The real problem with legislators arises from the fact that they are elected for a specific limited period of time. As a result, they are not particularly interested in the longer-term consequences of a current vote, when 'longer-term' is defined as 'not on my watch'. Their concern is focused on their own term of office, and what serves them best over that range of time.
So when we see the huge and rapid increase in public debt, we see the direct consequences of being focused only on the current issues. Legislators won't be around to take responsibility for the debts they have incurred. Current needs are met. The future can take care of itself, or at the least other people will take care of things.
Another example is the issue of global warming. That's a future event, well after their current term of office. Right now oil is profitable and reasonably available.
Who cares about the emissions? I can't smell a thing. Unless I go into a town.
The limits on this kind of spending and thinking, if we can call it thinking, were originally managed by keeping the dollar tied to the gold standard. We couldn't print more money than we had gold to back it up. It was harder for the country to go into debt. Having the requirement to live within our current means limited our ability to incur debts. There is no such limit now, of course, because otherwise we (as a nation) would have experienced great restrictions on our ability to spend money. Money that we don't have.
We thought that in the future our increased prosperity, triggered by our ability to spend vast amounts of money we didn't have now, would generate the taxes that could be used to pay off our debts. Kind of like spending money with a platinum card on the assumption that we would earn enough at some time in the future we could pay our debts.
Legislators aren't the only short-sighted people. I am old enough that it's very clear to me that I have a relatively short number of years ahead of me. I sometimes find myself thinking about such issues that they won't be my problem because I won't be around to deal with them. So for those who are both elderly and legislators, the incentive to deal with future problems becomes rather weak. Can we afford the luxury of short-sightedness?
A final note. The voting population seems afflicted with the same disorder. They (and I mean 'we') want what they want when they want it, which is now. The hell with the future. It will take care of itself. We can indulge ourselves in what we want. Someone else will have to pay the credit card bill.
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Friday, September 01, 2017
Financial Bailouts for the Improvident
Lots of people in Houston are suffering after the last storm. Some of them need and deserve help. Some need the help but should not be entitled to it.
When you build or buy a home in the flood plain, you know without a doubt that you are taking a risk. This is especially true when you buy or build in a coastal city such as Houston. So you have the option of buying flood insurance. Like all insurance programs, flood insurance spreads catastrophic individual costs among a larger pool of people, so that no one person gets wiped out.
Now, many people lost their homes due to the flooding in (of all places) the flood plain. The government offers to use our money to provide financial assistance, as if the government were a huge insurance company that you don't have to sign up for. You get flooded, the government will help you. You don't have to pay premiums or anything. Maybe you don't even pay much or any taxes.
Buying a home in the flood plain and electing not to purchase insurance in the knowledge that the government (i.e. all the rest of us in the US) will chip in and buy you a new home. Makes it a lot easier to buy the house when you don't have to pay for insurance. You are ENTITLED to help you didn't pay for and didn't sign up for, so what is the risk for you? Not much. If you had to take a share in the risk you might think twice, but you don't even have to think once.
Our representatives in the government feel the same way about banks. We will bail them out, too, if they make unwise investments and take high risks, because we can't afford for them to fail. So what holds them back from taking such risks? Nothing, of course. Lots to gain, little to lose. We got you, buddy. Do we get to share in the profits? Ummm... no.
The degree of risk in an endeavor should be factored into the costs of the endeavor, otherwise there is nothing to limit risky behavior. When the risks could not be anticipated or avoided, we can and should help. But when people gamble, it should be with their own money, not ours.
When you build or buy a home in the flood plain, you know without a doubt that you are taking a risk. This is especially true when you buy or build in a coastal city such as Houston. So you have the option of buying flood insurance. Like all insurance programs, flood insurance spreads catastrophic individual costs among a larger pool of people, so that no one person gets wiped out.
Now, many people lost their homes due to the flooding in (of all places) the flood plain. The government offers to use our money to provide financial assistance, as if the government were a huge insurance company that you don't have to sign up for. You get flooded, the government will help you. You don't have to pay premiums or anything. Maybe you don't even pay much or any taxes.
Buying a home in the flood plain and electing not to purchase insurance in the knowledge that the government (i.e. all the rest of us in the US) will chip in and buy you a new home. Makes it a lot easier to buy the house when you don't have to pay for insurance. You are ENTITLED to help you didn't pay for and didn't sign up for, so what is the risk for you? Not much. If you had to take a share in the risk you might think twice, but you don't even have to think once.
Our representatives in the government feel the same way about banks. We will bail them out, too, if they make unwise investments and take high risks, because we can't afford for them to fail. So what holds them back from taking such risks? Nothing, of course. Lots to gain, little to lose. We got you, buddy. Do we get to share in the profits? Ummm... no.
The degree of risk in an endeavor should be factored into the costs of the endeavor, otherwise there is nothing to limit risky behavior. When the risks could not be anticipated or avoided, we can and should help. But when people gamble, it should be with their own money, not ours.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
A possible solution to our drug problem
Not only do we spend a great deal of money on drugs, but a lot more is spent as a result of the huge amount of petty crime carried out in order to pay for drug usage. Most of the money spent directly on drugs leaves the United States, and ultimately improves the standard of living for people in other countries at the cost of our own.
What if the government took over the drug business? Suppose that the US government bought directly from the drug manufacturers at their price, and distributed the drugs in the US to whoever wanted them for free and without legal consequences? Drug kiosks could provide marijuana, cocaine, crack, heroin, opiates to anyone of age who wanted them. The money would come from the huge amounts allocated now to fight drug importation and use. And it would come from the reduction in prison costs and rehabilitation costs and reduction in drug police
.
Since there is no cost there is no profit. The gangs that control, distribute and sell drugs would go out of business. The crime that supports drug habits would stop since it would be unnecessary. There would be no motivation to encourage drug use or to expand a drug market since there would be no drug market.
What would be the consequences? Some people would probably overdose and die. Many of them would eventually in any case, but there might well be an increase. Fewer people would die of contaminated or adulterated drugs since they would be pure. Fewer people would die in gang wars over turf, which is always a war of the marketplace to some degree. Fewer law enforcement people would be killed and fewer employed.
Whether or not drug usage would ultimately stop is not an answerable question. People have always sought substances that provide certain experiences and sensations, and there is no reason to think that easy access would change that. But they would be healthier in the process and not at all likely to descend into crime to support what would be a free product.
Would a drug craze sweep the nation, that is, more than it already has? In fact people already have nearly unfettered access to drugs now. Does anyone doubt that they could obtain any drug they were interested in within the next few hours? Free controlled access would only mean that there would be some ability to limit sales to the very young, but there is no way to prevent sharing of drugs once out of the drug kiosk, and there is no way to prevent inappropriate sharing, just as happens now with alcohol, marijuana, and ... wait. That happens now.
The problem would be that we are supporting drug manufacturing organizations in other countries. Of course, we are now. But it is possible that competition for our huge business would drive costs down over time. Perhaps eventually drug manufacture would be no more of a major business that the manufacture of tennis shoes. More money would stay in the US. We would have a little more say about the quality of product.
There really is no way to predict a long-range outcome. But what we see before us now is not very favorable, and seems to be getting worse. What problems do you see with this proposal
What if the government took over the drug business? Suppose that the US government bought directly from the drug manufacturers at their price, and distributed the drugs in the US to whoever wanted them for free and without legal consequences? Drug kiosks could provide marijuana, cocaine, crack, heroin, opiates to anyone of age who wanted them. The money would come from the huge amounts allocated now to fight drug importation and use. And it would come from the reduction in prison costs and rehabilitation costs and reduction in drug police
.
Since there is no cost there is no profit. The gangs that control, distribute and sell drugs would go out of business. The crime that supports drug habits would stop since it would be unnecessary. There would be no motivation to encourage drug use or to expand a drug market since there would be no drug market.
What would be the consequences? Some people would probably overdose and die. Many of them would eventually in any case, but there might well be an increase. Fewer people would die of contaminated or adulterated drugs since they would be pure. Fewer people would die in gang wars over turf, which is always a war of the marketplace to some degree. Fewer law enforcement people would be killed and fewer employed.
Whether or not drug usage would ultimately stop is not an answerable question. People have always sought substances that provide certain experiences and sensations, and there is no reason to think that easy access would change that. But they would be healthier in the process and not at all likely to descend into crime to support what would be a free product.
Would a drug craze sweep the nation, that is, more than it already has? In fact people already have nearly unfettered access to drugs now. Does anyone doubt that they could obtain any drug they were interested in within the next few hours? Free controlled access would only mean that there would be some ability to limit sales to the very young, but there is no way to prevent sharing of drugs once out of the drug kiosk, and there is no way to prevent inappropriate sharing, just as happens now with alcohol, marijuana, and ... wait. That happens now.
The problem would be that we are supporting drug manufacturing organizations in other countries. Of course, we are now. But it is possible that competition for our huge business would drive costs down over time. Perhaps eventually drug manufacture would be no more of a major business that the manufacture of tennis shoes. More money would stay in the US. We would have a little more say about the quality of product.
There really is no way to predict a long-range outcome. But what we see before us now is not very favorable, and seems to be getting worse. What problems do you see with this proposal
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Taxes and Benefits: The Great Disconnect
The morning papers have the same complaints and demands, year after year. Everybody wants the government to do more for them. The same people complain about paying taxes. Last year about tax time we were having a staff meeting. You should be aware that our staff are social workers for the most part, and well-educated ones at that, with a Master's degree and years of experience. The complaint heard around the room was how once again the Department of Mental Health was taking cuts in budget, as we had for a number of years, on the grounds that tax revenues had again fallen and there simply wasn't enough money.
During a lull in the complaining I stood and asked the following question: How many of you would be willing to pay a five percent increase in your state income taxes if the money were earmarked for mental health?
Not one single hand went up. I then asked for suggestions as to how the money could be found without raising taxes. There were a number of suggestions, some obscene or at least impractical.
These included "stop the graft", without specifying exactly which graft was being referred to; another suggestion included taking it from the roads budget, although our roads are among the worst in the US. It was clear that as a group we did not see the direct connection between taxation and budget. The money should come from the same place we expected it to come from when we were unemployed teenagers: the Great Daddy, who now apparently resides in Washington.
