Thursday, May 27, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
immigration and socialism
[This post is from this Coffee Party comment thread]
>why is the "legal process" the way it is?
Great question. I don't really know all the historical reasons for the current set of immigration laws. I would guess some of them are probably based in racism or chauvinism. Others exist to control the US labor pool to give advantages to the people already here. I agree with you that the immigration laws need to be changed to be more humane. I think we differ greatly in other areas, though. If I recall correctly from other posts, you are an ardent anti-capitalist. I don't share your level of distaste for capitalism. I agree that great abuses take place within a capitalist society, but abuse is not unique to capitalism. Great abuses take place (or have taken place) within all other forms of society, too. I place the blame on the unethical people that exist within all societies. They always seem to find ways to warp and manipulate the system to their advantage to gain more power, and the more power they gain, the more they can work the system to their advantage. This problem is not unique to capitalist societies. Purely socialist societies will suffer from this too, in my opinion. The only society that would not suffer from this problem is one devoid of unethical people. That's not likely to happen any time soon (if ever).
if all forms of society are vulnerable to abuse and manipulation, what are we to do? Well, chose the least bad one, I guess. People have been debating what is the 'least bad one' for quite some time now. I favor a society that tries to maximize freedom of action and belief, protects everyone's rights, has a government accountable to its citizens, creates laws to punish abusers, creates other laws that try to prevent abuse from happening in the first place.
My problem with socialism it puts too many constraints on peoples actions. Wanting to own a business is not inherently evil in my book. My problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't recognize the need for laws to prevent abuse. They seem content to have only laws to punish abusers. I know I'm greatly simplifying socialism and libertarianism, but this post is long enough as it is. And it's lunch time.
>why is the "legal process" the way it is?
Great question. I don't really know all the historical reasons for the current set of immigration laws. I would guess some of them are probably based in racism or chauvinism. Others exist to control the US labor pool to give advantages to the people already here. I agree with you that the immigration laws need to be changed to be more humane. I think we differ greatly in other areas, though. If I recall correctly from other posts, you are an ardent anti-capitalist. I don't share your level of distaste for capitalism. I agree that great abuses take place within a capitalist society, but abuse is not unique to capitalism. Great abuses take place (or have taken place) within all other forms of society, too. I place the blame on the unethical people that exist within all societies. They always seem to find ways to warp and manipulate the system to their advantage to gain more power, and the more power they gain, the more they can work the system to their advantage. This problem is not unique to capitalist societies. Purely socialist societies will suffer from this too, in my opinion. The only society that would not suffer from this problem is one devoid of unethical people. That's not likely to happen any time soon (if ever).
if all forms of society are vulnerable to abuse and manipulation, what are we to do? Well, chose the least bad one, I guess. People have been debating what is the 'least bad one' for quite some time now. I favor a society that tries to maximize freedom of action and belief, protects everyone's rights, has a government accountable to its citizens, creates laws to punish abusers, creates other laws that try to prevent abuse from happening in the first place.
My problem with socialism it puts too many constraints on peoples actions. Wanting to own a business is not inherently evil in my book. My problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't recognize the need for laws to prevent abuse. They seem content to have only laws to punish abusers. I know I'm greatly simplifying socialism and libertarianism, but this post is long enough as it is. And it's lunch time.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
No free markets
[Here's another of my posts in this thread]
I think, even in the absence of government regulation (and corrupt politicians), large scale markets can never be free from manipulation and exploitation. If the big dogs in the market can't leverage laws and politicians to gain advantages they will use elements from other systems in the overall framework.
I'd like to point out I don't think this is a problem unique to markets. Most (all?) large systems can be manipulated by the powerful players in the system to gain unfair advantage over others by exploiting the overlaps between that system and other systems in the overall framework. This can lead to corrupted governments or corrupted religious organization or corrupted labor groups or corrupted markets, corrupted banking systems, etc, and combination of all of the above.
If each system in the framework can be corrupted by powerful players, what can be done? Another why to think about this problem is to ask: Which system in the framework is the best choice to limit the corruptibility of the other systems? I would argue that a government that is accountable to its citizens is the best choice, provided the citizens participate in and monitor the political processes.
Of course, if all the above is true, but expecting people to participate in and monitor the political processes is unrealistic and will never happen in the real world, then I have no idea what is the best system to keep a check on the others.
