Henry George - Progress and Poverty

Notes from the text:
Introduction

• The gist of his argument is that the areas of greatest progress are the areas of greatest poverty. The progress that generates luxuries for some creates poverty for others.
• This is most highly concentrated in the most developed, wealthiest cities
• Workers emigrate to developing areas seeking higher wages, capital flows there seeking higher interest
• Progress does not prevent poverty, but rather, just as progress advances to the point where some live a life of ease, other willing workers are unable to find work. "Beggars and prisons are the mark of progress as surely as elegant mansions, bulging warehouses, and magnificent churches."
• The basic argument is that producers become more efficient and reduce their need for labor, and wages are driven down in favor of profits
• Important to note, the alternative -- a lack of progress -- no one lives in luxury, but all who desire work are able to make a living working
• This may partially explain why the majority of large well established cities are blue states, and why more rural areas tend to be red states. They experience different economic environments -- one has great riches and great poverty, preferring that government do something about the imbalance, the other having less striation and less luxury, but the ability to make a living. Also included in the red states are the up and coming cities in Texas, sprawled out and not yet over populated and over run by the ill effects of progress.
• One important question which I hope the author addresses is, does progress inherently create poverty, or is it due to a correctable factor, such as more fairly distributing wage amongst workers. A company could hire fewer workers in favor of fixed capital, but so long as he keeps wage and profit in the same balance, the same amount of money is getting back into the local economy, and another company could take up those fired employees.
• Another prophetic quote, "Progress simply widens the gulf between rich and poor. It makes the struggle for existence more intense. Wherever these forces are at work, large classes are maintained on charity."
• My own thoughts: Technological advances are key to economic progress, just as it is key to military success (can include innovative devices as well as innovative techniques). The difference is that while military advances equally benefit (or hurt) a country's citizens, economic advances benefit only those partaking in it. If military worked the same way, then only the soldiers and generals would benefit from success on the battlefield. We also treat our military members as heroes for their efforts, and to some extent we treat economic "generals" as idols. Why not be more forthcoming with that treatment, but also ask more from them. Thank them for pushing this country forward, but also recognize that this is truly the rising tide that is meant to raise all boats. It would absolutely be best if this be recognized through company policy, rather than through legislation.

Part1: Wages and Capital
Ch1: Why Traditional Theories of Wages are Wrong

• Traditional theories rely on three axioms: 1) Wages are set by the ratio between workers and capital available for labor, 2) Population increases faster than capital (and is in fact restricted by capital), and therefore 3) wages always tend toward the lowest levels workers will tolerate
• Interesting that prices are also supposed to tend to the lowest levels consumers will tolerate, but that supposition isn't occurring, while lowest wages are
• quick comment on the fallacies of protectionism on pg 9
• would be interesting to see a plot of the ratio (work force/compensation) or even (employed work force/compensation) over time, and see how that stacks up against median wage over time
• I disagree with his logic regarding the relationship between wages and interest from the traditional perspective. If wage is determined by the ratio of labor force and capital, and capital not used on wage may be invested elsewhere, then a high demand for labor resulting in high wage would mean less funds available for investing elsewhere, so high demand for capital, and high interest rates, which as he observes is what we do actually experience. However, you could have higher wage, with fewer workers and not see the amount of capital used for wage change at all, and consequently not see any change in interest rates, which I think is also reflected by reality
• George states that "Wages are not drawn from capital. On the contrary, wages are drawn from the product of the labor for which they are paid." (regarding production of goods, not services)
• If wages are drawn from capital then: labor is limited by capital, labor can only be employed after the accumulation of capital, conversion of circulating capital to fixed capital reduces capital available for wage (I disagree, it just gets transferred to the wage of producers of fixed capital), more laborers can be employed at low wage than at high wage (...disproving this would pretty well blow my mind. Even proving his statement here would not discount this notion), profits are high when wages are low.
• Argues that if capital is the store of labor's value, then requiring capital in order to permit labor is to require labor in order to permit labor, requiring that there be some initial injection of capital to allow the first labor to begin
• In actuality, that is exactly what happens. The government either injects money directly, or money is created through debt taken on by an entrepreneur (but of course borrowed money is just saved money from someone else, so truly money is only injected at some point by the government)
• Something I have also attempted to explain, and the basis for my own economic solutions, "There is a fundamental truth in all economic reasoning that we must firmly grasp and never let go of. Modern society, though highly developed, is only an elaboration of the simplest society." pg. 13
• Trade allowed for division of labor, money replaced bartering to simplify the exchange process and further the benefits of specialization, but our wage in money still represents the relative value of our own labor in terms of what we could get had we traded directly. With such a vast market, it is difficult to accurately place a value on wage, though it is done automatically through supply and demand for labor (and in the traditional notion, that is relative to the supply and demand for capital), just as supply and demand for the products sets prices, which must also limit wage for the labor going into that product.
• Also of note is that the division of labor permits specialization, even if unrelated, if the goods are exchanged, then my bread making has contributed to the ability of a berry picker, by freeing up the time he would have to have spent on doing multiple tasks less efficiently; thus, both benefit. Likewise, the worker bees are what make it possible for the CEOs to specialize in managing.
• In primitive societies, production precedes enjoyment. A fisherman and a canoe maker must each provide their labor before either may receive the benefits of that labor. 
• But is that necessarily different from traditional thought? Employees work first, get paid later, it's just that the employer must have the money by the time pay day comes around. Likewise in nature, the fish must previously be in the river before the fisherman and canoe maker may enjoy the fish. If the fisherman knew there was no fish there, he wouldn't go fishing, likewise an employee would not go to work if he suspected his boss couldn't pay him.
• The important point though, is that money is just the representation of how much of the total product of society the worker has earned -- a place holder/marker. It is not a prerequisite to the work itself. (last paragraph pg 15)