As a people we need to reconnect our expenditures with our income. I have a suggestion, clearly impractical since it makes sense. We should vote on budget issues online. Each budget expenditure should be associated with the exact amount of cost, paid by taxes, for each person's bracket. We need to own what we choose to pay for. Oklahoma highway bridges? X Million total, for you personally $437.44 of your income tax. No items can be approved unless enough people vote for the expenditure out of their pockets. Not enough voted? The item cannot be paid for and we can't have it. Just like our personal budgets.
I can think of many possible variations on this idea. It might be disastrous for a few years, but eventually people will see the truth, that they are paying for everything the government spends out of their own individual pockets. I suspect legislator salaries and benefits would be among the early casualties of this plan, but if I can think of that, so will the legislators, and they will never allow that to happen as long as they vote for their own pay.
Such a plan was not practical, or even possible, in the early days of the republic. Distances and difficult communication were huge obstacles. But with the internet those problems can be solved and there is no practical reason why the general public should not have a direct voice in allocation of tax moneys and expenditures.
During a lull in the complaining I stood and asked the following question: How many of you would be willing to pay a five percent increase in your state income taxes if the money were earmarked for mental health?
Not one single hand went up. I then asked for suggestions as to how the money could be found without raising taxes. There were a number of suggestions, some obscene or at least impractical.
These included "stop the graft", without specifying exactly which graft was being referred to; another suggestion included taking it from the roads budget, although our roads are among the worst in the US. It was clear that as a group we did not see the direct connection between taxation and budget. The money should come from the same place we expected it to come from when we were unemployed teenagers: the Great Daddy, who now apparently resides in Washington.
As a people we need to reconnect our expenditures with our income. I have a suggestion, clearly impractical since it makes sense. We should vote on budget issues online. Each budget expenditure should be associated with the exact amount of cost, paid by taxes, for each person's bracket. We need to own what we choose to pay for. Oklahoma highway bridges? X Million total, for you personally $437.44 of your income tax. No items can be approved unless enough people vote for the expenditure out of their pockets. Not enough voted? The item cannot be paid for and we can't have it. Just like our personal budgets.
I can think of many possible variations on this idea. It might be disastrous for a few years, but eventually people will see the truth, that they are paying for everything the government spends out of their own individual pockets. I suspect legislator salaries and benefits would be among the early casualties of this plan, but if I can think of that, so will the legislators, and they will never allow that to happen as long as they vote for their own pay.
Such a plan was not practical, or even possible, in the early days of the republic. Distances and difficult communication were huge obstacles. But with the internet those problems can be solved and there is no practical reason why the general public should not have a direct voice in allocation of tax moneys and expenditures.
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
Libertarian Party Invites Me To Run
True, they didn't say for what, nor even how fast. And they added that they would appreciate a contribution, and I have this hunch that my running for something, say President or even World Emperor, would be contingent on the contribution amount. President would be enough for me. I'm a simple man.
Well, I'm not interested in politics, really. The company you have to keep is pretty distasteful. But I am interested in total, nearly unbridled power. I am confident that I could use such power wisely and remain uncorrupted, or at least uncorrupted for, say, six months. After that I should be watched closely. At my age, how much longer could I last, anyway?
So I've given some thought to my platform, and I will welcome comments, which for the most part I intend to ignore. Still, crowd-sourcing sometimes is surprisingly effective. The first 5 items have to do with Congress:
One: All Congressmen (and Congresswomen) will have their current ridiculous life-time pensions reduced and the term on their pensions will be limited to the number of years they were in Congress. Four years in office, four years pension. That's a better deal than they deserve.
Two: All Congresspeople will have Medicare ONLY. They don't get a special deal. If they want more insurance they can pay for it, same as we do.
Three: Congress is not allowed to set their own salaries and benefits. It seems unreasonable to allow the pigs to vote on how much goes into their trough. A Citizen's Committee, appointed by me, will make recommendations for any salary or benefit changes, and I will put the recommendations on the internet and allow all American citizens to vote for them.
Four: Amendments to bills will be limited to amendments that relate to the content of the bill. No more adding the costs of their driveways to the National Parks budget. This will cause some major changes in the way Congress does business; it will specifically affect pork-barrel legislation. Each bill will have to be voted on based entirely on its specific merits. This alone should cut down the budget and the time to decide on it.
Five: If campaign promises are broken, the Congressperson may be expelled by vote of his district.
But enough about Congress, though I would consider a movement to make corruption and graft in office a capital offense, to be carried out publically by firing squad or beheading. And don't give me any crap about "cruel and unusual punishment". The jihadists do it, so it must be ok. The remaining items are about general policy.
Six: I will have line-item veto on any bills. This is probably the single most important item in my program. Congress has used its ability to tie personal crap to otherwise good bills we MUST pass, so that they can bribe each other with public funds. In particular this will apply to the Budget.
Seven: Budget items that I regard as superfluous, excessive, or ill-advised will be vetoed by me. However, I may call a national internet vote on certain less-necessary but valuable issues, such as NPR. We can only afford what we can afford. Some good things will have to be put off until later. And bear in mind that much of our military costs are actually spent IN the US, which keeps a lot of people employed, able to afford marijuana and stay quietly off the streets.
Eight: I will consider re-establishing a tariff on goods produced outside the US and brought in. The intention is to keep more money inside the US and stop sending it to other countries. I will demand a revocation of NAFTA. It's nice to help Nike find cheap labor that helps the abysmally poor people in other countries, but I would rather help our own poor, at least to the extent they are willing to work.
Nine. No more sending our forces overseas except to defend us. The exception might be that if the UN votes for military sanctions, AND if all the other countries in the UN agree to send their own troops, I could be persuaded. But I'm tired of us being the playground guard for the rest of the world. All they have to do to be fine with me is to stop trying to kill us. I really don't care if they want to kill each other in the name of whatever primitive religious beliefs they have, as long as they don't try it with us.
Personal pledges by me: I will be absolutely honest. I will say what I mean and mean what I say. (This has already limited my social desirability). At my age I am immune to personal bribes or seductions by interns. I already have more than I need, so I am not corruptible. I haven't done anything that could be used to blackmail me. I will ask for popular vote of confidence via internet on a regular basis concerning issues affecting the general welfare. I have no intentions of going to church or praying to or for anything and I have no intentions of stopping others from such forms of activity. So if you want to be religious, you won't get a problem from me. Unless you give me one.
Since I am pretty much immune to the usual political influences (see above), a number of people will want me dead. You can easily guess which group or combination of houses would be behind an assassination, although they will probably hire a middle-Easterner so it will look like a terrorist plot.
After six months I think my term should be renewable by popular vote (internet style). We could call for a vote of confidence/no confidence every 3 months thereafter. I'm a honest and honorable sort of person, but who knows how that much power might affect me? It's never safe to allow that kind of power to remain in one person's hands without time/term limits. Except for me.
Also a qualification: while sitting on my porch and drinking my coffee, I was accidentally sprayed with a shrubbery-spray intended to kill fungus and insects. At this point, I should be fungus and bug-free for the near future, which not only is a plus but puts me ahead of the other candidates.
So I'm open to suggestions. Any thoughts or additions?
Well, I'm not interested in politics, really. The company you have to keep is pretty distasteful. But I am interested in total, nearly unbridled power. I am confident that I could use such power wisely and remain uncorrupted, or at least uncorrupted for, say, six months. After that I should be watched closely. At my age, how much longer could I last, anyway?
So I've given some thought to my platform, and I will welcome comments, which for the most part I intend to ignore. Still, crowd-sourcing sometimes is surprisingly effective. The first 5 items have to do with Congress:
One: All Congressmen (and Congresswomen) will have their current ridiculous life-time pensions reduced and the term on their pensions will be limited to the number of years they were in Congress. Four years in office, four years pension. That's a better deal than they deserve.
Two: All Congresspeople will have Medicare ONLY. They don't get a special deal. If they want more insurance they can pay for it, same as we do.
Three: Congress is not allowed to set their own salaries and benefits. It seems unreasonable to allow the pigs to vote on how much goes into their trough. A Citizen's Committee, appointed by me, will make recommendations for any salary or benefit changes, and I will put the recommendations on the internet and allow all American citizens to vote for them.
Four: Amendments to bills will be limited to amendments that relate to the content of the bill. No more adding the costs of their driveways to the National Parks budget. This will cause some major changes in the way Congress does business; it will specifically affect pork-barrel legislation. Each bill will have to be voted on based entirely on its specific merits. This alone should cut down the budget and the time to decide on it.
Five: If campaign promises are broken, the Congressperson may be expelled by vote of his district.
But enough about Congress, though I would consider a movement to make corruption and graft in office a capital offense, to be carried out publically by firing squad or beheading. And don't give me any crap about "cruel and unusual punishment". The jihadists do it, so it must be ok. The remaining items are about general policy.
Six: I will have line-item veto on any bills. This is probably the single most important item in my program. Congress has used its ability to tie personal crap to otherwise good bills we MUST pass, so that they can bribe each other with public funds. In particular this will apply to the Budget.
Seven: Budget items that I regard as superfluous, excessive, or ill-advised will be vetoed by me. However, I may call a national internet vote on certain less-necessary but valuable issues, such as NPR. We can only afford what we can afford. Some good things will have to be put off until later. And bear in mind that much of our military costs are actually spent IN the US, which keeps a lot of people employed, able to afford marijuana and stay quietly off the streets.
Eight: I will consider re-establishing a tariff on goods produced outside the US and brought in. The intention is to keep more money inside the US and stop sending it to other countries. I will demand a revocation of NAFTA. It's nice to help Nike find cheap labor that helps the abysmally poor people in other countries, but I would rather help our own poor, at least to the extent they are willing to work.
Nine. No more sending our forces overseas except to defend us. The exception might be that if the UN votes for military sanctions, AND if all the other countries in the UN agree to send their own troops, I could be persuaded. But I'm tired of us being the playground guard for the rest of the world. All they have to do to be fine with me is to stop trying to kill us. I really don't care if they want to kill each other in the name of whatever primitive religious beliefs they have, as long as they don't try it with us.
Personal pledges by me: I will be absolutely honest. I will say what I mean and mean what I say. (This has already limited my social desirability). At my age I am immune to personal bribes or seductions by interns. I already have more than I need, so I am not corruptible. I haven't done anything that could be used to blackmail me. I will ask for popular vote of confidence via internet on a regular basis concerning issues affecting the general welfare. I have no intentions of going to church or praying to or for anything and I have no intentions of stopping others from such forms of activity. So if you want to be religious, you won't get a problem from me. Unless you give me one.
