Citizens United

At the SVGOP meeting on Wednesday, the topic of Citizen's United came up. A person in the audience asked for an explanation of it, and a gentleman named Charles gave a brief history of it which made it sound far more reasonable than I'd ever heard it explained before. He said basically that regulations had been put into place to limit campaign contributions, which spawned the creation of PACs and Super PACs. Because these groups were independent of the campaigns, there was no limit on how much money could be donated that way. The Citizens United decision basically reaffirmed the legal right for those groups, corporations, unions, etc. to spend as much they wanted, and to be vehicles for unlimited donations.

Being an Occupy/Bernie Sanders guy, I lean strongly the other way, and had to re-examine my beliefs. You could make an argument that PACs should be made illegal, then it would be up to individuals to spend and say what they'd like directly. I don't think limiting the privilege to outrageously wealthy individuals is preferable to limiting the privilege to unions and corporations; then it would just be the Kochs making ads. You could try to limit contributions based on the type of ads produced, but where is the line between political ads and public awareness campaign? You could say money is not free speech, but then the only wealthy people who do the brainwashing would be Rupert Murdoch and Ariana Huffington who do it as a business; is that any better? Could go the way of the alcohol industry, which doesn't allow consumption of the alcohol to occur on tv. It's a bit absurd, but you could make it illegal for non-campaign groups to mention or show specific bills or candidates, limiting them instead to conceptual descriptions and allowing voters to decide for themselves. That idea's maybe not terrible, but seems mighty heavy handed, and would lead to some probably absurd and confusing ads.

I'm used to arguing that money shouldn't be equated to free speech, and I still believe that not all things should be for sale, but that too could be re-examined. It is unfair that the average person is unable to have the same influence as a wealthy person, but does that mean the wealthy should be handicapped to the level of the poor? It's also unfair that mute people can't physically speak at all, but does that mean we should all be handicapped to the vocal powers of a def person? We're not all educated, should we be limited to the vocabulary and sentence making ability of a Donald Trump? Life isn't fair, and never will be. Maybe focusing on freedoms rather than fairness is the right way to think about it. If that's the case, at this time, the only thing I can think to do is to outlaw the purchase of specific things, and maybe types of ads should be one of those things. How effective are those anyway? I would imagine it's mostly the ground game of a campaign that makes a difference.

What do other countries do? I know some countries only allow campaigning and advertising in a single month. I really like the sound of that, but I have no idea how they enforce the rule. It seems incumbents would really be handicapped in that case.

Democratic Fascism

Need to do WAY more research to support these ideas, but wanted to scratch some down while they're fresh in my mind.

I've been watching my KPFA gift DVDs (Capitalism and Untold History of the United States), and now have a reading list about a mile long. Right at the top are Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, and Karl Marx's Das Kapital. From what I gather, Adam Smith's faith in capitalism's ability to succeed was in the context of certain moral values that would ensure that as capital accumulates to the rich, they would in turn use it in a way to benefit society. Marx apparently believed capitalism would lead to massive inequality and collapse on itself once it came to a breaking point.

I'm coming to believe that the pre-requisites for Smith's beliefs are untenable. The more mature an industry, the fewer competitors there will be, the larger the companies at the top will be, and the richer the men at the top will be. This much seems inevitable. So then what? In America, those with money buy power, and use that power to expand business all over the world. So the prevailing system of government in the US seems to be democratic, imperialistic fascism. But doesn't that seem the most probable outcome? What are the odds of having some sort of absurdly benevolent and altruistic upper crust of society that has a deep understanding of the needs of those beneath them? Why would we expect anything other than what we currently have?

It would seem Marx's answer to capitalism has been destroyed by history by those who did not really implement "true communism" -- Mao and Stalin. But as much as they did not adhere to Marx's beliefs, neither did our leaders adhere to Smith's, and we got fascism. So obviously, strict adherence to ideals cannot be the answer, because there will always be greed, corruption, and barbarism to tear these ideals down.

The answer to corruption in our formerly capitalist society was to have democratic checks on power. But as the rich get richer, their influence over those checks grow. Major corporations own the media, own the politicians, own the justices, and own our money. The system of checks and balances is broken. And it again seems improbable to expect any other outcome. To go one step further, there were never any checks for those on the other end of our military conflicts. Attrocities commited overseas can only be stopped by a critical mass of us at home a) knowing about it, b) caring about it, c) doing something about it, and finally d) successfully stopping it. EXTREMELY difficult and slow --  ie:Vietnam and Iraq.

What to conclude? We need to either create another answer to capitalism, as Marx did, or find a way to make fascism livable. If we go the route of the former, there would have to be a revolution here, which I do not think will happen so long as we're the dominant country. So I think it's time to explore how to put checks on fascism to make it livable... ?

