked for a medical file, but was told that they could only send it to my doctor. I became very forceful, but the insurance company would not relent. So I ordered it sent to my then doctor and he proceeded to show me the information. Infuriating.
Obama Care promises to continue the process of nationalizing this data. Are safeguards in place ? I suspect not, regardless of all that "Privacy" baloney we are, in effect, forced to sign to gain services.
For an good example of such in Red China, see this fascinating example from FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b5194a40-997d-11de-ab8c-00144feabdc0.html
In the US, the "credit score" system seems similar to me. Those services for the banks report much false and inaccurate information about people, which can then hurt individuals not only for obtaining credit but also for employment, getting insurance and many other things. I've often wondered why, if the service reports incorrect information, it isn't liable for defamation.
In fact, the entire "identity theft" issue seems a case of defamation by the credit services, banks and other lending services. They get scammed and then proceeded to defame an innocent person, forcing him to clean up his record. That's just wrong. The credit services and banks SHOULD be liable for defamation.
I've complained to a well-positioned US senator about this, but the message just doesn't get across. Or the banks have too much power. I suppose they have some secret legal protection.
Medical information is another problem about "The Files". Who can see them, who can check them, are they accurate, and who corrects errors ? I once asked for a medical file, but was told that they could only send it to my doctor. I became very forceful, but the insurance company would not relent. So I ordered it sent to my then doctor and he proceeded to show me the information. Infuriating.
Obama Care promises to continue the process of nationalizing this data. Are safeguards in place ? I suspect not, regardless of all that "Privacy" baloney we are, in effect, forced to sign to gain services.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Political Leadership
Reading H. L. Mencken early this morning (5AM), I came upon a column written in 1934 about political leadership that I thought was applicable today as we wonder if Obama has it.
[Excerpts from "The Impossible H. L. Mencken, page 430-431.]
[referring to a good leader]
"The most reflective sort of people have confidence in his fundamental decency. They may believe that he is unwise on occasion, but they do not believe he is knavish. There are obviously things that he will not do, even to continue in office. But all his qualms and points of honor are bound, soon or late, to alienate the low down variety of politicians, who have no more notion of honor that so many street-walkers, and with them go the simian half-wits who are their customers. It is useful, in politics, to be decent, if only because it is so rare, but only up to a point. After that it is hazardous ...
...
"... The science of government is really very simple, else the world would have gone to pot long ago. The country will remain safe enough for all practical purposes so long as it is in the hands of a man of character, honest, gallant, and mellowed and moderated by a sense of humor. Most Americans, I take it, still believe that [Roosevelt then, Obama now] answers to these specifications. He will have a free hand while he can keep them thinking so."
Can Obama control the knaves and fanatics ? Can or will he eventually stand up to Princess Pelosi ? I wonder ...
Something is troubling me ... why is he taking the control of the Census into the White House ? That cannot be a good sign. It's actually in the style of Hugo Chavez, to politicize and corrupt a simple process of counting people. We'll see, but I am now suspicious.
Word of the Day
"Lave" - verb, transitive [$10] literary, from French
Lave means 1. wash, bath; 2. (of water) wash against, flow along.
Sentence:
A. [from Mencken referring to Chester Arthur] "But he was no village guzzler like Harding: he preferred vintage wines to hard liquor, and permitted only the best to lave his tonsils."
B. On Friday evenings, Bunkerman laves his throat (and would lave his tonsils if he had any) with a finely mixed Golden Kryptonite martini.
Le Mot du Jour
"Détendre" - verb, transitive - regular -re verb conjugated like rendre.
Détendre means 1. to release, to slacken, to relax. Se détendre [VPR] means 1. to loose its tension, to become slack; 2. to relax, to calm down, to become less tense.
La Phrase: Un verre de vin rouge me détend.
Sentence: A glass of red wine relaxes me.
[Excerpts from "The Impossible H. L. Mencken, page 430-431.]
[referring to a good leader]
"The most reflective sort of people have confidence in his fundamental decency. They may believe that he is unwise on occasion, but they do not believe he is knavish. There are obviously things that he will not do, even to continue in office. But all his qualms and points of honor are bound, soon or late, to alienate the low down variety of politicians, who have no more notion of honor that so many street-walkers, and with them go the simian half-wits who are their customers. It is useful, in politics, to be decent, if only because it is so rare, but only up to a point. After that it is hazardous ...
...
"... The science of government is really very simple, else the world would have gone to pot long ago. The country will remain safe enough for all practical purposes so long as it is in the hands of a man of character, honest, gallant, and mellowed and moderated by a sense of humor. Most Americans, I take it, still believe that [Roosevelt then, Obama now] answers to these specifications. He will have a free hand while he can keep them thinking so."
Can Obama control the knaves and fanatics ? Can or will he eventually stand up to Princess Pelosi ? I wonder ...
