Unintended consequences

So congress just passed a bill that will reward employers for hiring unemployed veterans.  Now, I am all for helping the troops, but I find this particular tactic interesting.  They say that the returning vets have a disproportionately high unemployment rate?  Why is that?  Rather than paying employers to hire them, why don't we find out what's holding them back.  Maybe we need to do more to make sure that they are not broken (physically and emotionally) when they return to civilian life. 

I will not go so far as to say that this is a grand conspiracy, but I will allow that it could just be a fortuitous (for some) unintended consequence.  If there is an angry mob at your ivory tower, which are the ones who are the greatest threat?  The big guys, the tough guys, the ones with combat experience, the professional soldiers.  With this Occupy Wall Street movement starting to scare the 'haves', getting the soldiers out of the masses will help neuter the mob. 

example for regulation

If I own a gas station, I sell 3 grades of gas for 3 different prices.  One day per week, I could switch the tanks and sell 87 octane at the 93 octane price, and no one would ever know.  If I can get away with it, shouldn't I?  Is this someplace where the government could regulate and try to prevent this sort of fraud from occurring?  Or should we all have to test all the products we buy ourselves to ensure their purity? 

Question for the Free Marketeers

"The government that governs best is the government that governs least."  That means that the best situation would be no government at all.  "The free market will take care of things if the government would just get out of the way.  Everything would be fine (and much better) if the government would just stop interfering in the market."  These are common sentiments I hear from my friends who advocate the free market.  So how far does that go?

The Free Market is unregulated.  If you have an advantage, you should use it.  If you are publicly traded you MUST use it.  So if I have extra cash (which must be deserved, because wealth proves worth- those with money are better than the rest of us because that money proves that they are smart, innovative, hard working, risk-takers and job creators (while having a lack of cash proves that you are none of those things)).  So if I have the advantage of extra cash, what should prevent me from giving a bribe to public officials to direct public tax dollars towards my company?  I can use my money to buy commercials to sway public opinion, but that is very inefficient.  It is much cheaper and more direct to give that money directly to a politician to ensure that he votes in my favor, regardless of public sentiment (or impact).   Should that be allowed in a Free Market arrangement?  If not, how do you prevent it if not through government regulation? 

What kind of world do you want?

If you were able to create your ideal society, how would it be?

In terms of economy, would it be an Oligarchy, where a small ruling class controls most of the wealth and industry and the majority of the people were serfs, or would you prefer a society with a strong middle class?  How many poor people would exist in your ideal world?

Would public policy be determined by everyone who was affected by it, or should it be written by whoever pays the most for it?

Would you prefer a market where companies can compete freely with one another, or would you create a system where companies can buy up all their competition and hold effective monopolies?

Would you want a place that preserved its natural beauty for future generations, or would you prefer to cash in as much as you could of the Earth's natural resources in as little time possible?

Would you want an economy where everyone had to work 40-80 hours/week, or would you prefer a system where one wage earner could make enough to provide for his or her family, leaving the other parent to supervise the kids?  In your perfect world, how much free time should parents have to spend with their kids.   If they should be working all the time, then who should raise and instruct our kids.   Would you even care if kids other than yours were supervised/instructed?

In your setup, should everyone be self-made millionaires?  Or should some people create industries and other people staff them?  If the latter, how much credit (money) should go to the people who have the dream and how much to the people who make it happen?

In your perfect world, would you live in a gated community or would you prefer a world where you did not need a gate to protect you?

How many people do you want to have access to education and opportunity?  Would you like everyone to be able to maximize their potential, or only those born into privilege?

How many years do you think a  person should have to work to pay off a 4-year education?

How many of your neighbors do you want to be healthy?

How many of your neighbors do you want to be happy?  How many do you want to be desperate?

Would you like a place where people could take risks and know that they will still be OK if they fail?  Or do you want everyone to know that they are on their own and to not risk anything unless they are guaranteed success?

Would you like a world where science and knowledge are pursued, or shunned?

How many wars would be going on in your ideal world?

How polluted do you want your water, air, and food to be?



I think that this libertarian ideal is forgetting that we all must live together and that we do benefit from the well-being of those around us.  No one exists in a vacuum, and I would not like it if we did.  Shared work, shared reward. 

Republicans for torture

last night's RNC Presidential debate showed some interesting things.  The most interesting to me was that all the front-runners are OK with torture.  I wonder how one can pursue the far-right Christian bloc and advocate torture.  I guess it's not so much a commentary on the incongruity of the candidates but of the voting bloc themselves.  The voters they are trying to woo are NOT good Christians.  They are self-righteous, judgemental, hypocritical, fearful, and hateful people.  Are these the people that our whole country's policies should reflect?  I hope not.