Since I am pretty much immune to the usual political influences (see above), a number of people will want me dead. You can easily guess which group or combination of houses would be behind an assassination, although they will probably hire a middle-Easterner so it will look like a terrorist plot.
After six months I think my term should be renewable by popular vote (internet style). We could call for a vote of confidence/no confidence every 3 months thereafter. I'm a honest and honorable sort of person, but who knows how that much power might affect me? It's never safe to allow that kind of power to remain in one person's hands without time/term limits. Except for me.
Also a qualification: while sitting on my porch and drinking my coffee, I was accidentally sprayed with a shrubbery-spray intended to kill fungus and insects. At this point, I should be fungus and bug-free for the near future, which not only is a plus but puts me ahead of the other candidates.
So I'm open to suggestions. Any thoughts or additions?
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Group Prejudice
I believe that much "racial" prejudice is not racial at all. It seems much more likely to me that there is developing an increasing conflict between socio-economic classes, specifically the middle- and working class people and the "gangsta/rebel" groups. I say groups because they are belong to all "ethnic" groups in all kinds of neighborhoods.
The gangsta-rebel groups function like all groups. They emphasize differences between those within their groups and everyone else. These differences are deliberately exaggerated and are intended to antagonize those in other groups. Their language, dress and behavior are deliberately well outside the bounds of what the middle-class groups would find acceptable. Even their music flaunts vulgar language and concepts which are alienating to those outside their groups. Consider "rap" music, droopy pants, caps worn at a specific angle, public language in songs and on stage, and public behavior: all designed to antagonize and alienate, thus emphasizing their refusal to belong. They feel that they refuse to belong rather than that they are denied admission.
In general all groups tend to emphasize their differences from other groups. The "gang" mentality existed long before gangsta garb and behavior was so public. If you can't belong to a desirable group, you can refuse to belong, and in that way take more control of your life. "I don't want to belong to your group" is better than "I'm mad because I can't get it".
There are larger and larger segments of our population that are excluded from middle-class socioeconomic culture because of the economy and the difficulties the impoverished have in obtaining a decent education and well-paying jobs Yet they like all of us need to belong. The less they have, the more they "need" each other. The more different and antagonistic they are, the more the middle-class have reasons to exclude them. The more they are excluded, the more difficult it is for them to get the education and jobs they need.
The system becomes self-sustaining. I need to be different because I can't belong; I can't belong because I am different. The middle-classes exclude them because they are rebellious and "different. And so the alienation and antagonism grows.
The police are seen as the enforcers and hirelings of the middle classes. They are more the "enemy" than the protectors. The lower classes become more excluded and powerless, and the groups within them become more important and stronger.
The saddest part is that we attribute this group rivalry to ethnic issues rather than seeing the rebellious and resentful issues that group rivalry itself causes. The gangsta groups tend to be associated with the ethnic groups to which a majority of them belong. We mistake consequence for cause. We lose sight of individuals for the suit they are wearing, which is at least in part what they wish.
The gangsta-rebel groups function like all groups. They emphasize differences between those within their groups and everyone else. These differences are deliberately exaggerated and are intended to antagonize those in other groups. Their language, dress and behavior are deliberately well outside the bounds of what the middle-class groups would find acceptable. Even their music flaunts vulgar language and concepts which are alienating to those outside their groups. Consider "rap" music, droopy pants, caps worn at a specific angle, public language in songs and on stage, and public behavior: all designed to antagonize and alienate, thus emphasizing their refusal to belong. They feel that they refuse to belong rather than that they are denied admission.
In general all groups tend to emphasize their differences from other groups. The "gang" mentality existed long before gangsta garb and behavior was so public. If you can't belong to a desirable group, you can refuse to belong, and in that way take more control of your life. "I don't want to belong to your group" is better than "I'm mad because I can't get it".
There are larger and larger segments of our population that are excluded from middle-class socioeconomic culture because of the economy and the difficulties the impoverished have in obtaining a decent education and well-paying jobs Yet they like all of us need to belong. The less they have, the more they "need" each other. The more different and antagonistic they are, the more the middle-class have reasons to exclude them. The more they are excluded, the more difficult it is for them to get the education and jobs they need.
The system becomes self-sustaining. I need to be different because I can't belong; I can't belong because I am different. The middle-classes exclude them because they are rebellious and "different. And so the alienation and antagonism grows.
The police are seen as the enforcers and hirelings of the middle classes. They are more the "enemy" than the protectors. The lower classes become more excluded and powerless, and the groups within them become more important and stronger.
The saddest part is that we attribute this group rivalry to ethnic issues rather than seeing the rebellious and resentful issues that group rivalry itself causes. The gangsta groups tend to be associated with the ethnic groups to which a majority of them belong. We mistake consequence for cause. We lose sight of individuals for the suit they are wearing, which is at least in part what they wish.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
The Income Tax Lottery!
I have what may be a way to solve our debt problems once and for all!
We all have to pay the income tax and we all have to wade through the instructions or hire an expert to lead us by the hand. And we all know that there are many people who avoid paying taxes by staying under the radar, or who have such clever tax dodges that they get away with paying a minimal amount. Various proposals have been made to deal with this issue, from national sales taxes to flat taxes to...
But what if we turned our income tax day into a national lottery, with a hundred million-dollar prizes, and for each $5.00 (or some such small amount) paid into the IRS for income taxes we would get a ticket for the lottery. Prizes could range from small to large, or a lifetime exemption from income taxes or... The more you pay in, the more chances you have, and the prizes would themselves be tax free. Perhaps people could buy additional tickets, but only if they had paid their income tax already.
You could give extra tickets for early filing, or for whatever reason you want to encourage. Would you find such a system appealing?
We all have to pay the income tax and we all have to wade through the instructions or hire an expert to lead us by the hand. And we all know that there are many people who avoid paying taxes by staying under the radar, or who have such clever tax dodges that they get away with paying a minimal amount. Various proposals have been made to deal with this issue, from national sales taxes to flat taxes to...
But what if we turned our income tax day into a national lottery, with a hundred million-dollar prizes, and for each $5.00 (or some such small amount) paid into the IRS for income taxes we would get a ticket for the lottery. Prizes could range from small to large, or a lifetime exemption from income taxes or... The more you pay in, the more chances you have, and the prizes would themselves be tax free. Perhaps people could buy additional tickets, but only if they had paid their income tax already.
You could give extra tickets for early filing, or for whatever reason you want to encourage. Would you find such a system appealing?
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
No Help For Self-Inflicted Injury, Part 2
The number of people injured or killed in automobiles as a result of the usage of cell-phones to text while driving is increasing. We all know that there is a much greater likelihood of having an accident while driving when we are distracted. According to the Daily Oklahoman today, the chances of having an accident while texting are 23 times greater.
The Highway Patrol and the local police agree that making texting while driving illegal is not a practical solution to the problem, as it is almost impossible to detect the presence of that kind of distraction prior to an accident. Why arrest when you can't prove in court that the driver was actually texting while driving?
I would be in favor of allowing texting while driving if the drivers killed only themselves. Why not eliminate the dummards from the gene pool, and earlier/younger better than later? But they kill people who aren't doing anything stupid and who deserve to be protected from the criminally stupid. So the following solution suggests itself: Why not excuse insurance companies from paying for damages caused by texting while driving? Perhaps the victims of the accident could still be covered, but certainly the texting driver at fault should not be covered. And perhaps criminal penalties could also be involved if the law were written properly.
By the same line of reasoning, insurance should not pay a drunken driver for causing an accident. It's important to add that the victims of the accident who were not the cause should not be penalized financially.
The principle idea remains the same in this small series of blogs: People who knowingly and willfully assume a risk should be financially and personally responsible for the outcome of the risky behavior. It's impractical to assume that police can stop all irresponsible behavior before it has a tragic result. But we can make the self-injurious pay their own bills, and perhaps that will discourage at least those few who can count.
A good way to start would be to contact your insurance agent and tell him/her: "I don't want to pay extra for people who take unnecessary risks, like driving and texting or drinking. Please contact the company and tell them I'm looking for insurance that doesn't reward deliberately reckless behavior." You could also contact the Insurance Commissioner in your home state and share the problem with him/her.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Uncle Charley on Self-Inflicted Wounds
"How did Bobby Joe get himself so whacked up?" Charley asked as we left the hospital.
"He lost control of his motorcycle out on Highway 9. He wasn't going all that fast, he said, just hit a sandy patch. Good thing he's got insurance," I said.
Charley looked thoughtful for a while. Then he said "I have some problems with medical insurance".
"Don't we all."
"Nah, I'm not thinking about costs and stuff, at least not directly. Now with Bobby Joe, I'm glad he's got medical coverage. But he wasn't doing anything wrong. That accident was just something that can happen when you ride a two-wheeler. I sure wouldn't feel the same way about his situation if he'd have been drunk."
"Hmm." I said. "You thinking that if he'd been drunk he shouldn't be covered by his medical insurance?"
"That's exactly right!" Charley said with some emotion. "Why should we all have to chip in on his medical bills when he done it to himself? Because that's all insurance is, you know, just us chippin' in in advance".
"So maybe it should say on the medical policy that you're not covered if you weren't being reasonably cautious?"
"More than that," Charley answered. "Why should we pay for somethin' stupid you do, like drinking and driving? Or if you get lung cancer after smoking 2 packs a day for 50 years? You want to take the risk, that's ok with me, but why should I pay extra because you don't take care of yourself?"
"You got a point," I said. "Maybe if people knew they weren't going to get covered for stuff like that, they wouldn't do it in the first place."
"Right. I'm thinking about other stuff too. For instance, if you have an accident driving your motorcycle without a helmet, the costs should be on you, not on the rest of us."
"I think that some Harley drivers have a saying 'No Helmets On Harleys'. That's kinda macho but they have a right to ride the way they want. But I don't want my rates to be higher because they want to ride without helmets."
Charley thought for a while. "How about all the motorcycle riders who don't want to wear helmets have their own insurance program? That'd solve that problem."
I laughed. "Sounds good. The principle being that other people don't pay for your risky behavior. And how about people that eat themselves into being so fat their knees and hips won't handle the stress? They should have to pay for their risks and replacement joints too."
Charley smiled. "I can see it now. They got their own insurance program. Call it Health Care For The Obese. I like it. Heart attacks wouldn't be covered, or diabetes, or atherosclerosis. We don't want to limit their freedom, we just want to limit our costs."