Something is troubling me ... why is he taking the control of the Census into the White House ? That cannot be a good sign. It's actually in the style of Hugo Chavez, to politicize and corrupt a simple process of counting people. We'll see, but I am now suspicious.
Word of the Day
"Lave" - verb, transitive [$10] literary, from French
Lave means 1. wash, bath; 2. (of water) wash against, flow along.
Sentence:
A. [from Mencken referring to Chester Arthur] "But he was no village guzzler like Harding: he preferred vintage wines to hard liquor, and permitted only the best to lave his tonsils."
B. On Friday evenings, Bunkerman laves his throat (and would lave his tonsils if he had any) with a finely mixed Golden Kryptonite martini.
Le Mot du Jour
"Détendre" - verb, transitive - regular -re verb conjugated like rendre.
Détendre means 1. to release, to slacken, to relax. Se détendre [VPR] means 1. to loose its tension, to become slack; 2. to relax, to calm down, to become less tense.
La Phrase: Un verre de vin rouge me détend.
Sentence: A glass of red wine relaxes me.
Monday, December 8, 2008
A New Reader
I guess I have a new reader, viz. Obama, or perhaps his advisors. Maybe, or maybe this is just Tim Geitner passing on my ideas. [ joke ;) ]
From FT this morning: "Barack Obama on Sunday spelled out his plans for the biggest infrastructure investment in the US for half a century. The president-elect argued that with the economy reeling, his incoming administration could not afford to worry about a spiralling budget deficit. Mr Obama’s proposals for government works on roads, bridges, Internet broadband and school buildings, together with energy efficiency measures and health spending ..."
They are proposing almost everything I did except direct housing market suport, but I suspect they will do something to aid that market, too.
I'd like to see money spent on high speed rail between major cities less than 300 or 400 miles apart, instead of this wasted money on"alternative energy". "Alternative energy" has been a bottomless pit for over 30 year for crackpot schemes to violate either the laws of economics or the laws of physics or both.
Markets
Futures are up substantially so far this morning, perhaps a relief rally that Obama might not screw this up.
The concerns about corporate spreads are misguided. In my long experience of placing secured notes of corporations with institutions, absolute level of the rate is very important. Long term lenders really do not want to make long term, investment grade loans under 6%. They prefer to wait.
I also read with amusement that the credit default swaps rates of numerous nations is rising, including the US. What a fraud ! Who is going to pay off those swaps in such a catastrophe ? Those are just credit betting parlors and that whole "market" is a joke. Anyway, a credit default swap bears two risks, viz. the counter party AND the named credit. How does one distinguish that ? Credit default swaps should be banned from the financial system. Only those backed by regulated insurance contracts and hard capital should be permitted.
Word of the Day
"Irrefragable" - adj [$10] a Mrs. B word
Irrefragable means 1. (of a statement, argument or person) unanswerable, indisputable; 2. (of rules, etc.) inviolable.
Sentence: An irrefragable truth about General Motors is that its top managers and management culture has been a disaster for that company for at least 15 years, perhaps as long as 40 years.
From FT this morning: "Barack Obama on Sunday spelled out his plans for the biggest infrastructure investment in the US for half a century. The president-elect argued that with the economy reeling, his incoming administration could not afford to worry about a spiralling budget deficit. Mr Obama’s proposals for government works on roads, bridges, Internet broadband and school buildings, together with energy efficiency measures and health spending ..."
They are proposing almost everything I did except direct housing market suport, but I suspect they will do something to aid that market, too.
I'd like to see money spent on high speed rail between major cities less than 300 or 400 miles apart, instead of this wasted money on"alternative energy". "Alternative energy" has been a bottomless pit for over 30 year for crackpot schemes to violate either the laws of economics or the laws of physics or both.
Markets
Futures are up substantially so far this morning, perhaps a relief rally that Obama might not screw this up.
The concerns about corporate spreads are misguided. In my long experience of placing secured notes of corporations with institutions, absolute level of the rate is very important. Long term lenders really do not want to make long term, investment grade loans under 6%. They prefer to wait.
I also read with amusement that the credit default swaps rates of numerous nations is rising, including the US. What a fraud ! Who is going to pay off those swaps in such a catastrophe ? Those are just credit betting parlors and that whole "market" is a joke. Anyway, a credit default swap bears two risks, viz. the counter party AND the named credit. How does one distinguish that ? Credit default swaps should be banned from the financial system. Only those backed by regulated insurance contracts and hard capital should be permitted.
Word of the Day
"Irrefragable" - adj [$10] a Mrs. B word
Irrefragable means 1. (of a statement, argument or person) unanswerable, indisputable; 2. (of rules, etc.) inviolable.
Sentence: An irrefragable truth about General Motors is that its top managers and management culture has been a disaster for that company for at least 15 years, perhaps as long as 40 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
