Tribal Thinking

I was listening to a radio show about Latino voters, and one line about appealing to Latinos really stuck with me. On how second and third generation immigrants tend to lean conservative, but find many of the priorities of the party are not necessarily that important to them, the guest said something to the extent of, "A reduction of the capital gains tax is not why immigrants come here." Very simple, but it made me think.

That simple statement suggests that if you want to appeal to immigrants, or anybody else for that matter, your agenda should prioritize that which they love about America. I believe immigrants come here to escape corruption, to find opportunity, to earn a living, and for a safe place to raise their families. Furthermore, their conviction on these matters has caused them to leave behind everything they once knew, and take a chance on the idea that it exists here. That is powerful. The speaker made a good point, that those values should be within the wheel house of a conservative party, but they get bogged down in special interests, or more dangerously, in the nationalistic alt right agenda. If the Republican party could stick to the values that really make America great, that would be a huge step forward.

The corollary to the statement, "politicians should appeal to the reasons why we love America," would be that citizens should champion the causes that they love about America. Again, an obvious statement, but it brings me back to another prominent idea -- that of tribal thinking, where you believe everything your particular tribe believes. For example, if your tribe happens to be the Christian tribe, maybe you are against abortion, in favor of public prayer and references to God, and resistant to the LGBT movement. The natural party alignment might be to Republicans, and you might "tribe think"  your way into believing in trickle down economics, that global warming is a hoax, that Mexicans are stealing your jobs, etc.

Being a liberal, I have my own set of tribal beliefs -- an unbiased justice system, defense of the constitution, rehabilitation over punishment, quality education, getting money out of politics, protecting the environment, pushing back against corporate pseudo monopolies, and playing a less aggressive role in global politics, etc. But what are the things that I "tribe think"? It's a little harder to identify, because I have to ask myself, "of the things I really do believe, which are the ones that come from the inside out, and which come from the outside in." It's tough, and maybe a little scary.

I believe in having social safety nets, but do I really believe they are too weak right now? Probably not. The LGBT agenda seems completely foreign to me upon inspection. I believe people have the right to live the lifestyle they choose, but I do think it's a choice, or at least a learned behavior, and the science seems to back up that position. Sure, I have friends that I would say I knew were going to be gay, who had the same upbringing as a straight kid, but we are not computers which you can plug in a program and expect a particular outcome. Same inputs do get different outputs, which is not to say the output is in some way not a function of the input. Then the co-existence of transgender and gender equality beliefs makes no sense to me at all. If two things are equal, and you are one, why insist that you are really the other? Transgender to me is an interpretation of gender roles in society making the distinction, and deciding you are the other, rather than accepting that those attributes can belong to either gender. What's wrong with just being a feminine man or a masculine woman? Isn't deciding to be the other gender an act of reinforcing social stereotypes about a gender? I have these thoughts,  yet would gladly vote to support their rights, I think because that's what my tribe does.

There are other examples, but in the off chance someone actually reads this, I'll spare myself the further shame of putting all my private thoughts on the internet for the sake of illustrating this one point. It is an interesting exercise I'd encourage everyone to try. A good place to start is to ask yourself which of your beliefs come directly from meaningful personal experience. I would argue that if you agree with everything your political party believes in, and don't think any of it is tribe think, you're not thinking hard enough. Be aware of the causes people are really championing, not just tagging along on, and align yourself accordingly. And if these causes are truly important to you, you owe it to yourself to ask whether the person you vote for is genuinely pursuing policies that reflect your innate beliefs.

Quote of the Day: My CTO, Shuming, said something to the extent of, "Everything is a gift, your whole existence is a gift. Believing this will make you more patient and happier"

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).