"How about people that attempt suicide and don't quite make it?" I asked. "And what about smokers?"
"I guess people that started smoking after the Surgeon General posted those warnings knew what they were doing. So, no medical treatment for lung cancer or COPD for them, unless they have their own insurance group. Plus they gotta pay higher rates to cover family members that got hit with second-hand smoke."
"So our motto is 'Pay For Your Own Risks Or Don't Take Them'. They need Tobacco Users Insurance."
"Sounds great to me," Charley said. "Insurance companies need to limit their costs, and so do we".
"He lost control of his motorcycle out on Highway 9. He wasn't going all that fast, he said, just hit a sandy patch. Good thing he's got insurance," I said.
Charley looked thoughtful for a while. Then he said "I have some problems with medical insurance".
"Don't we all."
"Nah, I'm not thinking about costs and stuff, at least not directly. Now with Bobby Joe, I'm glad he's got medical coverage. But he wasn't doing anything wrong. That accident was just something that can happen when you ride a two-wheeler. I sure wouldn't feel the same way about his situation if he'd have been drunk."
"Hmm." I said. "You thinking that if he'd been drunk he shouldn't be covered by his medical insurance?"
"That's exactly right!" Charley said with some emotion. "Why should we all have to chip in on his medical bills when he done it to himself? Because that's all insurance is, you know, just us chippin' in in advance".
"So maybe it should say on the medical policy that you're not covered if you weren't being reasonably cautious?"
"More than that," Charley answered. "Why should we pay for somethin' stupid you do, like drinking and driving? Or if you get lung cancer after smoking 2 packs a day for 50 years? You want to take the risk, that's ok with me, but why should I pay extra because you don't take care of yourself?"
"You got a point," I said. "Maybe if people knew they weren't going to get covered for stuff like that, they wouldn't do it in the first place."
"Right. I'm thinking about other stuff too. For instance, if you have an accident driving your motorcycle without a helmet, the costs should be on you, not on the rest of us."
"I think that some Harley drivers have a saying 'No Helmets On Harleys'. That's kinda macho but they have a right to ride the way they want. But I don't want my rates to be higher because they want to ride without helmets."
Charley thought for a while. "How about all the motorcycle riders who don't want to wear helmets have their own insurance program? That'd solve that problem."
I laughed. "Sounds good. The principle being that other people don't pay for your risky behavior. And how about people that eat themselves into being so fat their knees and hips won't handle the stress? They should have to pay for their risks and replacement joints too."
Charley smiled. "I can see it now. They got their own insurance program. Call it Health Care For The Obese. I like it. Heart attacks wouldn't be covered, or diabetes, or atherosclerosis. We don't want to limit their freedom, we just want to limit our costs."
"How about people that attempt suicide and don't quite make it?" I asked. "And what about smokers?"
"I guess people that started smoking after the Surgeon General posted those warnings knew what they were doing. So, no medical treatment for lung cancer or COPD for them, unless they have their own insurance group. Plus they gotta pay higher rates to cover family members that got hit with second-hand smoke."
"So our motto is 'Pay For Your Own Risks Or Don't Take Them'. They need Tobacco Users Insurance."
"Sounds great to me," Charley said. "Insurance companies need to limit their costs, and so do we".
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Uncle Charley Versus The Stock Market
I was standing in the shade of a sycamore tree near where Charley was repairing his fence. My job was limited to handing him tools, which was fine with me. It was hot, even hotter than usual for an Oklahoma summer, and there was almost no wind at all, which was certainly not usual for an Oklahoma anything.
"You read the paper this morning?" Charley asked, looking up from his work.
"Sure. What got your attention?"
"Been readin' about the stock market goin' up and down. Why does it do that, you think? Them companies don't change their value that much, but the stocks with their name on them sure go up and down like an elevator."
"No mystery to it, Charley," I said. "Stock prices go up when the buyers think they're going up, and stock prices drop when the buyers think they're going to drop."
"So accordin' to you them prices are all based on guess-work?"
"Yes, that's about how I see it."
"Well," Charley said, "that makes it just a form of gamblin', like Las Vegas with branch offices everywhere. Hold that post straight for me."
"I suppose that's true. When a new company starts up and needs money to get started, they can sell stock. The company gets to use the money, and the stockholders get to share in the profits, if there are any, and if he company fails, they lose their money. So that's a gamble, I guess, but it gives a company a chance, and without that, lots of good things wouldn't make it to the market."
Charley looked puzzled. "But after that, people just sell the stock back and forth to each other. That don't do anything for the startup company. That's just speculation."
"You got it," I said.
"All them people, actin' like they're doing something important, doing real business, they ain't doing anything but gamblin'. They don't make anything or produce anything themselves. They just want to bet on whether company stocks will go up or down. What do we need them for, anyway?"
"I don't think we do need them. They don't benefit anybody but each other, as far as I can see. Now, the start-up investors are doing something useful, because they give money to the company to help it succeed, and in return they hope for the company to succeed and pay them a share of the profits. But all the ones on Wall Street, the speculators, they're basically just parasites trying to make money without having a product or service."
"Tell you what, Harry," Charley said. "If I was Emperor I'd just shut 'em down. It's just gamblin' and pretending it's a serious business."
"Then they'd have to get jobs where they actually did something. Most of them don't know anything except gambling."
"Let 'em do it in Vegas and stop pretending that all them stock prices and the stock market are of any importance at all."
"OK with me," I laughed. "I figured out a long time ago that the only reliable way to make money is to work for it."
"Now that's a real unpopular idea, and I don't think it will ever catch on."
"It hasn't so far, that's for sure", I answered.
"You read the paper this morning?" Charley asked, looking up from his work.
"Sure. What got your attention?"
"Been readin' about the stock market goin' up and down. Why does it do that, you think? Them companies don't change their value that much, but the stocks with their name on them sure go up and down like an elevator."
"No mystery to it, Charley," I said. "Stock prices go up when the buyers think they're going up, and stock prices drop when the buyers think they're going to drop."
"So accordin' to you them prices are all based on guess-work?"
"Yes, that's about how I see it."
"Well," Charley said, "that makes it just a form of gamblin', like Las Vegas with branch offices everywhere. Hold that post straight for me."
"I suppose that's true. When a new company starts up and needs money to get started, they can sell stock. The company gets to use the money, and the stockholders get to share in the profits, if there are any, and if he company fails, they lose their money. So that's a gamble, I guess, but it gives a company a chance, and without that, lots of good things wouldn't make it to the market."
Charley looked puzzled. "But after that, people just sell the stock back and forth to each other. That don't do anything for the startup company. That's just speculation."
"You got it," I said.
"All them people, actin' like they're doing something important, doing real business, they ain't doing anything but gamblin'. They don't make anything or produce anything themselves. They just want to bet on whether company stocks will go up or down. What do we need them for, anyway?"
"I don't think we do need them. They don't benefit anybody but each other, as far as I can see. Now, the start-up investors are doing something useful, because they give money to the company to help it succeed, and in return they hope for the company to succeed and pay them a share of the profits. But all the ones on Wall Street, the speculators, they're basically just parasites trying to make money without having a product or service."
"Tell you what, Harry," Charley said. "If I was Emperor I'd just shut 'em down. It's just gamblin' and pretending it's a serious business."
"Then they'd have to get jobs where they actually did something. Most of them don't know anything except gambling."
"Let 'em do it in Vegas and stop pretending that all them stock prices and the stock market are of any importance at all."
"OK with me," I laughed. "I figured out a long time ago that the only reliable way to make money is to work for it."
"Now that's a real unpopular idea, and I don't think it will ever catch on."
"It hasn't so far, that's for sure", I answered.
Charley and Paying Down the Debt
We passed the bank on our way to the donut shop. A large sign on the front urged us to take out a loan for low interest rates.
"You owe any money to the bank?" Charley asked.
"No. Got everything paid."
"Wish our government did. All that debt.... We've borrowed trillions from China and spent it on government projects."
"I guess they're like the international bank," I said. "They keep us going".
"We're spending more than we're making, and we're borrowing from China and places like that to stay afloat. That seem right to you?"
"No, of course not. If I did that, the bank people would call me in and ask me how I planned to pay off my loans."
"Guess it would be nice if you didn't have to put up any collateral. The US don't have to put up collateral."
"That's right".
A pause followed. I could almost hear the little wheels in Charley's head going round.
"What would happen," Charley asked, stopping on the sidewalk outside the donut shop, "if the Chinese government called a meeting with the President and asked us how we're gonna repay our loans?"
"What a thought!" I said, laughing.
"Ain't no joke, really. They got a right to know what we're gonna do. There's no collateral they can collect, they got no protection for that loan. They could call the loan and force some kinda payment, but we'd collapse and they'd never get their money. I guess we could print a lot of worthless money and pay 'em with that, but that would cause the worst inflation since Germany in the 20's."
"Good point," I said. "They can't afford to collapse us. What would a bank do in that situation?"
"Well, they could demand a payment schedule where we pay the interest as we go and some on the principle. Give us a certain number of years, like 20 years. Like a mortgage. But there'd have to be a condition, that the payments would be tied to inflation, so if the government printed a lot of money to pay 'em with, it wouldn't get us out of debt."
"Where would the money to pay the Chinese come from, in this scheme of yours?"
"We could have a new income tax added to the old one. It would be a graduated tax, high at the top income levels and high for corporations, low for the poor. I read somewhere we would have to come up with almost $40,000 each. That's a lot, but spread over 20 years like a mortgage, we could maybe handle it."
"With money going out of our economy and into theirs, we'd get a lot poorer. There would be a depression, I suppose."
Charley nodded. "That's what happens when you spend your way into debt and don't have enough income to pay your bills. It'd be hard on the American people, but we've let this happen, and there really ain't no easy way out, 'cept to buckle your belt tighter, work harder, get another part-time job or something. And quit spending what we don't got!"
"You owe any money to the bank?" Charley asked.
"No. Got everything paid."
"Wish our government did. All that debt.... We've borrowed trillions from China and spent it on government projects."
"I guess they're like the international bank," I said. "They keep us going".
"We're spending more than we're making, and we're borrowing from China and places like that to stay afloat. That seem right to you?"
"No, of course not. If I did that, the bank people would call me in and ask me how I planned to pay off my loans."
"Guess it would be nice if you didn't have to put up any collateral. The US don't have to put up collateral."
"That's right".
A pause followed. I could almost hear the little wheels in Charley's head going round.