CH 2: Defining Terms

• Wage - Compensation paid to someone for their exertion in producing wealth -- labor of any sort
• Capital - wealth/stock devoted to producing more wealth/stock
• Confusions: There are things equivalent to possessing capital, and whether or not something is or is not capital is determined by its use
• Interest - Return for the use of capital
• Rent - Return for the use of land
• Land - the whole material universe outside of humans themselves - land, water, animals, sky, etc.
• Wealth - "Increase in the amount of bonds, mortgages, or notes cannot increase the wealth of the community, since that community includes those who pay as well as those who receive. Slavery does not increase the wealth of a people, for what the masters gain the enslaved lose. Rising land values do not increase the common wealth, as whatever landowners gain by higher prices, tenants or purchasers lose in paying them. All this relative wealth is undistinguished from actual wealth in legislation and law, as well as common thought and speech. Yet with the destruction of nothing more than a few drops of ink and a piece of paper, all this “wealth” could be utterly annihilated. By an act of law, debts may be canceled, slaves emancipated, land made common property. Yet the aggregate wealth would not be diminished at all—for what some would lose others would gain. Wealth was not created when Queen Elizabeth graced her favorite courtiers with profitable monopolies, nor when Boris Godunov declared Russian peasants to be property. The term wealth, when used in political economy, does not include all things having an exchange value. It includes only those things that increase the aggregate wealth when produced or decrease it when destroyed." p.23
• Should this sentiment not be extended to the earth? Whatever wealth created is removed from the resources of the earth, thus should be limited by the rate at which the earth can replenish itself.
• A random observation: I just told my boss about the nature of poverty in cities, and he immediately concluded it's because that's where all the socialist money goes. There are certain people whose brains I think have a talent for making any stat -- true or false -- conform to their existing view of the world, rather than asking what the nature of that stat is, and how it could be proven. And this has nothing to do with intelligence, he is a very smart person. In this case, the depths of poverty that are pervasive within a city exist in large cities all over the world, regardless of the social system, and I would probably argue that it is less severe in the more socialized states... though that's neither here nor there.
• Considers wealth to include tangible things that have a real value, not just a relative value. Things that are made of natural substances, converted by human labor for human use
• Wealth is not the sole objective of labor - because there are also service and transportation jobs - but is the objective of "productive labor"
• Capital - Agrees with Adam Smith that capital is "that part of a man’s stock which he expects to yield him a revenue."
• in terms of wealth, capital is the wealth that is not yet exchanged, or that is dedicated to production
• considers transportation, storekeepers, middlemen, etc. to be a part of production
• I would tend to consider those services rather than production. They provide the service of getting a product from point A to point B, but the absence of their service does not destroy capital

CH3: Wages are Produced by Labor, not Drawn from Capital

• Argues that if you pick wild berries, those berries are your wage, with no capital involved. However, in the next example - shoe making from leather and thread - he states that the leather and thread are the initial capital, labor is applied and value added, and the resulting product is pre-existing capital + value added by labor. He argues the difference in the value of the original materials and the final product are the wage. Then, in the first example, the initial "capital" is the berry, and the wage would be the value of bringing the berry from the bush to home. 
• His explanation is muddled, but his point is a good one; that is, value is in each of us and is in our own efforts. The things we receive for our efforts must also have value, or we should not exchange our labor value for them
• The further point he makes I think is less true; he argues that our efforts are the precondition to production, not the capital, but I think that is only because he does not consider natural resources to be capital. I don't know if there's a difference to him between water in a stream or water in a pipe, but where a farmer gets his water doesn't make it to be capital or not, it's whether he uses it to grow crops. There must be something to be had in exchange for labor, be it the thing produced by labor, or money that is paid for the thing produced, and in order to produce anything there must also be the resources (capital) to produce it!
• Argues the fund used to pay wage is the fund created by labor, but I think there is too much instantaneous transaction going on here: Producer procures necessary capital for production, and must be confident he has a buyer or would go out of business. He fronts the money to pay for wage, knowing that he can get more money once the produced goods are sold to buyers. Buyers are either end consumers or a middleman to an end consumer, but in the absence of payment from end consumers, there would be no wage. THAT is where the capital ultimately comes from. Let me see if I can better explain George's theory:
• In the absence of money, wage would be the difference in value between the resources used and the product produced, and if the effort is put forth to create something for oneself, then the laborer is also the end consumer. Once we start making things for other end consumers, the value is still that difference, but if no consumer will pay for the product, then someone between laborer and retailer will get stuck with that product and will have effectively paid for something for which they had no need. If that is the expected outcome, then the supply of capital going to the production of that good will dry up, and no one will be hired to produce it, the value in each laborer will no longer be used to create that product, and will hopefully be set to more necessary productive means. In essence, desire for a product could also be considered capital, as that desire is represented in money and ultimately pays for wage and capital going into that product.
• To summarize: A businessman anticipates there being an end consumer who will pay for the product of the labor, and can either front the money for wage or pay after the exchange, but the desire for the product must exist (either before or after production), and that desire must manifest itself in some form of payment, or future production will halt.
• "Production is the source of wages. Wages come from the fruits of labor—not the advance of capital. Labor always precedes wages." p. 31 - I would consider none of that to be true even considering his explanation
• The point he's confusing is that wages may also be paid prior to completion of a product. I may be paid every 2 weeks for something completed only once every 2 years, but that doesn't mean I'll keep on doing it until completion without pay. What he may not be accounting for is the value added by the employer, which may include coordinating many efforts into a single product, and also anticipating market behavior. An employer could be seen as a temporary consumer because he really does buy the product until the time when he passes it on to a real end consumer. His wage may be derived from his labor in coordinating a work force, and his willingness to pay for a product until it can be exchanged with an end consumer.
• He makes an argument that the food and clothing needed by each worker does not count as capital, because it is expected an employee will feed and clothe himself regardless of whether the employer provides breakfast and a uniform.
• This is true to an extent, but clothing is capital if it's in some way necessary for the job, such as protective clothing or a uniform. If we were talking about a stable of horses used for production, then surely the oats fed to the horses would be considered capital. I believe the way these things should be viewed is that employers hire able employees just as they purchase functioning equipment. They pay for a person's work or a company's machine based on its ability to perform its function. If a person were so hungry and naked that he could not work, then the employer would hire someone else. Going back to Adam Smith's definition of capital being that part of a man's stock being put to productive purposes, that might go to say that the portion of a man's wage being put to being employable would be considered capital. Food that is sustenance and not luxury, clothing worn to work or an interview, water for a shower, etc. should be considered an employee's own capital in the sale of himself as a worker. The employer is buying the finished product that man has produced and presented as well as the labor to be performed.
• This is a good argument for liveable wages, because even in cases where food and uniforms are provided, hygiene, sleep, sanity, etc. are typically not. Even if a worker would work for less than a liveable wage out of desperation, they would eventually be run down to nothing and be unable to perform their job. The employer would hire the next person willing to work at that rate, until they were run down to nothing. Why does it seem obvious that if we were to work and starve cattle to death that it would be an unsustainable business practice, but when it comes to people, somehow the market magically sets what a person should be willing to work for and live on.
• Can someone in the US live on Chinese wages? Not really, because it's what the wages can buy that matters.
• Is running an employee into the ground the way you can do to cattle really an issue? No, there are many many more sacrifices an employee could make before they would become useless to the employer, especially when there are jobs where a depressed, mindless drone can perform the functions just as easily. That seems to be a good argument for people striving to do work that requires a fully functioning, intelligent human being.
• "How can it be said that wages are advanced by capital or drawn from preexisting capital? The value paid in wages is an exchange for value created by labor. And the employer always gets the capital created by labor before paying out capital in wages. At what point, then, is  capital lessened, even temporarily?" p. 33 - Here George blatantly disregards the risk taken on by the employer, further confirming my suspicion that he has completely overlooked the role and value of employers.
• His cotton into cloth example is HORRIBLE, he gives a list of items used in production, then just says resources are converted to final goods, there is some wear and tear to equipment, money supply goes down in exchange for the labor, and goods sold for a profit. So, since there is a net increase in capital, there was no advance of capital!??!?! NOOOO! All those things listed as being used to accomplish production were an advance of capital, how else would they have gotten there??? These are all provided by the employer with the expectation of a return on that capital!
• Next example is even worse, "Let’s say I go to a broker to exchange silver for gold. As I give them my silver, they hand me the equivalent in gold (minus commission). Does the broker advance any capital? Certainly not! What they had before in gold, they now have in silver (plus profit!). Since they received the silver before paying out the gold, they did not—even for
  an instant—advance any capital." p. 36 He has the roles completely reversed in this analogy. The employer is the one with the silver, handing those resources to the employees to have them converted into something more valuable in exchange for a commission (wage), then the employer gets his product which he expects to sell for more than whatever he paid to have it produced. But it is the EMPLOYER who advances the capital, it is the employer who risks not getting in exchange what he was promised by the labor (money changers), it is NOT the labor who has advanced ANYTHING >.<!!!
• I'm skipping the rest of this chapter, this is absurd

