I've been very busy as of late. In September, I moved to a new work location and had less time to do the things I enjoy. So, it's back to blogging - and I hope I find the time for this while dealing with both a long commute and the resumption of classes....
Lately, I've been thinking of the perceived tension between social cohesion and economic efficiency. Most people have seen this as an issue of distribution of wealth - 10% of the population has 90% of its wealth. They look at this issue and ask - how do we more rationally distribute wealth in society -or- how do we maximize the creation of wealth? I look at this issue differently. I see situations where we can have complete economic equality but no economic growth, and situations where we've maximized growth but have few people holding an extreme amount of wealth - recreating the feudal system of the middle ages. No one is talking about a "Sweet Spot" where the balance between economic efficiency and social cohesion maximizes the common wealth in society.
After WW2, America had 50% of the world's manufacturing capacity - a state which was not able to be maintained for the long term. But we had a flawed economic view - we expected businesses to take care of social welfare, while government did little to regulate the economy. As the economy became global, businesses had less incentive to invest in the American worker, yet our laws and regulations assumed that business could continue to follow the implied social contract of 1950. This was a recipe for disaster.
In the early 1960's, the failure of the Studebaker corporation showed us how risky company pensions were when companies went bankrupt. So we changed our laws to make sure that pensions were guaranteed by the federal government. However, we didn't change who held the investment risk for those pensions. As a result, more companies either disbanded the pension plans, or changed them into 401k plans with corporate contributions. Sadly, these realities never were reflected in the plans offered to public workers. These plans still gave their participants defined benefits for a given number of service years - leaving communities to shoulder investment risks. And when yields are low, as they are now, this forces many communities to make a hard choice - pay retirees, or pay for new employees to keep services running.
So, where does this leave us? Recently, I've been advocating that states go into prepackaged bankruptcies, so that they can renegotiate all of their union contracts and pay off all of their bonds 100 cents on the dollar. Pension liabilities would go to the federal government's Pension Fund Guarantee Board, where a maximum of $43k/year could be paid to any recipient. Yes, many retirees who get exorbitant retirement benefits would get hurt - but it might just save the states' ability to provide needed services (such as education, police, fire, etc.)for current and future generations. However, if this is done, we need to repeal the 11th amendment to the US constitution, so that people can sue the states in federal court - as we need some federal oversight in the process for when states break their contracts with the unions, and when the states break federal laws that are means to protect the rights of US citizens....
In short, to solve an important problem, we need to eliminate the idea of State Sovereignty. No longer can the sovereign be immune from court action. This is a major change in legal principle - but it is one which is long over due.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Random Thoughts
OK - It's been a month since I last blogged, and I'm bothered by what I am seeing in America. No, I'm not going to talk about issues such as abortion, "gay marriage", or the war in the Mideast. But I will discuss something important to me - America's lack of seriousness about preparing for its future.
Years ago, we had an elite that practiced a form of chivalry. Couple this with "the Protestant Work Ethic", and America had a recipe for success. The elite considered itself fortunate to be in its position, and didn't try to extract the last penny of wealth from the less fortunate. Today, many in our elite feel that they have no responsibility to those less fortunate than themselves - they extract every penny of wealth and expect that the golden goose will keep laying eggs.
America has made a big mistake. We have pursued the mantra that cheaper is better. So we cut costs by using cheaper labor - and quality suffers. Over time, we no longer have the money to buy slightly lesser cost goods with lower quality, as workers can not amortize the expense of a good education. Does this make sense? Trying to remove all the slack from the system has made us all poorer in one way or another.
We are moving into an age where knowledge workers won't just be those who manipulate abstract ideas. But it will include those workers who know how to design physical processes, and the products that result from those processes. And yet, we do an extremely poor job of educating those future workers because we assume that we can fix our schools in isolation from the rest of society's ills.
Take a disadvantaged family (either from a rural area or an urban area) and you'll find people who often have poor communications skills, poor education, poor social skills and behavior, and are barely one step ahead of the creditors (if they are that lucky). How can we expect to educate the children from these communities if we don't take care of the problems affecting the family?
Should government be the employer of last resort? Progressives will answer YES, while conservatives answer NO. But, when businesses ask the government for help, shouldn't that help come with strings attached? Why should we have bailed out the banks, unless they could find work for a given number of unemployed people?
What about health care? If we want to get the government out of mandating health care insurance, shouldn't we relieve the hospitals of the responsibility of providing emergency care to the indigent? This would provide the market force check and balance to hospital prices that conservatives claim they want. If we consider health care as a right, shouldn't we make this a government function - and go further than Obamacare has done? Let's have an honest discussion of these issues, and stop shouting partisan rhetoric which drowns out serious talk.