"What would happen," Charley asked, stopping on the sidewalk outside the donut shop, "if the Chinese government called a meeting with the President and asked us how we're gonna repay our loans?"
"What a thought!" I said, laughing.
"Ain't no joke, really. They got a right to know what we're gonna do. There's no collateral they can collect, they got no protection for that loan. They could call the loan and force some kinda payment, but we'd collapse and they'd never get their money. I guess we could print a lot of worthless money and pay 'em with that, but that would cause the worst inflation since Germany in the 20's."
"Good point," I said. "They can't afford to collapse us. What would a bank do in that situation?"
"Well, they could demand a payment schedule where we pay the interest as we go and some on the principle. Give us a certain number of years, like 20 years. Like a mortgage. But there'd have to be a condition, that the payments would be tied to inflation, so if the government printed a lot of money to pay 'em with, it wouldn't get us out of debt."
"Where would the money to pay the Chinese come from, in this scheme of yours?"
"We could have a new income tax added to the old one. It would be a graduated tax, high at the top income levels and high for corporations, low for the poor. I read somewhere we would have to come up with almost $40,000 each. That's a lot, but spread over 20 years like a mortgage, we could maybe handle it."
"With money going out of our economy and into theirs, we'd get a lot poorer. There would be a depression, I suppose."
Charley nodded. "That's what happens when you spend your way into debt and don't have enough income to pay your bills. It'd be hard on the American people, but we've let this happen, and there really ain't no easy way out, 'cept to buckle your belt tighter, work harder, get another part-time job or something. And quit spending what we don't got!"
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Uncle Charley Pays Off The National Debt
I knocked on Uncle Charley's door. When he came to the door, I handed him the sack of peaches Elaine had picked up at the Farmer's Market that morning.
"Howdy, and thanks!", he said, looking into the bag. "Them peaches look real good. Don't know whether to eat 'em in a bowl with cream or make a pie with 'em. Come on in."
I followed him into his small and neat living room and sat down while he took the peaches into the kitchen.
"Tell Elaine I said 'thanks'," he said as he put them down on the kitchen table. "I appreciate her pickin' 'em up at the Market. Saves me a trip".
"Be glad to, Charley," I answered, looking at the pile of papers scattered over the desk. "What you working on?"
"Been thinking about that national debt thingie," he answered. "Them politicians keep saying we got to spend more money because we're in debt, and they got some economists who say we can pay it off. The same economists who recommended we get in debt in the first place."
"Doesn't sound reasonable, does it?"
"Nope. I got some ideas that would work, but they'd be real unpopular."
"I don't think anything we do that solves this mess is going to be popular," I said.
"Right. That's why they're not gonna solve it. They need the popular votes more than they need us to be solvent. Can't spend our way out of debt, nobody can. We gotta raise more money and spend less, and that's the long and the short of it."
"What do you have in mind?" I asked.
"Well, we can raise a lot of money if we can get the people who aren't paying income taxes to pay what they owe. You got any idea how many people don't pay taxes?"
"A lot," I said. "Lots of people work for cash only, most of them working people, not many of them well-to-do. But there are a lot of them. And a lot of illegal immigrants who do work that we can't get Americans to do at the price, and we still have to pay for their medical expenses and for putting their kids through school."
"That' s right," Charley said. "So getting them to help pay for the system that helps them is important for us.That's one part of my plan. Here's some more ideas: We let anybody who wants to come here to work do so, but they have to register and they have to pay income taxes. We legalize drugs, subsidize them and drive the cartels out of business, and un-employ all the young people who are living on the drug profits so they'll have to find work. We add a small national sales tax on everything but food, medicine and rent. We stop federal subsidies for everthing that can be put off for a couple of years, because right now we can't afford long-term investments. We switch to socialized medicine so that medical bills can't bankrupt us."
"A lot of people, probably most of us, won't have nearly as much money as we are used to now. There'll be a lot of unhappiness, anger, maybe revolts."
"Yep," Charley said. "It's gonna be bad. But if we don't accept bad times now, we're gonna have to accept terrible times later, so terrible that we might not ever recover. Like taking bitter medicine. I got more ideas, but they ain't any more optimistic."
"Geez, Charley. That's about as bleak a picture as you can paint."
"That's right, Harry. Here, eat a peach to take out the bad taste."
"Gonna take a lot of peaches."
"You got that right," he said cheerfully.
"Howdy, and thanks!", he said, looking into the bag. "Them peaches look real good. Don't know whether to eat 'em in a bowl with cream or make a pie with 'em. Come on in."
I followed him into his small and neat living room and sat down while he took the peaches into the kitchen.
"Tell Elaine I said 'thanks'," he said as he put them down on the kitchen table. "I appreciate her pickin' 'em up at the Market. Saves me a trip".
"Be glad to, Charley," I answered, looking at the pile of papers scattered over the desk. "What you working on?"
"Been thinking about that national debt thingie," he answered. "Them politicians keep saying we got to spend more money because we're in debt, and they got some economists who say we can pay it off. The same economists who recommended we get in debt in the first place."
"Doesn't sound reasonable, does it?"
"Nope. I got some ideas that would work, but they'd be real unpopular."
"I don't think anything we do that solves this mess is going to be popular," I said.
"Right. That's why they're not gonna solve it. They need the popular votes more than they need us to be solvent. Can't spend our way out of debt, nobody can. We gotta raise more money and spend less, and that's the long and the short of it."
"What do you have in mind?" I asked.
"Well, we can raise a lot of money if we can get the people who aren't paying income taxes to pay what they owe. You got any idea how many people don't pay taxes?"
"A lot," I said. "Lots of people work for cash only, most of them working people, not many of them well-to-do. But there are a lot of them. And a lot of illegal immigrants who do work that we can't get Americans to do at the price, and we still have to pay for their medical expenses and for putting their kids through school."
"That' s right," Charley said. "So getting them to help pay for the system that helps them is important for us.That's one part of my plan. Here's some more ideas: We let anybody who wants to come here to work do so, but they have to register and they have to pay income taxes. We legalize drugs, subsidize them and drive the cartels out of business, and un-employ all the young people who are living on the drug profits so they'll have to find work. We add a small national sales tax on everything but food, medicine and rent. We stop federal subsidies for everthing that can be put off for a couple of years, because right now we can't afford long-term investments. We switch to socialized medicine so that medical bills can't bankrupt us."
"A lot of people, probably most of us, won't have nearly as much money as we are used to now. There'll be a lot of unhappiness, anger, maybe revolts."
"Yep," Charley said. "It's gonna be bad. But if we don't accept bad times now, we're gonna have to accept terrible times later, so terrible that we might not ever recover. Like taking bitter medicine. I got more ideas, but they ain't any more optimistic."
"Geez, Charley. That's about as bleak a picture as you can paint."
"That's right, Harry. Here, eat a peach to take out the bad taste."
"Gonna take a lot of peaches."
"You got that right," he said cheerfully.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Uncle Charley and the National Budget
Uncle Charley was reading the paper so intently he hardly noticed me as I sat down across from him with my coffee.
"You read the paper this morning?" Charley asked without preamble.
"A little," I answered. "Lot of politics, lot of bad news."
"Yep," he said. "Kinda proves my point".
"Which would be what?"
He put the paper down and looked straight at me. "No offense, Harry, but you don't read most of the paper, and you're an educated man. How are you supposed to form an opinion to guide your elected representative if you don't have any information?"
"In the first place, Charley," I answered, "the politicians don't seem to care what I think. And in the second place, the newspaper isn't a very good source of information. Mostly talks about local scandals and deaths."
"And that is my point", Charley said. "I'm thinking that we're looking at the coming failure of representative democracy. And by that I mean it's failing now. The politicians feather their nests, and when they do listen to their constituency it's just to figure out how to please them and get re-elected. So we got really a people's democracy, which is a bad idea, because it means that our country is more and more run by the votes of people even less educated than you. Here's the important thing: They vote for what they want, not what's good for the country."
"What's got you so pessimistic all of a sudden?" I asked, pouring another cup.
"No 'all of a sudden' to it," Charley answered with some bitterness. "But what's happening in Greece really got me to think harder about it. You know about the Greek situation?"
"I've read a little and heard on NPR a little more. I think if it weren't for Diane Reems I wouldn't know much at all".
"OK, let me give you a quick summary," Charley said. "They got real far in debt, and they got the EU to help them by buying a bunch of gummint bonds. Basically they got a long-term loan and they're trying to live on that money".
"I read that there's a lot of dissatisfaction with that among the Greek people."
"Oh yeah. Well, the gummint says they all got to cut back and quit living off the gummint and start paying off their debts. They call it a "austerity" program, which means they been living too high off the hog for too long, and now they gotta live within their means, even save some money so's they can pay their debts. Heck, we've all had that happen to us. It's not a big deal for us to cut back when we have to and live within the budget. But gummints don't seem to like to live that way. So the Greek gummint got itself way too deep in debt, and it borried a lot more money to bail itself out, which is kinda like usin' yer credit card to pay your debts."
"So now the people of Greece have to cut way back, and that's what they're protesting about, huh?"
"You got it. They know they gotta, and they don't wanta, so they're mad, and they expect the politicians to cave in and give 'em back their goodies."
"But they can't do that, can they?" I said. "The politicians let themselves get into a corner by pleasing the people, and now they can't get out without losing all those votes by people who are used to being taken care of."
"That's about the size of it," Charley said. "What the people want is what every spoiled child in the world wants. And it's bad for 'em if they get it,and they want it anyway."
"Sounds a lot like us," I commented. "We've been living beyond our budget for years, been borrowing money and going into debt to other countries, like China, and we just keep borrowing more."
"The politicians know what needs to be done, but they don't want to take action in an election year, 'cause all us spoiled brats will get mad. So the debt limit gets raised, and the reckoning is coming due. I'm afraid that when it does hit the fan, we're gonna have a collapse so big we may never be able to recover. It's happened before, but not on this scale. Hell, Harry, we owe most everybody in the world! How we gonna pay 'em?"
"Seems to me that sooner or later we're gonna have to go on an "austerity budget" like we should have been on all along. Our mistake was allowing a negative budget, where we spend more than we're making. That should never have happened. I can't even imagine what we're going to do."
"Probly just what the Greek people are doin'," Charley answered. "We'll go out and holler in the streets because we can't have as much of the goody-pie as we're used to. But tantrums don't solve problems, and even real loud whinin' and bitchin' doesn't make us entitled. Sooner or later, though, we got no choice."