CH 4: Workers Not Supported by Capital

• John Stuart Mill asserted that people are maintained “not by the produce of present labor, but of past.” p. 41. If he thinks he's going to disprove this statement based on the foundations laid out in the previous chapter, I may as well skip this chapter as well.
• If the classicists had laid out the desire for goods as a form of capital, would that have changed anything? Desire for goods is what converts money into capital, and employers assuming they can get more capital than they have paid is what makes them continue doing business.
• If that is how capital is created, is capital destroyed by taxes? Not if those taxes are used to also perform a desired function, but if it is done so inefficiently, then surely there should be some sort of efficiency factor applied. For example, in a perfectly competitive market there should be no efficiency mark down of capital used, however the more monopolistic a market, the more an efficiency factor -- determined by the monopolies -- should be applied.
• skimming this chapter I am certain Geroge is an idiot, moving on to the next chapter.

CH 5: The True Functions of Capital

• Lists all the legitimate restraints capital has on production, but still insists a lack of capital does not restrain industry except in a few special cases. Just because the norm is for it to not happen, does not mean it doesn't happen. People rarely drown or starve to death, but it doesn't mean they don't require food and oxygen to survive.
•  Goes on to blame government rather than a lack of capital with very little evidence
• His argument that indigenous people would not benefit from capital may be correct, but his reasoning is flawed. Knowledge of how to use the particular types of capital is one thing, and having a people who would want the products of that labor are another, neither of which have anything to do with whether a shortage of capital hinders progress.
• Cool quote, "No matter how much water you pour in a bucket, it can never hold more than a bucketful." p. 50 Should apply the quote to the vast wealth of the rich
• Super wrong quote, "Other things being equal, the more labor, the higher wages should be."

Part 2: Population and Subsistance
CH 6: The Theory of Population According to Malthus

• Malthusian Population theory: human populations tend to expand geometrically until resources can no longer sustain such growth (resources growing arithmetically). The corollary is that as resources dwindle, crime and poverty naturally arise in the void. George sees this as an all too convenient theory for the rich who would be told that even if they did spread their wealth, it is only natural that the most dense populations will experience crime and poverty.
• Ricardo made a similar theory as it applied to rents: Rents go up as cultivation extends to less and less fertile lands
• According to Malthus, "Poverty is due to the pressure of population against subsistence. Or in its other form, the number of laborers will always increase until wages are reduced to the minimum of survival." p.56 I wonder if this is actually true. Does someone need to be getting paid at the threshold of survival in order to stop the population from growing? If everyone is making a healthy living in a certain area, will others migrate there and flood the labor markets until undercutting takes us back to that minimum threshold? Is minimum wage then holding that minimum theshold artificially high, above the "survival" threshold, allowing people to continue to live wasteful lives and collecting government checks?
• On that same thread, is welfare and minimum wage what permit continued over population in the ghettos?
• are there certain prerequisites to progress? Like, before we can have things like welfare, is there not a certain level of financial maturity required of the public, and also an understanding of sex ed (condoms, abstinence, BC, etc.) to slow population growth in impoverished groups? In order to have a minimum wage, do we need to either ensure that people can earn liveable wages world wide or stop immigration and even internal migration?
• George seeks to disprove these theories

CH 7: Malthus vs. Facts

•  Asserts that because it is impossible to truly distinguish causes of poverty and want, that it cannot be said that it is population growth rather than things like government and war
• Asserts that population ebs and flows, rather than growing constantly, which modern population censuses can clearly show is wrong.
• Haha, I love the lack of foresight on p. 61, talking about China and India's population densities, well a few centuries later it is a REAL problem, each country now having populations rivaling the entire global populations at the time of George's writing.
• WHAT!?! then he argues that increasing the capital of the lower classes could not have helped their abject poverty so long as the kings and princes held so much wealth.... that makes NO sense, and didn't he just argue that Malthus's convenient theory was designed to tell the rich not to provide that much needed capital? Do the rajas need to be poor in order for peasants to have adequate tools to work their fields? No.

I think I need to stop reading this book. Many of his observations so badly need to be addressed, but his conclusions are pathetically bad. For instance, the avarice of the ruling classes in India were surely overly indulgent, but to draw from this fact that increased capital could not have helped the poor is just wrong. Sure there are other issues that also need to be addressed here, but that doesn't mean that having more capital is useless.

Understanding

Yin's latest homework assignment is a very interesting one; she is to write a paper on what she thinks should be the new American Dream. I suggested it should be "Understanding," that we should all strive to better understand each other and the world we live in. I think there are clear examples to be drawn from in international policy, domestic policy, economics, and cultural benefits. I'll write down what I think those are later, but one thing that struck me is that understanding is a double edged sword. If you think a problem could be solved if your opponent could only see things your way, then they likely think exactly the same thing. Who's to say which view is the one that needs to be understood? For example, what if I think Pastor Terry Jones should see things my way and not be a fearful bigot? What if he thinks I need to see things his way and be more realistic about who the enemies of America are? Are we to meet somewhere in the middle, simply because an opposite opinion exists to set the terms of compromise? Surely both perspectives are not equal. Should there instead be fundamental rules of understanding such as, when meaningful data exists, go with that, when there is meaningful data EXAMINE IT AGAIN to make sure it really is meaningful, when in doubt bend to the less hateful/harmful perspective. What other general guidelines should exist? Interesting philosophical question that I'm sure someone has addressed, but a quick google search is turning up nil.

Update: So, that ended up being way too difficult of a topic to write about, so Yin changed the new American Dream to be better overall health. I thought it was an interesting subject as well, so I wrote this outline which I would have used, though she didn't use it:

Intro:

While the “American Dream” has made America the wealthiest country in the world, the failings of American culture are all over the news – the recent killings in Connecticut, before that a murder spree in a Colorado theater, before that the trial of a woman killing her infant child in Colorado, etc. Another battle being played out on the news for the last four years has been the struggle over health care. There are many forms of health, and America is failing at most of them. America is addicted to sweet, salty, fatty junk food; doesn’t get enough exercise; depressed and over-worked; struggles with drug abuse – legal and illegal; is desensitized to sex and violence; and does a poor job getting psychological help to those who need it. These are signs of a deeper problem than a lack of access to care, it is a sign of complete societal failing. If America could have one new dream, it should be to have a truly healthier society.