Of course, we have an extreme debt problem in both state and federal governments. I expect to see the states (most of them) go bankrupt in all but name, and be bailed out by Uncle Sam. But will the federal government take to the printing press? I hope not. But when the public is polled, they refuse to allow defense or social welfare (including social security and medicare) to be cut. Does it make sense to cut grandpa's blood pressure medication to allow your daughter to live life without paying the debts of two or three generations of deadbeats? Does it make sense to cut G.I. Joe's ammunition ration, and have him come home in a body bag? Of course not! But what do we do? Again, we need honest communication which is not happening.
So it's no wonder why the Tea Party movement is gaining in popularity. But they do not have enough focus to get things to change. They need real solutions, not rhetoric. Give me examples of social spending changes and defense budget changes they propose before we take them seriously. Yet, the Tea Party movement is valuable simply because it upsets the apple cart of politics. The thought of them winning brings an old Wile E. Cyote/Roadrunner cartton to mind - where Wile E. catches the Roadrunner. Below the scene (where Wile E. is holding the Roadrunner's leg) is the statement: "You've always wanted this. Now, what do we do?????"
Years ago, we had an elite that practiced a form of chivalry. Couple this with "the Protestant Work Ethic", and America had a recipe for success. The elite considered itself fortunate to be in its position, and didn't try to extract the last penny of wealth from the less fortunate. Today, many in our elite feel that they have no responsibility to those less fortunate than themselves - they extract every penny of wealth and expect that the golden goose will keep laying eggs.
America has made a big mistake. We have pursued the mantra that cheaper is better. So we cut costs by using cheaper labor - and quality suffers. Over time, we no longer have the money to buy slightly lesser cost goods with lower quality, as workers can not amortize the expense of a good education. Does this make sense? Trying to remove all the slack from the system has made us all poorer in one way or another.
We are moving into an age where knowledge workers won't just be those who manipulate abstract ideas. But it will include those workers who know how to design physical processes, and the products that result from those processes. And yet, we do an extremely poor job of educating those future workers because we assume that we can fix our schools in isolation from the rest of society's ills.
Take a disadvantaged family (either from a rural area or an urban area) and you'll find people who often have poor communications skills, poor education, poor social skills and behavior, and are barely one step ahead of the creditors (if they are that lucky). How can we expect to educate the children from these communities if we don't take care of the problems affecting the family?
Should government be the employer of last resort? Progressives will answer YES, while conservatives answer NO. But, when businesses ask the government for help, shouldn't that help come with strings attached? Why should we have bailed out the banks, unless they could find work for a given number of unemployed people?
What about health care? If we want to get the government out of mandating health care insurance, shouldn't we relieve the hospitals of the responsibility of providing emergency care to the indigent? This would provide the market force check and balance to hospital prices that conservatives claim they want. If we consider health care as a right, shouldn't we make this a government function - and go further than Obamacare has done? Let's have an honest discussion of these issues, and stop shouting partisan rhetoric which drowns out serious talk.
Of course, we have an extreme debt problem in both state and federal governments. I expect to see the states (most of them) go bankrupt in all but name, and be bailed out by Uncle Sam. But will the federal government take to the printing press? I hope not. But when the public is polled, they refuse to allow defense or social welfare (including social security and medicare) to be cut. Does it make sense to cut grandpa's blood pressure medication to allow your daughter to live life without paying the debts of two or three generations of deadbeats? Does it make sense to cut G.I. Joe's ammunition ration, and have him come home in a body bag? Of course not! But what do we do? Again, we need honest communication which is not happening.
So it's no wonder why the Tea Party movement is gaining in popularity. But they do not have enough focus to get things to change. They need real solutions, not rhetoric. Give me examples of social spending changes and defense budget changes they propose before we take them seriously. Yet, the Tea Party movement is valuable simply because it upsets the apple cart of politics. The thought of them winning brings an old Wile E. Cyote/Roadrunner cartton to mind - where Wile E. catches the Roadrunner. Below the scene (where Wile E. is holding the Roadrunner's leg) is the statement: "You've always wanted this. Now, what do we do?????"
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Mosques
It's been about a month, and not much is going on - save a tempest in a teapot.
I'm concerned about how people are willing to sacrifice the 1st Amendment to the constitution at the altar of propriety. Do Muslims have the same rights as Christians and Jews to worship as they please? Our constitution says YES. But people are associating Islam with the attacks of 9/11. Is this right? NO. Yet it is happening anyway.