"Charley, you got me worried."
"Yeah? Why weren't ya already worried? This isn't new, it's been coming on for 50 years or more, whenever we stopped stayin' inside our budget. Yer just gettin' worried now because you can see it coming in the near future".
"I hate it when you're right", I said, glumly.
"Bein' right is small consolation," Charley said, and got up to go.
I sat there for a while, but I didn't like what I was thinking, so I left too.
"You read the paper this morning?" Charley asked without preamble.
"A little," I answered. "Lot of politics, lot of bad news."
"Yep," he said. "Kinda proves my point".
"Which would be what?"
He put the paper down and looked straight at me. "No offense, Harry, but you don't read most of the paper, and you're an educated man. How are you supposed to form an opinion to guide your elected representative if you don't have any information?"
"In the first place, Charley," I answered, "the politicians don't seem to care what I think. And in the second place, the newspaper isn't a very good source of information. Mostly talks about local scandals and deaths."
"And that is my point", Charley said. "I'm thinking that we're looking at the coming failure of representative democracy. And by that I mean it's failing now. The politicians feather their nests, and when they do listen to their constituency it's just to figure out how to please them and get re-elected. So we got really a people's democracy, which is a bad idea, because it means that our country is more and more run by the votes of people even less educated than you. Here's the important thing: They vote for what they want, not what's good for the country."
"What's got you so pessimistic all of a sudden?" I asked, pouring another cup.
"No 'all of a sudden' to it," Charley answered with some bitterness. "But what's happening in Greece really got me to think harder about it. You know about the Greek situation?"
"I've read a little and heard on NPR a little more. I think if it weren't for Diane Reems I wouldn't know much at all".
"OK, let me give you a quick summary," Charley said. "They got real far in debt, and they got the EU to help them by buying a bunch of gummint bonds. Basically they got a long-term loan and they're trying to live on that money".
"I read that there's a lot of dissatisfaction with that among the Greek people."
"Oh yeah. Well, the gummint says they all got to cut back and quit living off the gummint and start paying off their debts. They call it a "austerity" program, which means they been living too high off the hog for too long, and now they gotta live within their means, even save some money so's they can pay their debts. Heck, we've all had that happen to us. It's not a big deal for us to cut back when we have to and live within the budget. But gummints don't seem to like to live that way. So the Greek gummint got itself way too deep in debt, and it borried a lot more money to bail itself out, which is kinda like usin' yer credit card to pay your debts."
"So now the people of Greece have to cut way back, and that's what they're protesting about, huh?"
"You got it. They know they gotta, and they don't wanta, so they're mad, and they expect the politicians to cave in and give 'em back their goodies."
"But they can't do that, can they?" I said. "The politicians let themselves get into a corner by pleasing the people, and now they can't get out without losing all those votes by people who are used to being taken care of."
"That's about the size of it," Charley said. "What the people want is what every spoiled child in the world wants. And it's bad for 'em if they get it,and they want it anyway."
"Sounds a lot like us," I commented. "We've been living beyond our budget for years, been borrowing money and going into debt to other countries, like China, and we just keep borrowing more."
"The politicians know what needs to be done, but they don't want to take action in an election year, 'cause all us spoiled brats will get mad. So the debt limit gets raised, and the reckoning is coming due. I'm afraid that when it does hit the fan, we're gonna have a collapse so big we may never be able to recover. It's happened before, but not on this scale. Hell, Harry, we owe most everybody in the world! How we gonna pay 'em?"
"Seems to me that sooner or later we're gonna have to go on an "austerity budget" like we should have been on all along. Our mistake was allowing a negative budget, where we spend more than we're making. That should never have happened. I can't even imagine what we're going to do."
"Probly just what the Greek people are doin'," Charley answered. "We'll go out and holler in the streets because we can't have as much of the goody-pie as we're used to. But tantrums don't solve problems, and even real loud whinin' and bitchin' doesn't make us entitled. Sooner or later, though, we got no choice."
"Charley, you got me worried."
"Yeah? Why weren't ya already worried? This isn't new, it's been coming on for 50 years or more, whenever we stopped stayin' inside our budget. Yer just gettin' worried now because you can see it coming in the near future".
"I hate it when you're right", I said, glumly.
"Bein' right is small consolation," Charley said, and got up to go.
I sat there for a while, but I didn't like what I was thinking, so I left too.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Uncle Charley and the Drug War
"Great dinner, Elaine", Charley said contentedly as he pushed his chair back. "Could I have a little more coffee?"
I got up and got the coffee. Elaine brought her coffee in and sat down. "Charley," she said, "I've been reading about the drug war, and how expensive and unsuccessful it is."
"Yep", he said. "Prolly nobody ever thought it would work. It's just a gesture, I guess."
"Just a P C thing to do?"
"Would be my guess. We've tried all kinds of bans on stuff, and when has it worked? We banned liquor and created organized crime,and now we're back to selling liquor. England tried to stop opium back at the start of the last century, and that didn't work. We've been fighting drugs for the last 50 years, spent I don't know how much, and there's more drugs on the street than ever."
I leaned back in my chair. "Do you think we should just do what China did?"
"You mean just execute all the drug dealers and send the users off to a work camp or something? That might fly in China. They got a surplus of people anyhow. I don't see us putting up with that here."
"You always have some ideas, Charley," Elaine said. "What have you thought of this time?"
"Hmmm. Truth to tell, I have given it some thought. The problem is that drugs are a major money maker. Drug sales are among the biggest businesses in the U.S., and they don't pay taxes neither. All the "war on drugs" thing does is to cut back on the supply, then of course the prices go up, and it's business as usual. So it seems to me that the only thing that might stop drug sales is to make it unprofitable, like they did for heroin in England."
"How would we do that?" I asked.
"I have a thought, but I don't think you're gonna like it."
"OK, OK," Elaine said. "Spit it out. I'm out of coffee."
"Well, what if the gummint took over the drug business? Starting with something like cocaine and crack. We'd use that budget set up for the useless War On Drugs and spend the money on buying cocaine from the source. Pay 'em their regular price and everything. Then we'd give it away to everyone old enough to vote who wants it. What's gonna happen is that we'll drive the cartels and the gangs out of business. Can't get much lower price than free. Then there's nobody to push the drugs or get people hooked on them, and eventually the market would drop. Might take years, but you'd be able to see a steady decline in sales when you have to pick your drugs up from a gummint drug store. Why would you pay a lot of bucks on a street corner and risk being poisoned, when you can get 'em from the gummint cheap and clean and in the daylight?"
"What an idea," I said. "Some people will think it's immoral."
"What's going on now is immoral. The gummint ain't trying to build up a market for drugs. It would be tryin' to destroy the drug market by making it unprofitable. And think of all that money going to pay off cops and entire gummints in Latin America. Those people might end up with a gummint that ain't corrupt."
"Right now the US is a major source of income for some of the poorest countries," I commented.
"In Afghanistan the major cash crop is the opium poppy, and if we stopped sending them money they'd be in trouble".
"That's always the problem with countries with just one cash crop. They're always on the edge of disaster," Charley said. "Right now our citizens are sending money to the poor people of Colombia or wherever, and with the Uncle Charley Plan they'd keep on getting their money, so we wouldn't be hurting them. Just the gangs and the cartels, and you can bet they wouldn't like it. So if my little plan was proposed, it'd be right interesting to see which congressmen would agree with the cartels. And you know that some of them are taking dirty money. When there's that much dirty money out there, it's impossible to stop corruption and bribery. So the only way to get things cleaner is to make drugs unprofitable."
"I like it, Charley," my wife said. "I never thought I'd say that about one of your hair-brained ideas, but this one has some possibility. But what are you going to do about all those federal employees in the drug war, like the DEA?"
"Good question," Charley grinned. "We can have them manage the Gummint Uncle Charley Drug Stores! They would have to take a cut in pay, but at least they wouldn't be having gun battles with gangs. Now, I haven't figured out what to do about home-grown drugs, but where there's too much profit there's gonna be graft and corruption and violence. So any solution has got to involve taking away the profit margin."
"Give up profit?" I laughed. "Why, that's almost... un-American!"
"The more you feed the animal, the bigger it gets," Charley said.
"And that's the truth." Elaine added.
I got up and got the coffee. Elaine brought her coffee in and sat down. "Charley," she said, "I've been reading about the drug war, and how expensive and unsuccessful it is."
"Yep", he said. "Prolly nobody ever thought it would work. It's just a gesture, I guess."
"Just a P C thing to do?"
"Would be my guess. We've tried all kinds of bans on stuff, and when has it worked? We banned liquor and created organized crime,and now we're back to selling liquor. England tried to stop opium back at the start of the last century, and that didn't work. We've been fighting drugs for the last 50 years, spent I don't know how much, and there's more drugs on the street than ever."
I leaned back in my chair. "Do you think we should just do what China did?"
"You mean just execute all the drug dealers and send the users off to a work camp or something? That might fly in China. They got a surplus of people anyhow. I don't see us putting up with that here."
"You always have some ideas, Charley," Elaine said. "What have you thought of this time?"
"Hmmm. Truth to tell, I have given it some thought. The problem is that drugs are a major money maker. Drug sales are among the biggest businesses in the U.S., and they don't pay taxes neither. All the "war on drugs" thing does is to cut back on the supply, then of course the prices go up, and it's business as usual. So it seems to me that the only thing that might stop drug sales is to make it unprofitable, like they did for heroin in England."
"How would we do that?" I asked.
"I have a thought, but I don't think you're gonna like it."
"OK, OK," Elaine said. "Spit it out. I'm out of coffee."
"Well, what if the gummint took over the drug business? Starting with something like cocaine and crack. We'd use that budget set up for the useless War On Drugs and spend the money on buying cocaine from the source. Pay 'em their regular price and everything. Then we'd give it away to everyone old enough to vote who wants it. What's gonna happen is that we'll drive the cartels and the gangs out of business. Can't get much lower price than free. Then there's nobody to push the drugs or get people hooked on them, and eventually the market would drop. Might take years, but you'd be able to see a steady decline in sales when you have to pick your drugs up from a gummint drug store. Why would you pay a lot of bucks on a street corner and risk being poisoned, when you can get 'em from the gummint cheap and clean and in the daylight?"
"What an idea," I said. "Some people will think it's immoral."