Outline

·         Intro – sequence of items in intro serve as outline for the rest of the paper

·         Paragraph 1 – Address stressful American Lifestyle

o   Work too many hours per day

o   Leads to poor diet and no time for exercise

o   Dependence on caffeine also decreases quality of sleep

o   All of this is the price we pay to survive, most of us paycheck to paycheck, and that is a leading cause of depression (this could be its own paragraph)

·         Paragraph 2 – Drugs

o   America is over medicated

o   Pharmaceutical industry has paid to keep us that way

o   America self-medicates with drugs and alcohol, and is encouraged to do so socially

·         Paragraph 3 – Desensitivity

o   American media is flooded with sex and violence – in the news, movies, video games, music, etc.

§  While individuals may not necessarily emulate what they see, there is a cultural shift, and where the extremities lie shifts as well

o   Desensitivity to adultery, divorce, bad parenting, and other family breakers

·         Conclusion – Most of these issues cannot be legislated, and even if they could, prohibiting some activities or requiring others will not make those things happen. Government cannot solve these problems, it is up to individuals to strive for a higher standard than the old, monetary American Dream. The old American dream didn’t make us all wealthy, but it did make America the richest country in the world; likewise, the new American dream won’t make us all healthy in all the ways described, but if we put our minds to it, we could become the healthiest country in the world.

Frank P. Ramsey

I was reading through some lecture notes on the Ramsey Growth Model of economics, and was astounded to see the years Frank Ramsey lived in were only from 1903 to 1930. He died at age 26, but before going, he had become a professor of mathematics, and contributed to both philosophy and economics. This is clearly a sign I need to be less lazy. There's also a ton of related books and articles I would like to read to follow up on his theories:

• His own writings on economics:  subjective probability and utility (1926), optimal taxation (1927) and optimal one-sector economic growth (1928)
•  His writings on philosophy: Universals (1925), Facts and propositions (1927), Universals of law and of fact (1928), Knowledge (1929), Theories (1929), On Truth (1929), and General propositions and causality (1929)
• The thesis of one of his friends/colleagues in philosophy: Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus
• Game theory writings that brought his philosophy of knowledge and probability to the forefront: "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" by Neumann and Morgenstern

Taught at King's College, as did John Maynard Keynes; I should look into their econ department

Mankind

I was watching History Channel's "Mankind: The Story of All of Us" last night, and it's fascinating to see who becomes a great historical figure. Those most worth mentioning were the revolutionaries who shifted power, the great inventors, and the maven explorers. The comments of the great kings were also interesting; their ideas weren't new, but were common across geographical and cultural lines. Most strove to unite vast kingdoms and create peace through unity and domination. But they all go about it in the same old war-mongering way, because of their lust for power. If you were to take that lust out of the equation, there would only be peace and unity, leaving out the domination. In the latest Arab Spring movement, I think it was clear that a common chord was struck all over the world, demanding better leadership. Regime after regime fell in the Middle East, not because some great conqueror was toppling them, but because people saw their neighbors rise up, and felt a unity with them, and a desire to do the same. We each had our own grievances specific to our region, but were united in a desire for greater accountability, less corruption, inequality, and a chance to be heard in a more democratic society. There is never any war between Nebraska and Texas, Massachusetts and Connecticut, etc.; what would it take to make that a true statement of all neighbors? What would it take to make a United States of the World? A common constitution by which we all abide, a common currency, and likely an unacceptable loss of local sovereignty?

I'm also correcting Yin's paper on "The Rich and the Rest of Us," and it occurred to me the author cannot get his mind wrapped around the unimportance of wealth in the first place. By claiming that losing one's money and property can strip a person of their dignity and identity gives far too much power to money itself. It's likely a true statement, and may be how the dispossessed feel, but there is little emphasis on the need for a full paradigm shift, rather than just shifting around in the shallow, materialistic mindset we have now.

2012 Election Night

Just wasted a whole bunch of time babysitting the electoral college vote results to see if I'll be winning the office pool tomorrow. But the one reason I watched the main news networks rather than Comedy Central was to see the concession and acceptance speeches. Romney just gave his concession speech, and I must say, that was the most gracious, genuine concession I've ever seen in a presidential election. He thanked his supporters, lent his support to Barrack Obama, and moved on without looking like he had just been punched in his soul. That's a great way to lose.

One commentator said of Obama's win was that, while he had to admit that though things are not as good as he had hoped, and that this has been an imperfect 4yrs, he also succeeded in convincing the people that he is genuinely on their side. That's an interesting perspective that I definitely agree with, and I like the notion that you don't necessarily have to run on accomplishments, because those are always relative to the times and opportunities, but can really run on core values.

And Obama's speech... somewhat of a long winded thesis, but wow did he bring it home in the second half. He laid it all out: What makes us great is our ability to hold together as such a diverse people; the recovery will not be a one man show, but rather we need to take to heart Kennedy's words; we are not as divided as we make ourselves out to be, "not red states and blue states, but the United States"

Also, Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz... not my favorites.

Invisible Hand Democracy

A few notes from a conversation we had at the Mondragon Co-op documentary viewing:

• The individual has rights to protect him/her self and property against other individuals, power structures and other market participants
• A sole proprietorship would be part of an individual's property and would also need similar protections under the rights of that individual
• If a business had multiple owners, that business would still need protections as the collective property of the owners
• Shouldn't that scale to corporations needing protections?
• Do protections of corporations undermine the protections of the individuals
• Protections grant power to corporations, and in the presence of conflict, yes, this does undermine the rights of individuals, usually in how much money can be thrown at resolving the dispute in court.
• Therefore, corporate rights should be setup separately such that it does not have equivalent protections as individuals
• Invisible hand is a form of democracy, voting with money rather than ballots
• The invisible hand is mob rule; a handful of individuals who are having their rights infringed upon cannot vote with enough money to fight the corporation
• It's worse than normal democracy though, because it's a mix of plutocracy and democracy (more money = more votes). Also, all you can do is not do business with the company (or sue it), which if you never did business with them in the first place is meaningless. If their customers aren't the ones impacted, then why would the company care?
• So if libertarians hate democracy so much, how on earth do they like the invisible hand?
• Is there such a thing as a democratic libertarian?

Life Experiences

Stepping away from practical stuff for a bit here, I was listening to radio lab's show about "diagnosis," and was struck by the comments of a pathologist looking at cancer ridden tissue. She said, "This person should find a beautiful place on earth and just stay there until it's over." And I actually cried just thinking how much I will miss this place when I die; thinking of all the times I've had my breath taken away by a place I could never have imagined; thinking of all the people who've made my life worth living; thinking of passionate moments that move in slow motion in my memory; thinking of the sensation of doing what I didn't think was possible; the joy of sweating; thinking of time with my mom and my sister. I am really going to miss this place when I go, and I wonder if these are the thoughts that go through most people's minds when they pass. I think all of us, in one way or another, experienced life here in a magnificent and unique way in our own minds. I might look at someone else's life and think it wasn't anything special, but I'm sure they have all their accomplishments, sights, and people, that they're not ready to let go of. And I can only wonder how sad it must be to die alone, with nothing really to live for, but fearing death all the same. This really is an incredible place we live in, and it's made more incredible by its transience.