What goes into the sausage

So this morning I saw the headline, "botched execution results in inmate's accidental death," and my first thought was, "Huh?...did they accidentally kill the wrong guy??" No, the story is a little stranger, and disturbingly highlights the peculiarities of human sensitivities. They got the right guy, but the reported horror of this story is that the man died in 40mins rather than 6mins, and reportedly suffered for that time. Sure, I can understand how that would be horrific... but is it really that much more horrific than when things go right? I really have very little opinion on the death penalty, because what would I know? But here's my general impression of what we as a society have accepted is a reasonable practice: some 6-12 people, who've never met the guy (could be a gal, but I'm going to keep writing in the masculine form), decide whether he is to be killed, based on the arguments presented by two parties whose sole responsibilities are to win, regardless of their own moral apprehensions. Then if found guilty, the man is strapped to a table in front of a live audience, for which there is a specific guest list, and murdered... gently.

I can understand thinking the whole thing is horrific, and I can understand thinking it's all very well justified, but what I can't understand is how those who find the whole practice to be generally acceptable would find it SO much less justifiable for the man, who is apparently too evil to live, to suffer before dying. I listened to a reporter who was present at the execution give her sanctimoniously appalled account of events, and the only thing I could think was, "...and your chosen career path is to watch people be murdered...?" Then some other expert came on talking about how offensive it is that in some executions the prisoner dies from excessive anesthesia, and rather than just throwing away the extra chemicals, they are disposed of into the body for which they were intended. To clarify, injecting lethal chemicals into an already dead body = offensive, injecting lethal chemicals into a living body = totally ok.

We joke about the horrors of knowing what goes into the sausage, but it never occurred to me to ask what goes on in the minds of those who make the sausage... and what do they find to be offensive?

Self-Rent

Would this work?

1) Make enough money to start a business that will buy an apartment complex, and hold cash on hand
2) I rent it out to people, and give them the option to buy their portion of the building over time (eg: $1M property with 10 renters, each with the chance to buy up to $100k)
3) Return an approximate real estate market rate with a minimum and maximum to flatten out bubbles and return a portion of rental income less property upkeep expenses.
4) All money goes into a savings account that the renter is able to withdraw from at any time as long as they live there, and they receive in total, less the cost of repairs, upon moving out.
5) As property is bought back from business, buy another apartment complex and repeat.

Net effect:
1) Company operates like a bank, and would have to hold reserves appropriate to what they could expect renters to withdraw at any given time
2) Company's revenue would be keeping a portion of the total value of the home.
3) Renters have an incentive to keep the building and neighborhood in good shape
4) Renters effectively have the opportunity to purchase a condo with no interest payments, but always chasing the total property value. The faster they buy it, the less they chase, and the less rent they pay.
5) Means that if the renter could buy a condo, they should do that instead so they don't always have to chase the property value. That ensures that this program will continue to reach the target market - renters who have a desire and ability to own something. Should screen for this with applicants (non-paycheck to paycheck, but savers)
6) Could the business file as a bank so it is able to lend itself money to expand? No, because then it would have to cover interest on borrowed money. Just need to make enough to eventually start a lending portfolio as well.
7) Could the business file as a non-profit? Make enough to pay employees and to expand to new properties, and that is all.
8) Could this business be started by the government? Probably shouldn't be, but maybe there are some grants available.

Inequality for All

Heard Robert Reich on NPR this morning promoting the documentary "Inequality for All". I hope to go see it soon, but wanted to put down a few thoughts on the interview before I forgot them.

The CEO making $10M-$30M per year saying he doesn't know where all his money goes, and the poor would be better off with it because they spend - highly anecdotal, but I should watch to see what the full story is. However, that does raise a good point: when economists and politicians are considering particular policies, is there a metric for how much of the money will enter the market, and how much will be absorbed? Dollars spent, in either production or consumption, per dollar of stimulus? I know traditionally production is preferred, but since we are such a consumer market, is consumption close to as good? In a recession, is consumption required to entice greater production? I really need to brush up on these basics.

Reich supports increasing the minimum wage as a way to combat technology and globalization. Going back to my last post, that is just a band-aid!

The call-ins were obtusely simple, like, "tax the capitalists who are profiting from all the machines that are replacing workers." ...and who do you suppose made those machines? The reason they say technology "displaces" jobs rather than "destroys" is because the job the machine does is replaced by jobs to make, sell, and repair that machine.

Also, should read Tip and the Gipper, and find some other first hand accounts of political history, not just the historical outcomes.