I'll admit to a prejudice against Arab culture. But that bias has been shared among many great Americans - George S. Patton for one. This allows us to separate our feelings about Arabs from the religion most practice. Americans often do not realize that a sizable number of Muslims are not Arab and do not see the world as severely as Arabs. Yet, we're tainting these peaceful Muslims who want to build a Mosque in Lower Manhattan with the same stain that we are using against Arabs. This is not right - people should always be judged as individuals - even if they belong to groups with whom we are not at ease....
So what do we do? I choose to live by the principle of our law - even if I am not happy with one of the results of that law. And I hope that more people choose to do so. I'd prefer that the mosque be built elsewhere - but there are many other problems with which I am more concerned....
I'm concerned about how people are willing to sacrifice the 1st Amendment to the constitution at the altar of propriety. Do Muslims have the same rights as Christians and Jews to worship as they please? Our constitution says YES. But people are associating Islam with the attacks of 9/11. Is this right? NO. Yet it is happening anyway.
I'll admit to a prejudice against Arab culture. But that bias has been shared among many great Americans - George S. Patton for one. This allows us to separate our feelings about Arabs from the religion most practice. Americans often do not realize that a sizable number of Muslims are not Arab and do not see the world as severely as Arabs. Yet, we're tainting these peaceful Muslims who want to build a Mosque in Lower Manhattan with the same stain that we are using against Arabs. This is not right - people should always be judged as individuals - even if they belong to groups with whom we are not at ease....
So what do we do? I choose to live by the principle of our law - even if I am not happy with one of the results of that law. And I hope that more people choose to do so. I'd prefer that the mosque be built elsewhere - but there are many other problems with which I am more concerned....
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Oil's well that ends welled!
Finally - "Mission Accomplished" in the gulf!!!!
We've capped one oil well but have not taken realistic steps to prevent the problem from happening again. What frightens me is that we have bigger exploration rigs still active - and we don't know what the risks are which are a byproduct of these super sized wells....
Just because the well has been capped, does not mean that the problems caused by the leak are gone. There's still a lot of cleanup to be done. Let's hope we see real results soon.....
We've capped one oil well but have not taken realistic steps to prevent the problem from happening again. What frightens me is that we have bigger exploration rigs still active - and we don't know what the risks are which are a byproduct of these super sized wells....
Just because the well has been capped, does not mean that the problems caused by the leak are gone. There's still a lot of cleanup to be done. Let's hope we see real results soon.....
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Government Blocking News Reporting
OK - If you've thought that we're in deep shit with the oil spill, and that mainstream media wasn't giving us all the news, then look at what government is doing to block accurate reporting of the news.
In the news article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/us/10access.html?hp
the NY Times reports that various levels of government are blocking access by the media to view the spill zones. Yes, some media may be getting into "ground zero" to report the news. But other media is being denied "fly-over" access, as if Uncle Sam is helping BP with managing its spin.
What bothers me now is not BP declaring bankruptcy, but that the bankruptcy will be prepackaged. This means that BP will supply a one time funding of a trust to pay out oil spill related claims against the old BP, sever the link between the old and new BP, and preserve stockholder assets at the expense of the gulf coast inhabitants and businesses they have screwed. This is not right.
We must make sure that if BP declares bankruptcy, that all of its assets are liquidated, and the proceeds from the liquidation be dedicated solely to restoring the health of the gulf coast - as long as there is money in the liquidation fund. I don't know about other people, but this is one time I intend to write my congressman and senators about an issue....
In the news article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/us/10access.html?hp
the NY Times reports that various levels of government are blocking access by the media to view the spill zones. Yes, some media may be getting into "ground zero" to report the news. But other media is being denied "fly-over" access, as if Uncle Sam is helping BP with managing its spin.
What bothers me now is not BP declaring bankruptcy, but that the bankruptcy will be prepackaged. This means that BP will supply a one time funding of a trust to pay out oil spill related claims against the old BP, sever the link between the old and new BP, and preserve stockholder assets at the expense of the gulf coast inhabitants and businesses they have screwed. This is not right.
We must make sure that if BP declares bankruptcy, that all of its assets are liquidated, and the proceeds from the liquidation be dedicated solely to restoring the health of the gulf coast - as long as there is money in the liquidation fund. I don't know about other people, but this is one time I intend to write my congressman and senators about an issue....
Friday, June 4, 2010
Ecological Disaster
I wonder how many people have seen the projections on how the oil spill will flow into the Atlantic. I have, and it is scary. It looks like much of the key Atlantic fishing areas are about to become a dead zone.