On a similar note, I was watching Maddow last night talking about Ryan's understanding of foreign policy; she said something to the extent of, "you can tell he only learned this stuff for the test, and has no real understanding of the material." That's a familiar concept from school, but so rarely have I thought to apply it in real life. It is something that I struggle with, because in my life, I am careful not to expose myself to too much suffering, so I don't know what it's like to go bankrupt, lose my house, live in the ghetto, live on food stamps, be a soldier, etc. I read about their struggles and needs, but how much can I REALLY understand of those situations? How superficial would my understanding of suffering be? Would I be too insulated from these hardships to be qualified to speak on behalf of anyone going through them? Or would I be more uniquely qualified because I recognize this shortcoming? It seems this should be a humbling reality to anyone intent on making decisions for others. This could easily be brushed off as an unavoidable reality -- we all only have one life to live, and no man could possibly experience/understand everything -- but that's not to say it should ever be forgotten or not taken into consideration.

Foreclosure

I've been having a hard time articulating why I no longer even read my emails about the foreclosure fight, like the whole thing has just become subconsciously abrasive. It's not that I've forgotten why I joined the fight in the first place -- people are legitimately suffering, the refusal of the banks to help those in trouble get back on their feet is mule-headed and crippling our economy, and the practice of predatory lending is particularly insidious, greedy, and unethical. I guess the question that's started to make that argument less relevant is,  what isn't that way these days? Price markups and deception are ubiquitous -- Restaurants charging 3x what they pay for wine, 50x what they pay for soda; the absurd markup in retail on the backs of sweat shops; the calculating deception going on in grocery stores with "everyday low prices" now being labeled as if they were sale items, Apple charging 2x more than competitors because people are sheep and the product is so complex customers really have no idea why they're paying that markup; hell, even I live comfortably because the company I work for operates on a 50% profit margin. And what about all the other commonly accepted forms of theft? Americans lost $92B to gambling in 2007, how much more was swindled by health care providers and insurance companies, how much on vices -- drugs, alcohol, tobacco, porn; how much by the church and charities, how much by producers of products that don't work, how much by our government? All those except money lost to the government is voluntary, as is money lost to foreclosure. The point is, people make terrible financial choices everyday (myself included), so why are we SO up in arms about foreclosure? What makes us think we have the right to renege on this particular form of contract? I'm not saying we don't, just not any more so than we should be exercising our right to break free of other forms of consumer manipulation. If there's one thing Occupy really got right, it's how pissed off we should be about EVERYTHING. But what to do with all that anger?

I heard a great TED talk by Barry Schwartz on appealing to virtue rather than falling back on regulations and incentives. Barry essentially argued that rules and regulations are there to allow us to be mentally lazy, to not have to think on a case by case basis, and because somebody at some point did exactly what they shouldn't have and ruined it for everybody. That's not to say that most of those rules aren't reasonable and there for good reason, but rather that there are alternatives, and that even in the presence of rules and procedures, people ought to be making their own best judgment at all times. We ought to be making role models, and examples of good behavior and the virtuous. I'm sure in my own case, had I had a role model to follow for the benefits of coming in with at least 20% on a house, and banking locally, I wouldn't have such high monthly rates with a bank I'm embarrassed to be associated with. Likewise, I should be smart enough to not let that 20% rule keep me from buying at the most opportune time. The examples in the TED talk were much better than this one, this is just one petty application in my own life. Back to the foreclosure argument, we don't need the government to come in and place heavy handed rules across all banks (which would inevitably crush small and medium sized banks, and make "too big to fail" even worse), we need to make positive examples of those banks that are banking intelligently. Show the alternatives! Maybe instead of screaming and making a scene in front of Wells Fargo and BofA, Occupiers should be doing free advertising for their local banks... in front of Wells Fargo and BofA.

And yes, of course I am aware of the fraud that goes on in the mortgage industry -- robosigning, using MERS to subvert the public recording process, fraudulent foreclosure proceedings, etc. Except for technecalities in that last point, those arguments don't change the fact that we entered a contract, that the bank bought it (even if they can't PROVE it), and that the foreclosed have failed to uphold their side of the contract.

On this exact same token, banks have the money and the power to do exactly what I'm saying as well. If they don't want to throw an elderly military vet or a dying woman with cancer into the streets, THEY DON'T HAVE TO! The sheriffs do not have to enforce evictions, locksmiths don't have to change locks, etc. All of these people could act out of compassion (albeit at the risk of losing their jobs), if we lived in a culture that could think on a case by case basis. And it wouldn't BE at the risk of losing their jobs if it were either written in -- or better, understood to be in -- job descriptions.

Winners and Peacemakers

I was listening to a story about the bloodshed in Syria, and one of the guests made the assertion that "all men want peace." I immediately thought that can't be true, at least that certainly can't be the first priority of all men. So what is it that puts peace on the back burner? The number one obstacle I could come up with was the desire to win - and that of course includes all the reasons behind a need to win such as pride, anger, vengeance, etc. But what an odd realization, that winning could be the natural enemy of peace. Lefer pointed out that this can't be true on the whole, because often times, after there is victory there is peace. You see decisive victories like ours over Japan in WWII and the peace and prosperity that followed, and surely winning and peace cannot really be opposites. But what we concluded was that in the course of battle, they are -- a sort of transient state. I've often thought nations act with human qualities, like giant fractals of the people therein, and between these nation people there are relationships. In most cases these relationships are largely adversarial, rather than loving, and when we go to war, that certainly shows. In a fight between people who love each other, how often do we hear the sentiment that it is better to be happy than right -- pick your battles and don't let things get out of control. But with an adversary, we'd rather die than let the other win, and that is the sentiment that we see on the global stage. We compete militarily and economically with our adversaries, and why would we ever have the compassion to back down? It seems there's much more wisdom in forming meaningful bonds with other nations, and stop treating each other like adversaries. I know there are efforts to do exactly that, but we generally do so from a very self-interested perspective, and what was is that to form a relationship? We didn't become the dominant species by playing the game of survival of the fittest, we did so through cooperation.

I was also surprised to see this article put out by the Brookings Institute praising the ARRA efforts. I always thought Brookings was more of a conservative think tank than a respectable economic research organization, but I could be mistaken.

Tarahumara

Reading the unusually inspiring book "Born to Run" by Christopher McDougall. I was coincidentally handed this book by my good friend Jed, the second week after I had committed myself to running at least 20 miles per week. I've recently found a passion for running, particularly in San Francisco, where there's much to see and few indomitable hills. I'd never been a long distance runner until I started running in Golden Gate park. One day I discovered that running 6 miles was a breeze when every turn was a new sight. Two weeks later I turned it to 9 miles, then 12, and 13, then Occupy happened and I faded from exercise almost entirely. But the urge to run has overcome me again (now that I am unfortunately 15lbs heavier), and reading this book, I feel like my soul has been stumbling upon some truths that the Tarahumara have already turned into an art form.