I think, even in the absence of government regulation (and corrupt politicians), large scale markets can never be free from manipulation and exploitation. If the big dogs in the market can't leverage laws and politicians to gain advantages they will use elements from other systems in the overall framework.
I'd like to point out I don't think this is a problem unique to markets. Most (all?) large systems can be manipulated by the powerful players in the system to gain unfair advantage over others by exploiting the overlaps between that system and other systems in the overall framework. This can lead to corrupted governments or corrupted religious organization or corrupted labor groups or corrupted markets, corrupted banking systems, etc, and combination of all of the above.
If each system in the framework can be corrupted by powerful players, what can be done? Another why to think about this problem is to ask: Which system in the framework is the best choice to limit the corruptibility of the other systems? I would argue that a government that is accountable to its citizens is the best choice, provided the citizens participate in and monitor the political processes.
Of course, if all the above is true, but expecting people to participate in and monitor the political processes is unrealistic and will never happen in the real world, then I have no idea what is the best system to keep a check on the others.
Road to Serfdom, version 3.0
[This post is from this thread]
For a time back in the 90's I became really interested in libertarian thinking and read many libertarian books and bought into that way of thinking. Since then I came to realize that, although the theories espoused by libertarian writers may be compelling, they don't translate well into the real world. I came to believe it's not possible for free markets to persist in the real world and yield optimal social results. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The world is not only ‘wanters’ and ‘havers’ engaging in commerce. Markets coexist within a framework containing many other systems: Political systems, legal systems, banking systems, religious systems, energy distribution systems, information distribution systems, road systems, international treaty systems, extended family systems, reputation systems, etc, etc. Some of these system are fairly independent of the market system, others intersect and overlap the market system. The reason unregulated free markets eventually fail in the real world is that unethical people use elements of these other systems to gain huge, unfair advantages within the market system. Some government intervention is necessary to help prevent or correct these unfair advantages and to create stability in the system. Of course, government is another system existing within the overall framework and unethical people work hard at manipulating government to gain advantages in one or more of the other systems. It's a big tangled mess of feedback loops that distort any chance for a truly free market to work well in the long term. In fact, I feel these feedback loops, and the opportunities for manipulation they create, cause all the ‘isms’ (capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, egalitarianism, etc) to fail in the long run, if left untended, unregulated.
If nothing works, then what to do? Well, I didn’t say ‘nothing works’, I said ‘nothing works when left untended’. Therefore, what are needed are tools to monitor the various systems affecting society, the power to do something when corrections are necessary, and the realization that adjustments will need to be continually made as time goes by. IMHO, the tools and power to do that must come from a government that is accountable to its citizens (otherwise government will just become another system manipulated by the powerful). The tools and power can't come the market. The invisible hand is too easily manipulated these days and to hard to hold accountable.
That said, we as citizens can't just sit back and assume government will always do the right thing. Government is subject to manipulation, just as is everything else in the overall framework. It's our responsibility as citizens to make adjustments to government. Sometimes that will mean supporting an expansion of government to prevent or correct unethical behavior in some the other systems within the framework (including the market system), and sometimes pushing for limiting government to correct abuses or bad government policies. Perhpas most importantly we need to take action when our ability to affect government is threatened. If we lose the ability to affect government...well then bad things happen, to say the least. :-)
We must always keep in mind that the world is full of flawed people and imperfect systems and know that the *best* we can do is muddle along, but the worst we can do is sit back and trust everything to just work.
For a time back in the 90's I became really interested in libertarian thinking and read many libertarian books and bought into that way of thinking. Since then I came to realize that, although the theories espoused by libertarian writers may be compelling, they don't translate well into the real world. I came to believe it's not possible for free markets to persist in the real world and yield optimal social results. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The world is not only ‘wanters’ and ‘havers’ engaging in commerce. Markets coexist within a framework containing many other systems: Political systems, legal systems, banking systems, religious systems, energy distribution systems, information distribution systems, road systems, international treaty systems, extended family systems, reputation systems, etc, etc. Some of these system are fairly independent of the market system, others intersect and overlap the market system. The reason unregulated free markets eventually fail in the real world is that unethical people use elements of these other systems to gain huge, unfair advantages within the market system. Some government intervention is necessary to help prevent or correct these unfair advantages and to create stability in the system. Of course, government is another system existing within the overall framework and unethical people work hard at manipulating government to gain advantages in one or more of the other systems. It's a big tangled mess of feedback loops that distort any chance for a truly free market to work well in the long term. In fact, I feel these feedback loops, and the opportunities for manipulation they create, cause all the ‘isms’ (capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, egalitarianism, etc) to fail in the long run, if left untended, unregulated.