"What's going on now is immoral. The gummint ain't trying to build up a market for drugs. It would be tryin' to destroy the drug market by making it unprofitable. And think of all that money going to pay off cops and entire gummints in Latin America. Those people might end up with a gummint that ain't corrupt."
"Right now the US is a major source of income for some of the poorest countries," I commented.
"In Afghanistan the major cash crop is the opium poppy, and if we stopped sending them money they'd be in trouble".
"That's always the problem with countries with just one cash crop. They're always on the edge of disaster," Charley said. "Right now our citizens are sending money to the poor people of Colombia or wherever, and with the Uncle Charley Plan they'd keep on getting their money, so we wouldn't be hurting them. Just the gangs and the cartels, and you can bet they wouldn't like it. So if my little plan was proposed, it'd be right interesting to see which congressmen would agree with the cartels. And you know that some of them are taking dirty money. When there's that much dirty money out there, it's impossible to stop corruption and bribery. So the only way to get things cleaner is to make drugs unprofitable."
"I like it, Charley," my wife said. "I never thought I'd say that about one of your hair-brained ideas, but this one has some possibility. But what are you going to do about all those federal employees in the drug war, like the DEA?"
"Good question," Charley grinned. "We can have them manage the Gummint Uncle Charley Drug Stores! They would have to take a cut in pay, but at least they wouldn't be having gun battles with gangs. Now, I haven't figured out what to do about home-grown drugs, but where there's too much profit there's gonna be graft and corruption and violence. So any solution has got to involve taking away the profit margin."
"Give up profit?" I laughed. "Why, that's almost... un-American!"
"The more you feed the animal, the bigger it gets," Charley said.
"And that's the truth." Elaine added.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Uncle Charley and High-School Dropouts
Charley and I were walking past the high school a few days ago. The young people were doing their usual horsing around like young people all over the world.
"Nice to see them having a good time," I said.
"See that little group over by the new Ford in the parking lot?"
"Sure," I said. "They're smoking, I think."
"Probably weed, if I ain't mistaken. Look again."
"I think you're right. Somebody needs to put a stop to that. How are they going to get an education if they're stoned?"
Charley laughed. "Yer just not thinking right. Why do you want for them to get an education?"
"How are they going to make something of themselves if they don't?"
"See, that's the point. They're making somethin' of themselves. Day labor! We need to be able to compete in the national day-laborer market. We need people who can stock groceries and wash cars and fix roofs, and right now people from other countries got the market on that."
"You're serious?" I asked.
"More serious than a brain tumor. Look, we need cheap labor. Those idiots over there in the parking lot signin' up for digging ditches. They're not gonna be running companies or even goin' to college. They're gonna be sacking groceries or working for Walmart or running for office. We need grocery sackers and garbage collectors! We need them to work real cheap! If they all go to college, whose gonna mow yer lawn?"
That stopped me. "Charley, that's... that's not...'"
"It's not liberal or somethin' like that. I know. You want everybody to be educated. You can lead students to books but you can't make 'em think. Some of 'em are too dumb to know they need it, and those are the ones I need to clean my septic tank. All they're doing in school is to hold the others back and wear out the teachers."
"I'll have to think about that one, Charley".
"I'm not talking about refusing to teach 'em. I'm just suggesting we let the ones that don't want an education go free. Maybe give them work to do in school, get 'em ready for the assembly line. I got a plan to keep 'em from voting too, but I'll tell you another time. When yer not so overcome."
"Thanks, Charley," I said weakly.
"Nice to see them having a good time," I said.
"See that little group over by the new Ford in the parking lot?"
"Sure," I said. "They're smoking, I think."
"Probably weed, if I ain't mistaken. Look again."
"I think you're right. Somebody needs to put a stop to that. How are they going to get an education if they're stoned?"
Charley laughed. "Yer just not thinking right. Why do you want for them to get an education?"
"How are they going to make something of themselves if they don't?"
"See, that's the point. They're making somethin' of themselves. Day labor! We need to be able to compete in the national day-laborer market. We need people who can stock groceries and wash cars and fix roofs, and right now people from other countries got the market on that."
"You're serious?" I asked.
"More serious than a brain tumor. Look, we need cheap labor. Those idiots over there in the parking lot signin' up for digging ditches. They're not gonna be running companies or even goin' to college. They're gonna be sacking groceries or working for Walmart or running for office. We need grocery sackers and garbage collectors! We need them to work real cheap! If they all go to college, whose gonna mow yer lawn?"
That stopped me. "Charley, that's... that's not...'"
"It's not liberal or somethin' like that. I know. You want everybody to be educated. You can lead students to books but you can't make 'em think. Some of 'em are too dumb to know they need it, and those are the ones I need to clean my septic tank. All they're doing in school is to hold the others back and wear out the teachers."
"I'll have to think about that one, Charley".
"I'm not talking about refusing to teach 'em. I'm just suggesting we let the ones that don't want an education go free. Maybe give them work to do in school, get 'em ready for the assembly line. I got a plan to keep 'em from voting too, but I'll tell you another time. When yer not so overcome."
"Thanks, Charley," I said weakly.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Uncle Charley As Inspector General
Charley sat down beside me on the park bench and sighed.
"Oh, hello, Charley," I said. "You look troubled."
"Well, I am, I am. I been reading the newspapers again, and that always gets me upset."
"Don't like all the car wrecks and tragedies?"
"Nah, that ain't it. That stuff happens, and it ain't really interesting unless you knew the people involved. It's the politicians. They just frost my butt."
I laughed. "They frost everybody's butt. Haven't you got used to them yet?"
"Nope. And it ain't even their dumb votes or bad economics. It's the out-and-out dishonesty, crookedness, graft, whatever you wanta call it."
"Always been there," I pointed out.
"It's always been there because unless they do something really stupid and get caught at it, we don't really give a damn. God knows they got a tough job to do, I give 'em that. But I'm real fed up with them getting their noses too deep in the feed trough."
"We catch them and put them in jail, at least some of the time," I said, sipping from my paper cup of coffee.
"Not nearly enough. I got this thought, though..."
"What's that, Charley?" I laughed.
"I want to be the Inspector General of the U S of A. I want to have a staff of secret police whose only job is to find graft and dishonesty among our elected crooks. And I want there to be public trials for clear-cut cases of dishonesty. Just going to jail ain't enough, not when you defraud near 300 million people. I want to make it plum unpopular to be a crooked politician".
"That's a lot of power. What's to keep you from becoming a crook?"
"You got a point, kid. I'm thinking there ought to be a fairly short time limit on my term as Inspector General. Like maybe one year. I think I could hold out against corruption and sin about that long."
"With that kind of power, there ought to be some real checks and balances," I said. "Who watches the watchers?"
"I read that somewhere too," he grinned. "I reckon the Attorney General could supervise my ethics, but not my job as IG. See, he could make sure I wasn't getting crooked, but he's another politician, and he shouldn't be able to tell me who I could or couldn't go after."
"That makes sense", I commented. "What would you do with the crooked politicians you caught?"
"Anything from public floggings on national television up to life in prison, and I don't mean no Federal country club. I want people to see justice being done. And not only the bad guys get punished, but they or their estates gotta pay back every damn penny."
"Just don't expect any favors your own self," he added, looking stern.
"OK," I said. "I wouldn't expect it".
"Oh, hello, Charley," I said. "You look troubled."
"Well, I am, I am. I been reading the newspapers again, and that always gets me upset."
"Don't like all the car wrecks and tragedies?"
"Nah, that ain't it. That stuff happens, and it ain't really interesting unless you knew the people involved. It's the politicians. They just frost my butt."
I laughed. "They frost everybody's butt. Haven't you got used to them yet?"
"Nope. And it ain't even their dumb votes or bad economics. It's the out-and-out dishonesty, crookedness, graft, whatever you wanta call it."
"Always been there," I pointed out.
"It's always been there because unless they do something really stupid and get caught at it, we don't really give a damn. God knows they got a tough job to do, I give 'em that. But I'm real fed up with them getting their noses too deep in the feed trough."
"We catch them and put them in jail, at least some of the time," I said, sipping from my paper cup of coffee.
"Not nearly enough. I got this thought, though..."
"What's that, Charley?" I laughed.
"I want to be the Inspector General of the U S of A. I want to have a staff of secret police whose only job is to find graft and dishonesty among our elected crooks. And I want there to be public trials for clear-cut cases of dishonesty. Just going to jail ain't enough, not when you defraud near 300 million people. I want to make it plum unpopular to be a crooked politician".
"That's a lot of power. What's to keep you from becoming a crook?"
"You got a point, kid. I'm thinking there ought to be a fairly short time limit on my term as Inspector General. Like maybe one year. I think I could hold out against corruption and sin about that long."
"With that kind of power, there ought to be some real checks and balances," I said. "Who watches the watchers?"
"I read that somewhere too," he grinned. "I reckon the Attorney General could supervise my ethics, but not my job as IG. See, he could make sure I wasn't getting crooked, but he's another politician, and he shouldn't be able to tell me who I could or couldn't go after."
"That makes sense", I commented. "What would you do with the crooked politicians you caught?"
"Anything from public floggings on national television up to life in prison, and I don't mean no Federal country club. I want people to see justice being done. And not only the bad guys get punished, but they or their estates gotta pay back every damn penny."
"Just don't expect any favors your own self," he added, looking stern.
"OK," I said. "I wouldn't expect it".
Saturday, March 12, 2011
No Help For Self-Inflicted Wounds
I believe we should take care of our citizens who are unable to take care of themselves, as every civilized country does. In fact, one of the primary marks of civilization (in the highest sense of the word) is that willingness. We don't abandon our sick and helpless to the wolves of this world.
On the other hand, I strongly object to paying for the care of those who choose to shoot themselves in the foot, especially when they do so in the full knowledge of what they are doing.
For instance, I object to paying for medical treatment of people who have knowingly accepted the potential consequences of risky behavior, such as smokers. This category, which I call the Self-Wounded, includes people who ride on motorcycles, especially without helmets. It includes the morbidly obese, alcoholics with liver damage, people who are injured as a result of a wreck resulting from driving at excessive speeds or while impaired, people who poke themselves in the eye with a sharp stick, and probably a host of others with equivalent problems.
The crucial distinction is that the Self-Wounded knowingly chose to engage in risky behavior. I have no objection to this, of course. People should have the right to behave as stupidly and with as much risk as they wish. What I object to is their assumption that if something "goes wrong" and they are injured, the rest of the population should chip in to pay for their treatment. Should we expect the government (i.e. us) or insurance (i.e. us) to pay for medical treatment for conditions known to result from a specific risk?