Are we hearing much about this in the mainstream media? NO - Of course not! The media and the government are afraid to tell the people the truth - the situation is FUBAR! (For those who are not familiar with the expression "FUBAR", it means - Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition.) What is going to happen when we can no longer eat North American lobster and other shellfish? What is going to happen to our already decimated herds of whales in the North Atlantic? Can they survive? We know so little about what will happen to marine life - and we depend on it so much.
In today's news, the mainstream media finally noted that government has no knowledge of what to do about the oil spill - all knowledge is in the hands of the oil companies. Why didn't government take on an active observation role, and help develop mandatory best practices? Why did we let BP, one of the worst violators of safety standards, drill an extremely risky well? Even the Canadians have better mandated practices than we have. What would it have taken for current and previous administrations to convince business to invest more in remediation technology? (I just learned that much of the oil spill remediation technology we have was developed in the late 1970's/early 1980's - not much has been developed or enhanced in 30 years!!!!) This seems like a multigenerational screw up to the maximum degree!!!!
Of course, we're now seeing a criminal investigation of BP. But will they ever be able to extract much money from the oil company. The other day, I heard an estimate for EPA criminal penalties for this oil spill of $12 billion. Does anyone think we'll get more than a fraction of this figure? I don't.....
Are we hearing much about this in the mainstream media? NO - Of course not! The media and the government are afraid to tell the people the truth - the situation is FUBAR! (For those who are not familiar with the expression "FUBAR", it means - Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition.) What is going to happen when we can no longer eat North American lobster and other shellfish? What is going to happen to our already decimated herds of whales in the North Atlantic? Can they survive? We know so little about what will happen to marine life - and we depend on it so much.
In today's news, the mainstream media finally noted that government has no knowledge of what to do about the oil spill - all knowledge is in the hands of the oil companies. Why didn't government take on an active observation role, and help develop mandatory best practices? Why did we let BP, one of the worst violators of safety standards, drill an extremely risky well? Even the Canadians have better mandated practices than we have. What would it have taken for current and previous administrations to convince business to invest more in remediation technology? (I just learned that much of the oil spill remediation technology we have was developed in the late 1970's/early 1980's - not much has been developed or enhanced in 30 years!!!!) This seems like a multigenerational screw up to the maximum degree!!!!
Of course, we're now seeing a criminal investigation of BP. But will they ever be able to extract much money from the oil company. The other day, I heard an estimate for EPA criminal penalties for this oil spill of $12 billion. Does anyone think we'll get more than a fraction of this figure? I don't.....
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Ineptitude and Confusion
Malcolm Gladwell, in his book, The Outliers, notes that it takes about 10,000 hours of "practice" to become expert practitioner in almost any field. For most of us, this means that once we enter the work force, it takes about 5 years to develop expertise in our craft.
Most of us talk about common sense when it comes to preventing problems. But when it came to the "O Rings" on the Challenger space shuttle, did we heed the call of the engineer who wanted to call off the launch? Or, did we heed the needs of the politicians who wanted to send the bird up on schedule? Common sense gets thrown away when large institutions get involved with doing anything, as they have too many competing interests.
Right now, we're seeing the American right wing make a lot of noise about Obama not doing what America needs. Do they expect a "Superman"? And what about the "dittoheads" who parrot what Rush Limbaugh says? Could any of them do any better? It's a miracle that Obama has not crashed and burned, given less than 2 years on the job and the fires he has had to fight.
Both political parties are responsible for the mess we're in. The oil spill has shown how corrupt the MMR department became, because the United States has had no energy policy (except to buy it from risky areas such as the Middle East) and has had no intention of pursuing one. The law in Arizona shows what the lack of a real immigration policy has done to the United States - We depend on the illegal aliens who do much of the grunt work native Americans no longer do. When was the last time we went to a diner which didn't have illegal staff where the public didn't see them? What about many of our gardening services - I'll bet that many of their workers are illegally here as well. Do we want to kick them all out and end up paying more for these services? Most people will say NO to that. So what do we do?
Let's focus on immigration first. (I've covered Resource/Energy policy in a previous posting.) The people who want us to seal the border are correct. How can we have a serious immigration policy when we can't control who is immigrating to the United States? We need realistic penalties for those employers who hire illegal help. This also means that we need an easy (100% accurate) way to validate a prospective employee's right to look for work in this country. This is likely to be a big problem, but not an unmanageable one - I don't hear of any problems with US Passports being issued to illegal aliens. A similar document could be used as proof as our right to work here, and it could have biometric validation for safety.