Income Inequality - Globalization and Technology

I heard excerpts from Obama's interview with NPR this morning, and I think the most interesting question was what he thought about the way the divide between rich and poor has increased over the course of his presidency. Obama cited globalization and technology as forces that pushed middle class jobs overseas or replaced them with machines. These are prevalent trends and the Obama administration is doing what they can to combat them. He said he did not believe these factors made the divide inevitable, but what he cited as steps he's taken to mitigate them were nothing more than band-aids: raising the minimum wage, closing tax loop holes, making the income tax more progressive, etc. If you are benefiting from a raise in the minimum wage or an increase in food stamps, then you are not, and will not be, part of the middle class. Disposable income is the key to a middle class existence, be it for a more comfortable lifestyle or for being able to save for retirement. No disposable income = no middle class. One thing that I hope he mentioned was how many fewer people would be falling out of the middle class on account of medical expenses, thanks to Obamacare. He has taken steps to stop the number one cause of bankruptcy, and should receive tremendous credit for that if successful. But the downside of globalization and technology are combated through education, and it looks like that's going to be somebody else's claim to fame.

Sure, taxes could be more progressive, and certain banking practices could be made illegal, but it comes down to what jobs Americans are getting. To improve the jobs Americans are getting, technology needs to become an ally. Technology can be a driving force behind jobs directly or indirectly, as a means to an end or as the end itself. We don't view things like planes, trains, or automobiles as technology, but they were at one time, and they created tremendous business. They ultimately became so ubiquitous that they're just a part of ordinary life, and our normal economy now. I'm sure fleets of stage coach drivers and mountain guides were replaced by a small team of train engineers, but was that a weight on the economy? No! When did our view of technology become so backwards? Oh yea, when we stopped educating our students to be able to change with the times.

Nobody would say that public education was better back when steel was being invented than it is now. What can be argued however is that there wasn't such a void between where education ended and where utilization of modern technology began. For example, anyone could pick up a steel shovel or walk into a steel building with no prior knowledge, and be able to benefit from the technology; that may not be the case for today's computer driven economy. As steel structures became ever more complicated, greater education was needed to meet the challenge, same is true of today's tech. The big difference lies in the fact that from the beginning of the 20th century to around the 70's, our education system was adequate in closing the gap between the state of technology and how much learning was required to profit from it. In other countries, that's still true, but we have fallen behind. The gap between where our schools leave us and where the state of technology is today has widened.

I think some notes on the Khan Academy would be an appropriate followup to this post, then probably a post on business practices, which I think is really where the divide comes from (ie: technology and globalization are already allies, and have already made America wealthy, but that wealth does not spread).

Rock Climbing Notes

Key notes from a lot of videos on youtube:

1. Obviously, keep your body in tight to the wall whenever you are making a move
2. Whenever possible, keep your center of gravity on the line perpendicular to the hold's edge, and pull your weight along that line to make the next move
1. particularly important for "slopers"
2. Also want as much surface contact as possible
3. Use straight arms to hang to save energy, until you make your move
1. The hip of whichever arm is extended is the one that should be close to the wall when reaching. 
4. Put your weight either on the inside of your big toe, or the outside of your pinky toe
5. Most natural progression of moves: Find a solid hand hold, set your feet to be able to push yourself to the next solid hold, make the reach/grab, reset the feet, then release the original solid hold and start again. If you release the solid hold before resetting the feet (and your center of gravity), then your body will make a more dramatic swing to its new base, and cause you to fall off.
6. Use your leg as a counter balance, whether it's out in the air, or flagging against the wall

Notes from Improve Your Climbing:

1. Have an active leg and a balancing/stabilizing leg
2. Twist lock - can keep the straight/hanging arm nearly straight even when making the move, by twisting your body in toward the wall.
1. Bend the knee on the side of the reaching arm
2. pivot toe from straight on to outside edge
3. Extends the range of the reach
4. Keeping the arm straight improves blood flow in addition to saving energy
3. Outside Edge - Don't need to use foot holds on the left with the left foot, could step through with the right foot, placing the outside edge of the foot on the hold
1. Forces a hip into the wall
2. same as the twist lock
3. get your feet into position with the active leg bent, then start the move by extending that leg, THEN making the reach, not the other way around
4. General Note: Ok to be parallel and have the butt out when setting up for the move, but bring the hips in tight to the wall during the actual move
4. Flagging - Pushing the free leg against the wall for stability.
1. Use the counter balancing leg to push against the wall either in front of or below the active leg
1. If the active foothold is high, then flag behind
2. If the active foothold is low, flag in front
2. Should fully extend the active leg at the start of the move, then make the reach
5. Drop Knee - the above moves are all for a single foothold. For two footholds, use an analogous technique where you pivot your hips to the wall, but now the knee is bent downward, rather than leg extended
1. move enables you to utilize a very high foot hold
2. in this case, the active leg stays very bent, and the one usually acting as the balancing leg may give a bit of a push or stay bent
3. the outward pressure from both legs creates a bit of a bridge between two stable points
4. must have careful foot placement in order to have room to pivot from inside to outside of your foot
5. place the pivoting foot while you're hanging with straight arms. Ok to have butt away from the wall to make the placement, then as you pivot, the hips come to the wall as the knee clears out of the way
6. need to rotate fully in order to lock into place (will look like you are running along the wall, with toes, hips, and knees all pointing in the same direction)