If nothing works, then what to do? Well, I didn’t say ‘nothing works’, I said ‘nothing works when left untended’. Therefore, what are needed are tools to monitor the various systems affecting society, the power to do something when corrections are necessary, and the realization that adjustments will need to be continually made as time goes by. IMHO, the tools and power to do that must come from a government that is accountable to its citizens (otherwise government will just become another system manipulated by the powerful). The tools and power can't come the market. The invisible hand is too easily manipulated these days and to hard to hold accountable.
That said, we as citizens can't just sit back and assume government will always do the right thing. Government is subject to manipulation, just as is everything else in the overall framework. It's our responsibility as citizens to make adjustments to government. Sometimes that will mean supporting an expansion of government to prevent or correct unethical behavior in some the other systems within the framework (including the market system), and sometimes pushing for limiting government to correct abuses or bad government policies. Perhpas most importantly we need to take action when our ability to affect government is threatened. If we lose the ability to affect government...well then bad things happen, to say the least. :-)
We must always keep in mind that the world is full of flawed people and imperfect systems and know that the *best* we can do is muddle along, but the worst we can do is sit back and trust everything to just work.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The problem with entrenched political parties
[This post came from this Coffee Party Los Angeles thread]
@DeAnna. I'm fairly cynical so I agree with you that a third party (or any party) eventually, over time, becomes more concerned with their quest for power over their rivals rather than their original purpose for coming into existence (i.e. representing their constituents). I take that as a fundamental fact of life that we have to consider when thinking about laws related to elections and political parties. For example, if my cynical belief is true, it suggests we need to change the laws to remove the barriers to independent and new party candidates, because long established parties have become too caught up in the quest for power and no longer do a good job of representing their constituents. Changes in the law to support a more diverse set of elected officials (more than just Dems and Repubs) will also give people more than just two viable choices come election time. Having more viable choices will lead to a Congress that better reflects the diversity of views held by the people.
@DeAnna. I'm fairly cynical so I agree with you that a third party (or any party) eventually, over time, becomes more concerned with their quest for power over their rivals rather than their original purpose for coming into existence (i.e. representing their constituents). I take that as a fundamental fact of life that we have to consider when thinking about laws related to elections and political parties. For example, if my cynical belief is true, it suggests we need to change the laws to remove the barriers to independent and new party candidates, because long established parties have become too caught up in the quest for power and no longer do a good job of representing their constituents. Changes in the law to support a more diverse set of elected officials (more than just Dems and Repubs) will also give people more than just two viable choices come election time. Having more viable choices will lead to a Congress that better reflects the diversity of views held by the people.
understanding your opponent
[Posted on this Coffee Party thread]
People on the left who criticize the small-government people on the right as heartless, uncaring, and unsympathetic toward the underprivileged need to realize that the small-government people on the right really believe their way is the better, more moral, more caring way. That their way will achieve better results for all, including the underprivileged, and they can point to very intellectual, philosophical, and rational authors to support those claims (e.g. Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek to name just a couple). The people on the right are not, in general, heartless, uncaring, and unsympathetic. The left is making a mistake by generalizing them in that way.
To the left I say, if you don't understand your opponent, your strategies will have less chance of success.
People on the left who criticize the small-government people on the right as heartless, uncaring, and unsympathetic toward the underprivileged need to realize that the small-government people on the right really believe their way is the better, more moral, more caring way. That their way will achieve better results for all, including the underprivileged, and they can point to very intellectual, philosophical, and rational authors to support those claims (e.g. Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek to name just a couple). The people on the right are not, in general, heartless, uncaring, and unsympathetic. The left is making a mistake by generalizing them in that way.
To the left I say, if you don't understand your opponent, your strategies will have less chance of success.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Good regulation vs bad regulation
[This came from a nice thread on government regulation on the Coffee Party page.]