1) Running is a joy, not a chore or a means to an end. Yin was able to run 5 miles easily at Bay to Breakers, and Julia survived 8 miles through Cambridge while we chatted. Granted, the joy starts slipping away from me somewhere around mile 10, but I'm working on tearing down that wall. Low friction undies -- a must -- then maybe next time I'll wear the camel pack and maybe a lower friction shirt. But by far my most important discovery for running further is to relax, smile, take in the sights, listen to happier music. Caballo Blanco's first word of advice is "easy," which I think is to ease your state of mind, and believe what you are doing is out of joy, not something that is gruelling.

2) The other words of wisdom from Caballo Blanco had more to do with form, "Light, smooth, and fast." The first two are of particular interest to me, because I wear flip flops every day, and noticed when I am out of shape my steps are loud and careless, and it would be a good exercise for me to consciously mind my steps more, mind the weight, lift the sandal but don't let them flap carelessly. Just like in surfing, you don't have to paddle hard, you paddle smoothly. If your body is light, and your movements are smooth, fast will follow.

3) Not directly related to the book, I've also been dabbling in eating far more vegetables, but far less in general. I tend to get half or quarter pound servings of veggie salads at Raley's, and a piece of fruit, and that might be all I eat in a day, and I'm not starving when I go to sleep. I only do that a few days a week due to my lifestyle, but we'll see where this goes. Scott Jurek is a full vegan and the world's greatest ultra marathoner. Ultra coach, Scott Vigil advised his athletes to eat as if they were poor. I also learned that chia -- yes, as in the chia pet -- is a super food that rivals quinoa for nutrients, and I'm dying to get my hands on some and try it out.

4) The ultimate discovery in this book goes well beyond diet, training, footwear (or lack there of), or running. The big discovery of the Tarahumara is the kindness and love that they extend to those around them. They are not boastful, not confrontational, competitive only as a form of comradery, have no form of money, only do what is kind to do to each other, and run from trouble. On Scott Vigil's walls are the advice to "practice abundance by giving back," "Improve personal relationships," and "Show integrity to your value system." When was the last time you saw what you would call real integrity in the world around you. Paul Ryan just went up and gave a speech full of more lies than truths, making Clinton's exaggerations look like gospel truths by comparison. Slick Willy is our cornerstone of integrity, super. But I know I need work on all three of those categories. I am not chock full of giving, strong personal relationships, or even integrity really.

In the world of sports, we've all been taught to push hard, fight, dig deep, compete, etc., but where was the advice to love what you're doing. In The Sandlot, the main character says, "Just have fun, you would've caught that ball if you were having fun." or something to that extent. When I was watching the Olympics, I wrote down that loving what you do is a must, or you will not be great at it. Going over Maslow's hierarchy of needs I saw accomplishment listed as one of the level 4 needs. If you must be great at something to feel accomplished, and must love what you do to be great at something, then how on earth are ordinary people supposed to ever feel a sense of accomplishment just going through the motions of everyday life. My mom has always been a great teacher because she makes learning exciting -- she gets kids to love what they're learning -- but the only other teacher I've seen that same spirit in is Mr. Kinavey. Is the lack of that sort of teaching where the failure to find passion comes from? Or is it that what we are passionate about often is not a lucrative profession? There are a select few who can be passionate about being a doctor, engineer, trust fund manager, etc. Or is the problem a societal one, in that we do not experience a truly loving and giving culture in the fast paced world we live in. Where have those values of Christianity gone to? Why have we been left only with the obsession to live immaculate lives -- no gays, no abortion, practice abstinence, etc -- and let values like compassion for others fall by the wayside. Jesus didn't say stop sinning, he said your sins are forgiven. That's not to say we shouldn't strive to live virtuous lives, but more importantly, lead by example, tend to your own morals and spirituality, but strive to be compassionate to others. This to me seems the opposite of the fallacy of composition situation, where rather than doing what's right for oneself at the expense of the whole, doing what's right by oneself is more conducive to allowing others to find the best within themselves.

The world is ready for a paradigm shift, and if the Tarahumara have shown the best shoes of all are practically nothing rather than the over-engineered, arch-supporting, hundred dollar, heel padding super shoes, then maybe a lack of integrity and strict adherence to the social experiments of Saul Alinsky are not as universally true as they appear to be today. We were talking at the beer discussion group tonight about how sometimes great shifts are preceded by mountains of lies denouncing the truth of the future. Before Japanese cars took over the market, American car manufacturers denounced them as crap, when the electric light bulb came about England was one of the last to get it because the lamp oil industry was so strong there, and in Ayn Rand's fictional account of course the universities and "science experts" were all opposed to the Riordan super metal. In all these cases, results spoke for themselves, and I think that can happen in the world of politics. We're already seeing less polished politicians like Chris Christie taking center stage, and I think it's only a matter of time before those whose statements are not intended to be "factual statements," such as John Kyl sink into oblivion.

Atlas Shrugged

Yup, I'm finally doing it. I'm suffering on a treadmill for hours, so I may as well suffer just a bit more. The thing about running though, is that you have to be up beat, you can't give in to the suffering. Likewise with this book, I stay as up beat as possible about it, and am enjoying it as a period piece of literature, but forgive me if the reflections here are on the negative side.

Chapter 1-3:

• Calculated risk - I like Dagny Taggart's no nonsense approach and bold actions. I don't think this is meant to be a realistic depiction of how such a person acts, but more a symbolic woman of action, made that much more emphatic by being surrounded by character foils (more on that in a second). Her character can be assumed to have some prior knowledge of trains and their schedules when she makes the call to run the red light, and the reader is made to assume her engineering background makes her adequately prepared to assess the quality of Reardon Metal. But is the reader meant to admire her preparedness, or her decisive action? Her character is clearly centered around her boldness and individuality. Look at the way she handles her brother and his quaint business loyalties; she acts without authorization, she destroys her brother in their business argument, she even has to sit in her own special manner, has her plans already written out on a crumpled piece of paper, etc. She's Humphrey Bogart in female form, and of course emphasized by her sniveling, incompetent, "emotional," character foil brother. Back to the point, nobody's going to -- or is even supposed to -- read this and say, "wow, I should go get engineering and business training," they're supposed to admire her decisiveness. And who doesn't want to be free to act with such impunity? This would serve as an easy source for the self-justification needed to push people to actions they're not prepared for. One more degree of awareness is where most of the real world lies. Nobody dives into something completely unprepared, so what I (anecdotally) see as the most common issue is knowing just enough to get into trouble. I am a constant offender here, but working on being more "professional" (previous post).
•  Character Foils - So far I've found this book to be dated in its extreme lack of subtlety; I can almost see the technicolor actors' grand gestures and exaggerated expressions. It's about as subtle as the anti-communist propaganda of the time. Many of the secondary and anselary characters are obvious character foils, being weak, disinterested, unattractive, aloof, indecisive, sentimental, detached, oblivious, etc. All the characters at the dinner table around Hank Reardon are distant, nagging, petty people, made that much more emphatically little minded after having just read the glorious depiction of achievement at the foundry. James Taggart plays a similar role as a character foil to Dagny. As a piece of fiction, there is nothing overly objectionable, but to be taken seriously? These character foils aren't even people with thoughts. The omniscient narrator ONLY elucidates the thoughts of the main characters, lending not even any positive emotional responses to their foils, let alone views into their hearts and minds.
• Balance - There's plenty to admire about the heroes of this book, but is it really necessary to make the character foils SO pathetic and dislikable? I mean, how oblivious would his brother have to be to ask for money then ask to make it anonymous so his progressive party isn't seen to be doing business with such a staunch businessman. This is a very black and white world being depicted -- probably as a literary device -- but the real world needs more balance. What kind of a world is it where those looking out for the good of others are demonized, and the money hungry mavens are glorified? It would be like a world where the lions are good and antelopes bad, or the reverse; ridiculous, and I hope that's not what the author actually intends. But I am positive that was the take away of many of the book's readers.
• Fear, Apathy, and Dependence - All of the character foils are afraid of progress, are afraid to act, are afraid of responsibility, are just trying to skate by on the status quo, not sticking their necks out for even the simplest of tasks, are waiting for orders, waiting for handouts, "hoping" things will turn out ok, etc. The protagonists are exactly the opposite, and MAKING things turn out ok. The battle lines are drawn.