Torture is wrong.  It does not usually get good information.  It always incites more violence against us, and it justifies the torture of our soldiers (and civilians if God forbid they ever get captured).   It is easy to be moral when there is no problem.  The test of our morals and beliefs comes when it is hardest to adhere to them.  I am so disappointed with Perry, Cain, Romney, and Bachmann.  I thought we were done with being the brutal thugs of the world and wanted to show our moral high-groundedness.  Thanks for lowering us, jerks.

Props to Huntsman and Paul for showing civility and intelligence in this area.        

Class Warfare

So a group of rich and powerful people got together and said, "wouldn't it be great if we were even richer?  How can we do that?  Well, 150 million people collectively own as much wealth as the 400 of us, let's go after their money." 

So they decreed, "hey middle class, we're going to ship your jobs away.  Then when you get in trouble with your mortgage, we won't refinance, we'll just take your house.  We'll charge you extra fees to use our banks (unless you have $20,000 in our banks, then these fees won't apply to you).  We'll raise your health insurance premiums to the point where you either go bankrupt paying the insurance, or go bankrupt when you need medical care.  Don't try going to the legislature.  We have used our wealth to silence your voice and buy their votes.  We've used our influence to suppress your ability to vote.  Hell, we even own the courts and are trying to make it so you can't sue us when we screw you. 

We'll dump our toxic chemicals in your backyard.  We'll remove your ability to collectively bargain.  We'll make it so that you are indebted to our big banks for 30 years just to get a college education.  We'll award ourselves huge bonuses with the cash that you give to us as a bailout when we trash the economy.  And we'll use some of that money to make sure that you do not have access to opportunities to advance. 

And when the middle class realizes what's been done to them and declare, "Hey, we're getting screwed.  Yo, rich A-holes, stop screwing us."  Then that is class warfare. 

Another Analogy for the Occupiers

Wall street is a 2-year old who has never had any limits placed upon it.  It is a wild child.  Now it is in our house, tearing up the place.  Now the child does need to be redirected, but the real problem lies with the parents.  The kid will not and can not control himself.  That is the job of the parents.  A corporation will not and can not control itself (how much proof do you need?)  That is the job of society.  We band together and let them know what behaviors are and are not acceptable.  We use our government to formalize and enforce those rules.  Our protests need to be directed towards the parents.  Just like DCFS, if they cannot parent correctly, that responsibility/privilege will be taken from them.  Occupy your government.  Write all your representatives (not just the Democrats or Republicans, but ALL of them) and let them know they need to be responsible and control these kids.  Re-institute Glass-Steagel, abolish corporate personhood with a constitutional amendment that also states that money is not speech.  Put restrictions on lawmakers taking jobs or money from industries that they affected (even after they leave office).  Our democracy has been taken away from us and is now going to the highest bidder.  We need to get the money out of politics and put the power back in the people's hands- the way the founders intended.  Yelling at the corporations will not affect these necessary changes.  Yell at your representatives.  Boycott the companies. 

Every man for himself Utopia

So what I gather from some of the hard-core Libertarians and Ayn Rand devotee's is that ours should be a society where everyone is only out for him or herself.  As long as you can prop yourself up, then you can remain.  But if you fall down, that is your own fault; and to expect society to pick you back up would be an unfair drain to the rest of us.  So if you fall down, either get yourself back up or die. 

This has in it the belief that misfortune can always be avoided and that when it occurs it is always deserved.  But, we should all know that Shit Happens.  Your home could catch fire through no fault of your own.  Your retirement savings could be wiped out by unscrupulous traders or unethical companies.  Any of us is just one misfortune away from needing help.  You can get hit by a bus while dining at a cafe, then the insurance company can drop you and suddenly you're bankrupt.  So if we insist that help is for the weak and should not be something that we as a society want to provide, then we must all live in fear.  We should be terrified every day that we might fall down (or be knocked down), blamed for it, and then left to die.  I don't know about you, but I don't want a world where everyone is terrified.  I thought that is why we developed societies- so we can work together and help each other out.  The Any Rand model seems pretty anti-society to me and is not a worldview that I want to cultivate.  I am not suggesting that there should be no consequences for bad decisions.  There needs to be a balance.  And the hard-core Libs and Ayn Randers are calling for 100% individual, which would be anarchy.