I agree the CRA played a big role in setting the stage by incentivizing the issuing of bad loans. I'm sure other regulations have historically caused problems, too. I'm not the sort to think all regulations will guarantee positive outcomes. There is often an unseen foot that trips the best of intentions. However, even though some regulations ... See Moreend up causing problems, I believe we need some regulations beyond basic laws protecting life, liberty, and property.
For example, it would have been nice to have had a regulation to prevent the formation of the huge and interconnected market of credit default swaps placed against those bad loans caused by the CRA. Now, there's nothing illegal or immoral about credit default swaps. However, the interconnectedness and inter-dependencies within the financial market that were allowed to form caused huge problems when the housing bubble burst. The fraud that allegedly took place just added to the problem.
Good regulations can prevent a system from becoming fragile. Bad regulations (e.g. CFA) can cause huge market distortions.
For example, it would have been nice to have had a regulation to prevent the formation of the huge and interconnected market of credit default swaps placed against those bad loans caused by the CRA. Now, there's nothing illegal or immoral about credit default swaps. However, the interconnectedness and inter-dependencies within the financial market that were allowed to form caused huge problems when the housing bubble burst. The fraud that allegedly took place just added to the problem.
Good regulations can prevent a system from becoming fragile. Bad regulations (e.g. CFA) can cause huge market distortions.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Coffee Party leanings
[This post is from this Coffee Party thread]
The discussions on this Coffee Party page will probably always be to the left of the far right because the far right people are off doing their own thing on the Tea Party pages. In other words, if there were exactly the same number of people here from these political 'buckets': right, center right, center, center left, left, far left, then the overall 'leaning' of the discussions will average out to center left because the far right is not well represented. And that's an unrealistic distribution. My guess is the real distribution of people posting here cause the discussions to average out to further left than 'center left'.
However, that doesn't mean the Coffee Party sets out to be a left-leaning organization. The Coffee Party is what it is based on who shows up. If the people on the right decide not to show up, well....their loss.
The discussions on this Coffee Party page will probably always be to the left of the far right because the far right people are off doing their own thing on the Tea Party pages. In other words, if there were exactly the same number of people here from these political 'buckets': right, center right, center, center left, left, far left, then the overall 'leaning' of the discussions will average out to center left because the far right is not well represented. And that's an unrealistic distribution. My guess is the real distribution of people posting here cause the discussions to average out to further left than 'center left'.
However, that doesn't mean the Coffee Party sets out to be a left-leaning organization. The Coffee Party is what it is based on who shows up. If the people on the right decide not to show up, well....their loss.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
the real Road to Serfdom, version 2.0
I used to be a member of the 'Road to Serfdom’ camp back in the 90s and believed any intervention in the marketplace is one more step down a road that we *all* agree ends in a bad place. Since then I came to realize that, although the theories espoused in 'Road to Serfdom' may be sound, they don't translate well into the real world. I came to believe it's not possible for free markets to persist in the real world. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The world is not only ‘wanters’ and ‘havers’ engaging in commerce. Markets coexist within a framework containing many other systems: Political systems, legal systems, banking systems, religious systems, energy distribution systems, information distribution systems, road systems, international treaty systems, extended family systems, reputation systems, etc, etc. Some of these system are fairly independent of the market system, others intersect and overlap the market system. The reason free markets eventually fail in the real world is that unethical people use elements of these other systems to gain huge, unfair advantages within the market system. Some government intervention is necessary to help prevent or correct these unfair advantages. Of course, government is another system existing within the overall framework and unethical people work hard at manipulating government to gain advantage in one or more of the other systems. It's a big tangled mess of feedback loops that distort any chance for a truly free market to work well in the long term. In fact, I feel these feedback loops, and the opportunities for manipulation they create, cause all the ‘isms’ (capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, egalitarianism, etc) to fail in the long run, if left untended, unregulated.
If nothing works, then what to do? Well, I didn’t say ‘nothing works’, I said ‘nothing works when left untended’. Therefore, what is needed is a society that is diligent in keeping on top of the various systems affecting it, has the tools to monitor these systems, and has the power to do something when corrections are necessary. One that embraces the fact that it will need to continually make adjustments as it goes along. Those adjustments will sometime require an expansion of government to prevent or correct unethical behavior in all the other systems within the framework (including the market system), and sometimes require limiting government to correct abuses or bad government policies. We must always keep in mind that the world is full of flawed people and imperfect systems and know that the *best* we can do is muddle along, but the worst we can do is sit back and trust everything to just work. Faith in the ‘system’ (whatever it is) is the real Road to Serfdom, IMHO.