Chapter 4-5:

• Certainty and uncertainty motif - the author makes a point of writing things like, "and for some unknown reason, an impulse came over her, and she could not recall from which depths or why she had the sudden impulse, she knew only .... yadda yadda." Long rambling self reflections of uncertainty about trivial fleeting thoughts that most people shouldn't be dedicating a whole lot of brain power to. I'm sure these are peppered in to give a moment the sense of importance, like wanting to remember every detail of a life changing moment, but remembering in a haze that can't do the moment justice. In contrast, these same characters, who are allowed the right of self-reflection, will be immediately certain of all things that can be acted on. Self-reflection and decisiveness, a powerful combination as long as the two cross paths.
• Effort and effortlessness motif - Dagny and Francisco are both first class students, full of determination and a drive to succeed. Dagny's first time winning at tennis is a great depiction of enjoying the pain of striving beyond one's limits. The contrasting admirable quality is effortless skill. James Taggart has none of it, while Francisco has all of it. Natural talent and hard work are another powerful combination, very similar to the certainty and uncertainty motif, and also just as important to know which is appropriate to the situation. Sometimes there's also a fear of trying, or trying to go beyond natural ability, lest it appear forced, or worse -- end in failure. I feel like there should be an upcoming chapter on wisdom to balance out the sporadic applications of these 4 contrasting themes
• Mercy and sacrifice - Earlier, James Taggart was lamenting with his cohorts about how much better it would be if all the world could push for a common cause, and how it is so unfortunate that sacrifices have to be made -- inevitable casualties of the progressive cause. Obviously, anything out of their mouth is intended to be detestable, but what is a bit frightening is Francisco's willingness to sacrifice the good of the people for his ideology. He makes housing of inferior quality, worth far less than what was paid, leads unsuspecting investors to dump their own and public money into a worthless mine. Of course the most ominous part is how revered, by the afore mentioned standards, Francisco is. This extreme sacrifice for the sake of punishing the "looters," but more so to support an ideology, is going to be glorified, though Dagny does not yet know it.
• Romance novel - did Ch5 read like a romance novel to anyone else? Can't say I have much/any experience in the subject, but it was exactly what I would imagine a romance novel would be made of. This is nearly literally conservative porn, haha.

Chapter 6

• I should go back and re-read to most of this chapter. The exchange between James Taggart and Francisco is basically the author's counter argument to the socialist agenda. The argument seems sound if you listen to James's blithering, but this deserves a bit more attention. Francisco did not act for profit, did not act selfishly, did create jobs, and what else? It seems he followed the socialist handbook perfectly, by his own definition of it, which I can't say is too terribly far from the truth. Then the mine was taken over by the state, and revealed to be worthless. What is the end result? The people of the country have a worthless mine, a shabby railroad, housing that won't last, BUT most importantly, debt free income from working for years for that worthless mine, as well as all the capital goods involved. They're presently sitting on the means to build something real. The foolish investors bore all the risk and lost everything, so while James lost and Francisco won, the people's fate is yet undecided. They will soon be laid off from the mine, but have what they need to determine their own fates. This is similar to the Keynesian bridge to nowhere abstraction, except that it was investors who made the capital injection, not the government. This should be a boon for the people of San Sebastian.
  
  But going back to the argument with James, did Francisco indeed play by the socialist rules? In working to create a public bank, the governing rules of the bank have been of constant importance. If the public good is the ONLY concern, it will not be for long, as the bank would fail quickly. If only profit motivated, then the bank would not be of any benefit to the people either. Though it may not seem like the government is always trying to make something of value with all their capital injections, it should be a real motivating factor, which has casually been left out by Francisco.
  
• The introductory exchange between Riordan and Francisco is also worth revisiting at some point. The author makes a fine distinction along the lines of freedom here between Riordan, a fine capitalist, and the capitalist ideal Francisco embodies. Battle lines are drawn here that will be elaborated on later, I'm sure.
• I did find an unhealthy appreciation for Riordan's lamentations about his marriage. That's not how I feel, but I can empathize with the sense of obligation.
• Much of this chapter felt less deliberate than previous chapters, as if the author hadn't thought out much past this point in the book, and -- scrambling to write more -- began to repeat herself. I will say though, I am actually enjoying a lot of the insights into the mind of the business motivated, and find myself surprisingly in agreement with much of it. I'm certainly better suited to be a great capitalist than a socialist.

Contradictions

 It was an interesting evening at the beer discussion group tonight. There was an argument for the draft, and for minimum standards of living, but the two had absolute opposite arguments. Why reinstitute the draft? Because if enough people were dying or in danger there would be a public outcry loud enough to end the war. The argument goes that if rich and poor, smart and dumb alike were all equally drafted into the military, then we'd all have skin in the game. The problem today is that we have a standing volunteer army that is willing to go anywhere to do anything for any amount of time, but if ordinary citizens were exposed to the terrors of war, there would be a backlash the way there was for Vietnam. Without getting into all the reasons I disagree with this theory, it's more relevant to say the very next conversation was about a minimum standard of living -- that we need to have government safety nets that keep people from hitting rock bottom. The argument was for government healthcare, and the support of a minimum standard for the commons. These are incredibly contradictory arguments. One argues that we are being shielded from suffering, and that is leading us into prolonged warfare; but the other argument is that we should shield people from suffering to shield us from prolonged hunger. In one case we are talking about increasing suffering by sending people against their will to their death, the other argument says we should force people to earn their own living, but it is supposed to be the liberals who are the compassionate ones? There was an effort to make a distinction, that there are other incentives for going to work than suffering, but there are also other incentives for not going to war than suffering. Anyway, this was certainly an exercise in "politics" as I attempted to win this argument without actually committing to one perspective or the other; the other side simply lost through their own inconsistencies. Ironic that the apparent best move in the face of an obvious dilemma, over two very real issues, is best solved in debate by saying absolutely nothing of substance?