I propose that Self-Wounded people assume the costs for the specific risks they knowingly take. For instance, I think medical insurance should exclude costs for lung cancer arising from cigarette smoking. For instance, I think medical insurance should not pay for head injuries suffered by motorcyclists riding without a helmet. For instance, I think that medical insurance should not pay for treatment of cirrhosis of the liver for alcoholics. For instance, I think that we should not pay for joint replacement for the morbidly obese or for their heart damage as a result of excessive fats in their diet.
By excluding such conditions from medical insurance or government medical benefits, people engaging in risky behavior would do so knowing that they, and they alone, assume the responsibility for the consequences. Spelling out the exact definitions of "risky behavior" would require some careful thought, time and attention. Clearly there is room for exception, so there would need to be an impartial committee or the equivalent.
I am fed up with paying for the foolishness and irresponsibility of others. It's expensive enough to pay for my own.
On the other hand, I strongly object to paying for the care of those who choose to shoot themselves in the foot, especially when they do so in the full knowledge of what they are doing.
For instance, I object to paying for medical treatment of people who have knowingly accepted the potential consequences of risky behavior, such as smokers. This category, which I call the Self-Wounded, includes people who ride on motorcycles, especially without helmets. It includes the morbidly obese, alcoholics with liver damage, people who are injured as a result of a wreck resulting from driving at excessive speeds or while impaired, people who poke themselves in the eye with a sharp stick, and probably a host of others with equivalent problems.
The crucial distinction is that the Self-Wounded knowingly chose to engage in risky behavior. I have no objection to this, of course. People should have the right to behave as stupidly and with as much risk as they wish. What I object to is their assumption that if something "goes wrong" and they are injured, the rest of the population should chip in to pay for their treatment. Should we expect the government (i.e. us) or insurance (i.e. us) to pay for medical treatment for conditions known to result from a specific risk?
I propose that Self-Wounded people assume the costs for the specific risks they knowingly take. For instance, I think medical insurance should exclude costs for lung cancer arising from cigarette smoking. For instance, I think medical insurance should not pay for head injuries suffered by motorcyclists riding without a helmet. For instance, I think that medical insurance should not pay for treatment of cirrhosis of the liver for alcoholics. For instance, I think that we should not pay for joint replacement for the morbidly obese or for their heart damage as a result of excessive fats in their diet.
By excluding such conditions from medical insurance or government medical benefits, people engaging in risky behavior would do so knowing that they, and they alone, assume the responsibility for the consequences. Spelling out the exact definitions of "risky behavior" would require some careful thought, time and attention. Clearly there is room for exception, so there would need to be an impartial committee or the equivalent.
I am fed up with paying for the foolishness and irresponsibility of others. It's expensive enough to pay for my own.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Why I Think Inheritance Taxes Are Good
The only way to prevent money (=power) from accumulating in the hands of a family, especially a family member who has neither motivation or brains to earn it him/herself, is to impose a confiscatory inheritance tax. The children of a brilliant entrepreneur should have no right to money they have not earned. Do we need more Paris Hiltons?
There are huge problems with doing so, of course. What to do with the money collected is important. It is also important to prevent a profitable company from being forced out of business. People think it is important to be able to provide for their offspring, though this issue is a cultural one rather than a real issue. There is no real reason why adult, competent and educated adults should be "provided for" by wealthy parents. Nonetheless, many parents are strongly (and wrongly) motivated to dd this and will undoubtedly attempt to find clever ways to circumvent any attempt to bring their children "down" to the normal level.
In an egalitarian society, every child shoud have the same opportunities. No society in which parents raise their own children can be truly egalitarian. Wealthy families have richer cultural opportunities. So, while it isn't really possible to start all children off with the same advantages, they can certainly be "evened out" to a great degree. For instance, money collected from taxing inheritances can be earmarked to provide nearly equal educational rights to all. Scholarships can be awarded to children who show intellectual promise and who are economically disadvantaged. Money can be spent to raise the standards of "ghetto" schools. Just because such a system can't be made trick-proof doesn't mean it can't be made to improve the educational system.
The intent is obviously two-fold. It is desirable to prevent families from accuring such wealth that they become oligarchs, potentates of small or large empires. It is desirable to assure that children have a more equal chance at higher levels of education. Such a system may not be perfect, but it can be "good enough" to be a benefit.
There are huge problems with doing so, of course. What to do with the money collected is important. It is also important to prevent a profitable company from being forced out of business. People think it is important to be able to provide for their offspring, though this issue is a cultural one rather than a real issue. There is no real reason why adult, competent and educated adults should be "provided for" by wealthy parents. Nonetheless, many parents are strongly (and wrongly) motivated to dd this and will undoubtedly attempt to find clever ways to circumvent any attempt to bring their children "down" to the normal level.
In an egalitarian society, every child shoud have the same opportunities. No society in which parents raise their own children can be truly egalitarian. Wealthy families have richer cultural opportunities. So, while it isn't really possible to start all children off with the same advantages, they can certainly be "evened out" to a great degree. For instance, money collected from taxing inheritances can be earmarked to provide nearly equal educational rights to all. Scholarships can be awarded to children who show intellectual promise and who are economically disadvantaged. Money can be spent to raise the standards of "ghetto" schools. Just because such a system can't be made trick-proof doesn't mean it can't be made to improve the educational system.
The intent is obviously two-fold. It is desirable to prevent families from accuring such wealth that they become oligarchs, potentates of small or large empires. It is desirable to assure that children have a more equal chance at higher levels of education. Such a system may not be perfect, but it can be "good enough" to be a benefit.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
War Economics
I'm puzzled about comments I've read from discussions on the topic of the costs of war. The implication is usually that war is expensive, that the money is "thrown away" in bullets and planes and materiel in general.
What puzzles me is this question: Where is the money spent? Is it not spent mostly in the US in factories that make the equipment soldiers use? The money doesn't leave the country. The products do, but they're paid for in the US, paid to workers and companies that produce things. When a bomb drops on Afghanistan, it doesn't cost us anything. It's already cost us the price of production, but that money went to US citizens for the most part.
So is it possible that one of the things that keeps our economy going at all is the artificial market caused by warfare? If we stopped buying munitions from our factories and planes and tanks and .. our economy would probably slump much further. A lot of people would be out of work. When we don't have a war to consume goods we can produce, the economy does poorly. I'm wondering if it's possible that wars are at times manufactured by our government to keep our economy going.
I recall reading, for instance, that the war with Japan in 1941 was deliberately provoked by our cutting their ocean supply lines for oil and gasoline. It appears we put them in an unsurvivable position and waited for them to take action against us, so that they were identified as the aggressors, even though we gave them no choices. Our economy at the time was terrible; we had just recovered from a depression caused by stock market gambling. WW II ramped us up big time, severely damaged our asian competition, and gave us control of the Pacific as well as a huge demand for military products, built in the US, of course.
I would appreciate comments or arguments. I wonder if my view is too simplistic or even naive.
What puzzles me is this question: Where is the money spent? Is it not spent mostly in the US in factories that make the equipment soldiers use? The money doesn't leave the country. The products do, but they're paid for in the US, paid to workers and companies that produce things. When a bomb drops on Afghanistan, it doesn't cost us anything. It's already cost us the price of production, but that money went to US citizens for the most part.
So is it possible that one of the things that keeps our economy going at all is the artificial market caused by warfare? If we stopped buying munitions from our factories and planes and tanks and .. our economy would probably slump much further. A lot of people would be out of work. When we don't have a war to consume goods we can produce, the economy does poorly. I'm wondering if it's possible that wars are at times manufactured by our government to keep our economy going.
I recall reading, for instance, that the war with Japan in 1941 was deliberately provoked by our cutting their ocean supply lines for oil and gasoline. It appears we put them in an unsurvivable position and waited for them to take action against us, so that they were identified as the aggressors, even though we gave them no choices. Our economy at the time was terrible; we had just recovered from a depression caused by stock market gambling. WW II ramped us up big time, severely damaged our asian competition, and gave us control of the Pacific as well as a huge demand for military products, built in the US, of course.
I would appreciate comments or arguments. I wonder if my view is too simplistic or even naive.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Why not decrease salaries instead of firing people?
That really says it all. I think it's amazingly idiotic and short-sighted to favor firing X% of employees in an organization rather than to decrease salaries by a small and necessary percent.
This is clearly more appropriate when the organization sells services more than products. A declining market may mean less demand for the product, and as a result fewer employees are needed to run the company. However, when services are the primary product, cutting employees also means cutting services. It does not save money. It only reduces the services, and if the need for those services remains constant, everybody suffers.
For instance, in the field of state-supported mental health, the need for professional services continues to rise as the population increases and as the economy heads south. A "RIF" or reduction in force means that the population served will receive fewer and lower-quality services. Since at least some income is realized by providing these services, there is also a decrease in income.
Alternatively, expecting all employees of the Department of Mental Health to take a small percentage cut would accomplish the necessary reduction in expense, without reducing the quantity and quality of mental health services. We are quick enough, it seems, to demand increases in salary when the economy is booming. When the economy tanks, why not take a decrease rather than firing some percentage of the employees? I suspect the answer has to do with an individual's belief that the firings will be of "other people", so that's the gamble: a small chance (?) of being fired versus the certainty of a 10% decrease in salary.
This is clearly more appropriate when the organization sells services more than products. A declining market may mean less demand for the product, and as a result fewer employees are needed to run the company. However, when services are the primary product, cutting employees also means cutting services. It does not save money. It only reduces the services, and if the need for those services remains constant, everybody suffers.
For instance, in the field of state-supported mental health, the need for professional services continues to rise as the population increases and as the economy heads south. A "RIF" or reduction in force means that the population served will receive fewer and lower-quality services. Since at least some income is realized by providing these services, there is also a decrease in income.
Alternatively, expecting all employees of the Department of Mental Health to take a small percentage cut would accomplish the necessary reduction in expense, without reducing the quantity and quality of mental health services. We are quick enough, it seems, to demand increases in salary when the economy is booming. When the economy tanks, why not take a decrease rather than firing some percentage of the employees? I suspect the answer has to do with an individual's belief that the firings will be of "other people", so that's the gamble: a small chance (?) of being fired versus the certainty of a 10% decrease in salary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