If nothing works, then what to do? Well, I didn’t say ‘nothing works’, I said ‘nothing works when left untended’. Therefore, what is needed is a society that is diligent in keeping on top of the various systems affecting it, has the tools to monitor these systems, and has the power to do something when corrections are necessary. One that embraces the fact that it will need to continually make adjustments as it goes along. Those adjustments will sometime require an expansion of government to prevent or correct unethical behavior in all the other systems within the framework (including the market system), and sometimes require limiting government to correct abuses or bad government policies. We must always keep in mind that the world is full of flawed people and imperfect systems and know that the *best* we can do is muddle along, but the worst we can do is sit back and trust everything to just work. Faith in the ‘system’ (whatever it is) is the real Road to Serfdom, IMHO.
Credit Default Swaps and the Bail-Out
This article describes credit defaults swaps, the role they played in the collapse of the financial market, and why people felt it was necessary to bail out the large firms. In short, not bailing them out would have triggered a cascade of 'credit events' that would have brought down the entire system (or something like that).
http://money.howstuffworks.com/credit-default-swap.htm
http://money.howstuffworks
Monday, April 5, 2010
Another political party? No thanks.
[This comment is from this Coffee Party thread]
Many changes to the electoral and political process will need to take place before third parties become viable in the US at a national level. Given the way things are now, they tend to simply funnel votes away from either the Dems or the Repubs and can result in the worse candidate getting elected (worst from the 3rd party's perspective).
For that reason I personally don't want the Coffee Party to become an actual political party any time soon. I'd rather it continue existing as a 'movement' focused on the goals listed in the Coffee Party's 'About Us' page [copied below]:
"Coffee Party USA aims to reinvigorate the public sphere, drawing from diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, with the goal of expanding the influence of the People in America's political arena. We do not require nor adhere to any preexisting ideology. We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members. We see our diversity as a strength, not a weakness, because we believe that faithful deliberation from multiple vantage points is the best way to achieve the common good. It is in the responsible and reasonable practice of deliberation that we hope to contribute to society."
Many changes to the electoral and political process will need to take place before third parties become viable in the US at a national level. Given the way things are now, they tend to simply funnel votes away from either the Dems or the Repubs and can result in the worse candidate getting elected (worst from the 3rd party's perspective).
For that reason I personally don't want the Coffee Party to become an actual political party any time soon. I'd rather it continue existing as a 'movement' focused on the goals listed in the Coffee Party's 'About Us' page [copied below]:
"Coffee Party USA aims to reinvigorate the public sphere, drawing from diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, with the goal of expanding the influence of the People in America's political arena. We do not require nor adhere to any preexisting ideology. We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members. We see our diversity as a strength, not a weakness, because we believe that faithful deliberation from multiple vantage points is the best way to achieve the common good. It is in the responsible and reasonable practice of deliberation that we hope to contribute to society."
Saturday, April 3, 2010
gun thoughts
[This was posted in this Coffee Party thread.]
I think many gun owners truly believe personal gun ownership is the innermost wall in the ring of defenses that protect America from a hypothetical future government that oppresses the population. The walls further out would be all the other freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the military, law enforcement agencies, court system, free press, the checks-and balances built into the political institutions, etc. The thinking is: Even if there came a day when these other walls were compromised, and an oppressive government gained a foothold (either by invasion or via corruption from within), it would still face an armed populace. In fact, the mere existence of an armed populace acts as a deterrent to give potential oppressors great pause.
Regardless of the soundness of such logic, it's deeply ingrained in many gun owners minds. Knowing that, it becomes easier to understand why gun owners are so opposed to any law or regulation that would make it easier for some future government to ban or confiscate people guns. I believe most gun owners would oppose any laws that result in lists of gun owners and the types of guns they own. However, I think many gun owners would be ok with laws that require proficiency tests and background checks as long as no owner lists get compiled as side-effects of the implementation of these laws.