But what about our dependency on the illegal work force? It would be inhumane to send these people home to countries where no work is available *and* it would disrupt much of the service sector economy we depend on these days. The conservatives are right when they talk of these immigrants as having broken laws. Why should they be first on line to be legalized? Once legal, why should they be first on line to become citizens? They have shown us a great disrespect by breaking the law for the first action they do on American soil.
I propose that any program developed as part of a real immigration policy consist of the following:
1. Building an effective border "fence" to keep people from crossing our Southern border illegally.
2. Create a foolproof way to validate that a person has the right to work here, and have meaningful penalties for those employers who hire illegals without appropriate due diligence.
3. For a one year period, create a temporary amnesty, where people illegally resident in the United States could apply for residency (not leading to US Citizenship for them or their children once legal residents). This application may not be done on United States soil, but must be sent to the United States from foreign soil. (In short, the illegals must go home to apply for legalization of their status.)
4. Only legal immigrants and their offspring may gain United States citizenship. (We may need to clarify this with an amendment to the constitution.) However, illegal aliens (and their children) who filed for legal residency (according to rules of #3 above) may only become American Nationals - they may carry American passports (like residents of some Pacific islands), work in the United States, travel freely, but NOT vote or hold public office. In short, they gain permanent green cards and American passports.
Even with these changes, this is the tip of the iceberg. We need the labor, and they need the work. All I'm proposing is a humane way of breaking the political deadlock and making political reality reflect the reality we all see every day.
Most of us talk about common sense when it comes to preventing problems. But when it came to the "O Rings" on the Challenger space shuttle, did we heed the call of the engineer who wanted to call off the launch? Or, did we heed the needs of the politicians who wanted to send the bird up on schedule? Common sense gets thrown away when large institutions get involved with doing anything, as they have too many competing interests.
Right now, we're seeing the American right wing make a lot of noise about Obama not doing what America needs. Do they expect a "Superman"? And what about the "dittoheads" who parrot what Rush Limbaugh says? Could any of them do any better? It's a miracle that Obama has not crashed and burned, given less than 2 years on the job and the fires he has had to fight.
Both political parties are responsible for the mess we're in. The oil spill has shown how corrupt the MMR department became, because the United States has had no energy policy (except to buy it from risky areas such as the Middle East) and has had no intention of pursuing one. The law in Arizona shows what the lack of a real immigration policy has done to the United States - We depend on the illegal aliens who do much of the grunt work native Americans no longer do. When was the last time we went to a diner which didn't have illegal staff where the public didn't see them? What about many of our gardening services - I'll bet that many of their workers are illegally here as well. Do we want to kick them all out and end up paying more for these services? Most people will say NO to that. So what do we do?
Let's focus on immigration first. (I've covered Resource/Energy policy in a previous posting.) The people who want us to seal the border are correct. How can we have a serious immigration policy when we can't control who is immigrating to the United States? We need realistic penalties for those employers who hire illegal help. This also means that we need an easy (100% accurate) way to validate a prospective employee's right to look for work in this country. This is likely to be a big problem, but not an unmanageable one - I don't hear of any problems with US Passports being issued to illegal aliens. A similar document could be used as proof as our right to work here, and it could have biometric validation for safety.
But what about our dependency on the illegal work force? It would be inhumane to send these people home to countries where no work is available *and* it would disrupt much of the service sector economy we depend on these days. The conservatives are right when they talk of these immigrants as having broken laws. Why should they be first on line to be legalized? Once legal, why should they be first on line to become citizens? They have shown us a great disrespect by breaking the law for the first action they do on American soil.
I propose that any program developed as part of a real immigration policy consist of the following:
1. Building an effective border "fence" to keep people from crossing our Southern border illegally.
2. Create a foolproof way to validate that a person has the right to work here, and have meaningful penalties for those employers who hire illegals without appropriate due diligence.
3. For a one year period, create a temporary amnesty, where people illegally resident in the United States could apply for residency (not leading to US Citizenship for them or their children once legal residents). This application may not be done on United States soil, but must be sent to the United States from foreign soil. (In short, the illegals must go home to apply for legalization of their status.)
4. Only legal immigrants and their offspring may gain United States citizenship. (We may need to clarify this with an amendment to the constitution.) However, illegal aliens (and their children) who filed for legal residency (according to rules of #3 above) may only become American Nationals - they may carry American passports (like residents of some Pacific islands), work in the United States, travel freely, but NOT vote or hold public office. In short, they gain permanent green cards and American passports.
Even with these changes, this is the tip of the iceberg. We need the labor, and they need the work. All I'm proposing is a humane way of breaking the political deadlock and making political reality reflect the reality we all see every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)