There was also an interesting discussion on the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution; democracy vs. republic, central government vs. confederation. We can see how badly the European Union has done with their loose economic confederacy, but that's not necessarily a glowing endorsement of a union. In chess, you can take several moves or a different sequence of mobes to get to the same spot with very different results. Likewise, going directly from a colony to a confederacy would have very different results from going from a colony to a union to a confederacy, especially if we hold onto the most beneficial parts of a federal government, but allow states to have greater control over their own rules and privileges, without giving up the constitutionally protected rights.

These arguments were followed by an equally one sided ideological argument: that we have a demand economy, supported by the fact that consumption makes up 70% of our economy. For one, our economy should NOT be 70% consumption, we are out of balance. But the most important point, that was a common theme throughout the evening, was that a one size fits all ideology cannot be dogmatically adhered to and applied to all situations. Perhaps that opens the door to contradictions, but it more importantly opens the door to responding intelligently to the situation. As discussed in the Malcolm Gladwell TED Talk, one size does not fit all, but rather needs can be categorized. This theory could be applied to the elevation of states rights to choose which policies best suit its own citizens. The lack of states rights also places blame for injustices on the Federal government, making it a distant, somewhat insurmountable enemy, causing every simple change to appear to be a tremendous undertaking.

Related to that last point, I have been thinking lately that the cure for public unions may be to put the unions themselves in charge. The problem being that the unions want something, and the governments want them to get it, making for an unstable feedback loop. If we want this system to become stable, give the unions control over the money they get, give them a budget that the state can afford, and let them do with it what they will under the agreement that there is no limited liability, and the union gets taken over by the state if it goes bankrupt. Of course, this opens the door to starving out and sabotaging the union by the government, but governments have a good grasp over how much funds are available in total. If all optional spending programs were organized in this way, then they could go through negotiations with each other over how much each really needs.

Other thoughts:

• Thinking inside the box - I saw a bumper sticker today for thinking inside the box, which had a picture of a Jesus fish inside a box. Maybe some inside the box thinking is what we need -- that is, more pragmatic thinking, and perhaps pragmatism is a prerequisite to finding your way out of the box. Outside of the box does not mean no rules; one must define, and understand the rules of the box in order to think outside of the box. This thought made me think of Rules for Radicals. I should make a post on that in the future.
• Two paths to change -- It is often the case that all it takes to make a change is the right person catching onto the trend. Developing the ground swell just increases those odds. You look at the Homeowners Bill of Rights, something hundreds of groups I'm sure supported, but pushed through almost exclusively by Kamala Harris -- one woman. What are all these groups that I'm involved in doing? Are we getting our point across to those select people with the power to enact change? Are we either winning over those people or becoming those people? No. I would better serve the ELM st. group by becoming a Manchurian economist and becoming one of those people of influence.
• Back to contradictions, I find it odd that the most seemingly culturally rigid regions are the ones most emphatically preaching the gospels of freedom. You can have a deep fried stick of butter, but god forbid two men be married. Does this go back to hating in others that which one hates most about oneself?

Vocabulary:
Platitudes - meaningless expressions
Clarion Call - a strong, clear request for the people to rise to an occasion
Scion - a young shoot or twig, esp. one used for grafting; also the descendent of a great family. Used to describe someone/something which is going to be used to start something new and great.

Inspired

I hope someday historians will look back and say this was the year inspiration found me. Occupy has been incredibly inspiring. Directly helping total strangers in a meaningful way is a rare event, and I can now say I've done that. I've ironically played monopoly with the homeless, and helped keep a family from being homeless on Christmas. These are incredibly small, but rewarding things. Alfred Marshall, a former scientist turned economist has set an example, leaving a highly regarded profession and career in favor of economics, because he wanted to HELP people.

But this week, it's been all about one thing. The 2012 London Olympics. I just watched Dominic Rudisha break the world record in the 800m. He has only a dirt track to train on, and though he is a world class athlete, he chooses to live in humble housing at St. Patricks Catholic school in Kenya. A few nights ago I saw Korani James win the 400m, representing his small country of Grenada with great humility and sportsmanship. He is incredibly young, but represented his country with incredible humility and sportsmanship. Easily the best part of these olympic games are the background stories of some of these athletes.

But what I'm hoping to catch a glimpse of is what it takes to be the greatest. I wrote earlier about the discipline required to be a professional, but there are a lot of professionals out there, what does it take to be the BEST? I've heard for years to do the simple things well, and not to fear failure, and to do the simple things well, but this year, I am finally hearing them and feeling inspired. I grew up watching Michael Jordan, and I know I saw Michael Jordan to the Max in theaters, but I think I only really heard it for the first time, watching it a couple nights ago. I feel like it's finally clicking for me, but I see these teenage olympic gymnasts becoming the best in the world at half my age, and have to wonder how they figured out the key to success so young. I think that while a special few people have the will to be the best on their own expectations, having others counting on you and pushing you is a huge factor. Mom driving you to every practice and meet, every weekend and after work, preparing meals, paying huge bills, etc. raises some very real expectations, and I have to imagine that's a factor in success if it doesn't drive you nuts first.

Mentors -- what role do mentors play. The 1500m swimmer from China rose to new heights only after finding his mentor in Australia. When you see two runners under the same coach running the 1500m in the olympics, you have to know that coaching is a huge factor.

Discipline and sacrifice -- of COURSE! What are all the things these athletes have given up? Desserts? TV? Relationships? I'm sure they've lost sleep, suffered intense physical pain, and felt like giving up a number of times. But I have to believe they enjoy it. Enjoy the success, the improvement, and of course the sport they play... if you can call it "play." The 3 time Olympic gold medalist, women's volleyball team retired after 2 medals, but came back for another. Michael Jordan retired after his first 3-peat and his father's death, but came back to win another 3 in a row, then after retiring came back to play for the Wizards. There's much more than suffering and pride that drives these players.

I try not to make a habit of writing about things I know nothing about, and being the best is not something I know, but this is an investigation into what it's going to take for me to be the economist or engineer I want to be. So here's a first stab at a recipe to success:

1. Strength of character -- humility, discipline, determination, patience, grace, etc.
2. Fearlessness -- this could fall in with the above list, but I think deserves its own, because it includes not fearing failure, and just as importantly, not fearing success
3. Coaching -- Life is too short to learn these things on your own. You NEED to stand on the shoulders of giants if you want to compete with other giants.
4. Love what you are doing -- if you're not passionate about, and enjoy what you're trying to achieve, you will not be the best at it. Period.
5. Sacrifice -- Life is too short to be the best without giving up some of the extraneous details along the way
6. Expectations -- It's debatable whether this is a necessity, but I do think it is invaluable. I think it is easier to succeed when you're on a team pushing each other to succeed. It is easier to be the best when everyone expects you to be the best. It's easier to continue on when that is the expectation. If you make all the afore mentioned points the expectation, then I think you have a good chance of being great, and a small glimmering chance at being the best. Also, falling under the category of expectations, I would put schedules and goals. Don't just workout, have a workout regiment, don't just have a reading list, have a reading schedule, etc.

That's all for now, I'm sure this will be updated in the future as more pieces of the puzzle come into view.