Regardless of the soundness of such logic, it's deeply ingrained in many gun owners minds. Knowing that, it becomes easier to understand why gun owners are so opposed to any law or regulation that would make it easier for some future government to ban or confiscate people guns. I believe most gun owners would oppose any laws that result in lists of gun owners and the types of guns they own. However, I think many gun owners would be ok with laws that require proficiency tests and background checks as long as no owner lists get compiled as side-effects of the implementation of these laws.
not anti-Tea
[This was a comment in this Coffee Party thread.]
The Coffee Party is not an anti-Tea Party group. It's goal is not to bring down the Tea Party or to be against everything the Tea Party is for. Its goals (as I see them) are to bring civility back to the democratic process and foster an more informed and active electorate. If it turns out that the majority of Coffee Party members agree with a specific policy position, the organization as a whole might then officially endorse that position, but that is almost a side-effect of all this wonderful Coffee Party activity, not a primary goal. At least that's how I see it.
The Coffee Party is not an anti-Tea Party group. It's goal is not to bring down the Tea Party or to be against everything the Tea Party is for. Its goals (as I see them) are to bring civility back to the democratic process and foster an more informed and active electorate. If it turns out that the majority of Coffee Party members agree with a specific policy position, the organization as a whole might then officially endorse that position, but that is almost a side-effect of all this wonderful Coffee Party activity, not a primary goal. At least that's how I see it.
banking question
[Question I posted in this Coffee Party thread]
I'm a complete n00b when it comes to banking systems and money supplies so what follows will probably be a stupid question. If, as the above article suggests, we limit local banks to loan only on a 1 to 1 ratio of what they had on deposit, wouldn't that result in people and small business having a hard time getting loans, and thus causing the economy to stall?
[Here's the reply]
I'm a complete n00b when it comes to banking systems and money supplies so what follows will probably be a stupid question. If, as the above article suggests, we limit local banks to loan only on a 1 to 1 ratio of what they had on deposit, wouldn't that result in people and small business having a hard time getting loans, and thus causing the economy to stall?
[Here's the reply]
Alan Hefner
@Jim Miller, if banks are held to lending out only the amount they have on deposit, it would make the credit market tight for a while. It would have the highest impact on the consumer credit market though and THAT isn't such a bad thing.
Another thing that MIGHT happen is that banks would go to greater lengths to get people to establish, maintain and grow, savings accounts.
Also, it would go a long way toward stabilizing our money supply and the value of the dollar.
Last, but not least, the banks would have more real assets to back those loans. In case of wide spread defaults, the bank would have "something" they can use to try and get back some of the outstanding loan amount.
[I'm not yet convinced.]
Another thing that MIGHT happen is that banks would go to greater lengths to get people to establish, maintain and grow, savings accounts.
Also, it would go a long way toward stabilizing our money supply and the value of the dollar.
Last, but not least, the banks would have more real assets to back those loans. In case of wide spread defaults, the bank would have "something" they can use to try and get back some of the outstanding loan amount.
[I'm not yet convinced.]
the real Road to Serfdom
[This comment is in response to Mike Mooney's advocacy of unregulated free markets. Here a link to the Coffee Party post that started the thread.]
I find it hard to argue with what Mike Mooney is saying. Not to say I agree with what he's saying, just that I don't know of any good counter arguments that I feel could possible persuade Mike that some government intervention in the markets is necessary. The counter arguments exist, it's just that they don't seem to persuade the 'Road to Serfdom... See More' camp. To this camp, any intervention in the market place is one more step down a road that we *all* agree ends in a bad place. I used to be a member of that camp back in the 90s, but came to realize that, although the theories espoused in 'Road to Serfdom' may be sound, they don't translate well into the real world. I came to believe it's not possible for free markets to persist in the real world. Markets don't exist in a vacuum, they coexist within a framework containing many other systems. Political systems, banking systems, religious systems, energy distribution systems, information distribution systems, road systems, international treaty systems, extended family systems, etc, etc. Some of these system are fairly independent of the market system, others intersect and overlap the market system. The reason free markets fail in the real world is that unethical people use elements of these other systems to gain huge, unfair advantages within the market system. Some government intervention is necessary to help prevent these unfair advantages. Of course, government is another system existing within the overall framework that also contains the market system, and unethical people work hard at manipulating government to gain advantage in the market system. It's a big tangled mess of feedback loops that distort any chance for a truly free market to actually work correctly in the long term.
What to do about this mess? Keep on top of it, continue to make adjustments as we go along. Realize the world is full of flawed people and imperfect systems and know that the best we can do is muddle along, but the worst we can do is sit back and do nothing. Doing nothing and expecting it all to just work is the real Road to Serfdom.
What to do about this mess? Keep on top of it, continue to make adjustments as we go along. Realize the world is full of flawed people and imperfect systems and know that the best we can do is muddle along, but the worst we can do is sit back and do nothing. Doing nothing and expecting it all to just work is the real Road to Serfdom.
Hanging out on FB
I find most of my Coffee time is spent hanging out at the Coffee Party Facebook page. I'm going to start copying some of my favorite FB post here in my blog so they don't scroll off into FB oblivion.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
chatroulette for Congress
One of the problems with Government is that Congresspeople spend most of their time far from their home district/state and therefore don't often meet with their constituents. One fairly easy solution to this is to create a chatroulette-style system for communicating between a Congressperson and his/her constituents. It would not be exactly like chatroulette, but would use some of the same ideas. Here 's a first pass at how it could work:
The Congressperson would sit in front of a computer with webcam (or better), launch a web browser, and log into the 'Chat With Congress" web site and create a 'meeting'. Constituents use their laptops and webcams to log into that Congressperson's Chat meeting. The Congressperson would click the 'Start The Meeting' button and a Constituent would be randomly chosen from among those logged into the meeting. Each person logged into the meeting would see the webcam feeds of the Congressperson and the currently chosen constituent. The constituent would ask his/her question and the Congressperson would answer it. Once the question has been answered the Congressperson would click the 'Next Question' button, which would result in another constituent's webcam feed to be randomly chosen and displayed in the web browsers. The Congressperson could also hit the 'Next Question' button if the chosen constituent was a crackpot or abusive or asked a question that was already answered. When the meeting is done the Congressperson would click the 'Meeting Done' button.
Pretty Simple. The person who created chatroulette wrote all the code for it in just a couple of days. It would probably only take that amount of time to create something like I describe above. For all I know, you can easily do something like this with Google Wave.
The Congressperson would sit in front of a computer with webcam (or better), launch a web browser, and log into the 'Chat With Congress" web site and create a 'meeting'. Constituents use their laptops and webcams to log into that Congressperson's Chat meeting. The Congressperson would click the 'Start The Meeting' button and a Constituent would be randomly chosen from among those logged into the meeting. Each person logged into the meeting would see the webcam feeds of the Congressperson and the currently chosen constituent. The constituent would ask his/her question and the Congressperson would answer it. Once the question has been answered the Congressperson would click the 'Next Question' button, which would result in another constituent's webcam feed to be randomly chosen and displayed in the web browsers. The Congressperson could also hit the 'Next Question' button if the chosen constituent was a crackpot or abusive or asked a question that was already answered. When the meeting is done the Congressperson would click the 'Meeting Done' button.
Pretty Simple. The person who created chatroulette wrote all the code for it in just a couple of days. It would probably only take that amount of time to create something like I describe above. For all I know, you can easily do something like this with Google Wave.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
First Coffee Party Meeting
Chrissy and I went to our first Coffee Party Movement meeting last Sunday. There were about 25 people there, which was about what I expected. This weekend's meeting was not a special kick-off meeting so I didn't expect the same number of people as reported on March 13th.
I also expected most, if not all, the attendees to be left-leaning, and it seemed like they were. At least the ones that spoke up and expressed opinions.
I brought my video camera expecting to tape a good portion (or at least the interesting portions) of the meeting, but I didn't feel comfortable doing so. When I asked around to see how people felt about me recording video I got a number of "depends on what you want to do with it" kinds of answers. At least one person asked not to be filmed (and I honored that request). Perhaps they will feel more comfortable with me recording video after they get to know me and I get to know them.
The meeting began with everyone introducing themselves, saying what part of town they are from, then describing briefly why they have come to the meeting. Then, unlike the March 13th meetings where people broke into small groups and created a poster that completed the phrase "Coffee and...", the facilitator discussed how to form a new Coffee Party 'chapter' and what to do during next week's Nation Coffee Summit meetings. They (we) also reviewed a handout from the March 13th meeting. I think the handout is excellent and I hope the above scan of it shows up well.
All-in-all I enjoyed going to the meeting and plan to go to more.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
government links for my location
Henry Waxman - U.S. House of Representatives
Barbara Boxer - U.S. Senate
Dianne Feinstein - U.S. Senate
Mike Feuer - State Assembly, 42nd District
Fran Pavley - State Senate, 23rd District
Zev Yaroslavsky - Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, 3rd District
Jerome Horton - California State Board of Equalization, 4th District
Los Angeles City Council - 5th District
Public Officials Roster
Barbara Boxer - U.S. Senate
Dianne Feinstein - U.S. Senate
Mike Feuer - State Assembly, 42nd District
Fran Pavley - State Senate, 23rd District
Zev Yaroslavsky - Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, 3rd District
Jerome Horton - California State Board of Equalization, 4th District
Los Angeles City Council - 5th District
Public Officials Roster
Make them work from "home"
There is no longer a compelling reason to have all our National politicians gather together in one location to do their job. It made sense in the past, before modern transportation and communication technology. Today we have phones, FAXes, Internet, secure video conferencing, and jet planes. Our congresspeople and Senators should be required to conduct most of their business (and wheeling/dealing) from their local/state offices. Doing this would have a number of effects:
1) Puts the representatives closer to the people they represent.
2) Makes it a little harder for lobbyists to do their job because power wont all be concentrated in one place. Having all the decision makers in one place, as it is now, makes it just way too easy on them.
3) The historical justifications for denying the vote to residents of Washington D.C. would no longer apply and they could finally be allowed all the same voting options as the rest of us.
4) Removes a single point of attack should terrorists get their hands on a nuke.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
With great power comes great responsibility
Anyone familiar with Spiderman would be familiar with that phrase. It applies not only to superheros, but to voters as well. If voters grant government great powers, then voters have a responsibility to act as watchdogs of the government they created, and get involved if the government starts to act irresponsibly.
Money and Politics
It should come as no surprise that money influences politics. This web site shows the contributions made to politicians, and how those politicians voted on specific bills:
MAPLight.org
Recommended reading for all.
MAPLight.org
Recommended reading for all.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
If you're at all curious...
... about the Coffee Party Movement then listen to this podcast:
Coffee with Annabel
It's a discussion with Annabel Park, one of the co-founders of the Coffee Party Movement from March 11th, 2010.
Coffee with Annabel
It's a discussion with Annabel Park, one of the co-founders of the Coffee Party Movement from March 11th, 2010.
I don't drink coffee...
...except in dire need-to-wake-up emergencies. Well, I've decided I need to really wake up to what's going on around me and take a big gulp of Coffee Party USA. This blog will chronicle my experience with the Coffee Party USA (and Coffee Party LA) and also be a place to deposit Coffee-induced thoughts and ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
>it might be better if we know who the
>segregationists are
I suppose if there existed an equivalent non-segregated alternative for every segregated business (equivalent in terms of product, service, cost and convenience), then it might be better to allow segregated businesses to exist so customers can make more informed choices (and hopefully ... See Moreput the segregated businesses out of business). However, this condition (i.e. equivalent alternatives everywhere) has never existed and is never likely to exist.
I should add that it's ridiculous to claim that separate sections within a business are equal sections. Any business that chooses to create separate sections based on race are not likely to treat the customers in the non-White section the same as they treat the customers in the Whites-only section. The SCOTUS declared separate is not equal back in the 50s I believe.
What to do then? There are a few options:
1) Allow segregated businesses to existing without competitive alternatives?
2) Subsidize non-segregated alternatives where needed to create competition?
3) Mandate that all businesses be non-segregated (as was done via the Civil Rights Act)?
Which option is best? That depends on who is doing the judging and what criteria is being used to judge 'bestness'. I bet I can guess which option the owners of the segregated businesses would chose. Snark aside, it comes down to what is better for the country. Mandating non-segregation creates a precedence saying government can limit some of the choices of business owners, but increases the options, opportunity, and dignity of non-Whites. Different people will evaluate these trade-offs differently depending on their personal value system. To me, I think the choice is clear. Mandating non-segregated businesses results in the greater good, but it's important to realize that it does come with a price. The price is that the government now has the power (via SCOTUS rulings) to limit some of the choices of business owners. It's up to us as voters to make sure that power is not used inappropriately.