Category Archives: Economy

Back to Real News

Posted on by
Reply

In an effort to recapture the eclectic, more typical style of the Blog of the Ancient Mariner, the mariner revisited his list of must-read web sites, magazines, newspapers and, after a brief respite, television news. In fact, his wife tipped him about an article in VOX, a digital magazine.

Two odd issues that one wouldn’t think would capture broad interest (even the mariner’s local paper) are the Electoral College and the Emolument Clause of the Constitution. A third topic that should, perhaps must be at the center of voter discussion is the future of jobs.

The mariner shares the two sources with his readers because they are EXCELLENT sources that continue to provide above average articles that one must read to keep up with the personal duty of managing a free democracy.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE (EC)

The first source is VOX. VOX is a grown-up, fully commercial version of The Blog of the Ancient Mariner. VOX negotiates with smaller web site journalists to have them contribute posts through VOX. Occasionally VOX will buy more developed websites and integrate them with the VOX publishing team. The result is a current and unbiased presentation of topics that are related to substantive issues, ideas, and more informative than other commercial publications like cable news. Mariner recommends VOX as a member of the reader’s favorites list.[1]

To tickle your fancy, here are a few phrases from the article.

– Why not rely on a popular vote like other democracies do?

– The EC allows states to count slaves, each as 3/5 of a person.

– Why do we still have an EC?

EMOLUMENT CLAUSE

The New York Times is the second source that should be checked regularly. NYT is an influential newspaper around the world. To a surprising extent, its priority of topics reported sets the focus of many other news sources and discussions about the US, politics, finances, and the important information about business, health, nature, science, etc. – even what new books individuals may want to buy. The paper edition works near New York but the digital copy is of-the-moment and organized for faster perusing. Also should be added to the favorites folder.

Particularly at the time the Constitution was written, the forefathers were afraid that a US president could be bought by foreign monarchies and competing commercial interests who would want to block competition from the US. Further, the President was to govern by the authority of a democracy and could not be influenced by special interests. Donald has a strong desire to keep his world-wide business empire while he is President. For those who fantasize about some method to remove Donald, if he is denied Trump corporate authority, he may resign on his own. This conflict with the emolument clause will persist as a top news item likely to reach the Supreme Court.[2]

JOBLESS FUTURE

VOX again publishes an insightful article about how, in just a few decades, there is a chance we may all draw our wages not from commerce but from Government. This is hard to imagine when today it is all we can do to hold on to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and what there is of single payer insurance. How could we be prejudiced against lower class people on welfare? We would all be on a government handout!

Granted, the Services Employee International Services Union (SEISU) considers the idea a valid argument. We have known about the disappearance of jobs because of automation; even worse, job sources are dropping retirement, benefits packages and do what they can to avoid government mandates like minimum wage, equal pay for women and maternity leave. Because this cultural transition is already underway – and has been for at least 20 years, it is close to becoming front page news as a national and Federal issue instead of a right to work issue on a state-by-state basis. Something as serious as keeping 300,000 people alive is better handled by the Federal Government. The managers of a free democracy should be schooled on this jobless issue and not be caught up in a class war like the 2016 elections.[3]

 

Ancient Mariner

[1] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar

For a procedural description issued by the US Government see

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/politics/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest.html?_r=0

[3] http://www.vox.com/conversations/2016/10/17/13245808/andy-stern-work-universal-basic-income-technology-artificial-intelligence-unions

Chicken Little is Afraid!

Posted on by
1

Slowly, the mariner and his wife begin to peek at the political news. Like small fishes in the coral reef, quickly we dart away. The similarities between the Hitler takeover of Germany and Donald’s takeover of the United States are eerie. In both elections, neither won the popular vote; large numbers of citizens were ignored by the establishment for years and therefore wanted a leader who was good at kicking down sand castles and toy block bridges; a leader who didn’t understand what the word egalitarian meant or was capable of implementing egalitarian policies that would right the wrongs of a recently defeated Germany or a recently destroyed US democracy.

Hitler filled his administration with people who did not fit well with complicated, nuanced organizations; the appointees possessed extremist attitudes and opportunistic ethics; Donald is doing precisely the same. Against a background of political incompetence in the elected government, both administrations, despite D-league leaders, were (are) quickly capable of installing a white nationalist nation, permit horribly abusive punishment on citizens who dared to disagree with the administration; and further utilize mafia-like tactics and confiscation techniques to take possession of property, financial opportunities and remove worker rights from government contracts; finally, appointing only cronies and those each felt he could trust regardless of instruction or circumstances.

Henry Kissinger thinks Donald is manageable. With all due respect, mariner disagrees. Donald is a hard core narcissist raised in a manner where he cannot, even in the face of absolute evidence, admit he lost or is wrong or even that someone else contributed. “If people think you never lose, you can do anything” (Donald). Further, Congress is too incompetent to steer Donald – only take advantage of his presence. Sadly, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Finally – though there is more – instead of engaging democratic allies to assist Germany in its economic crisis, Hitler turned to another autocratic dictatorship: Mussolini’s Italy. One cannot help but notice Donald’s preference to solve “the world’s problems” by associating with Putin’s Russia – an autocratic dictatorship.

Chicken Little, to use his colloquial style, is running about shouting “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

And very important to the personal sense of things represented by this post, a woman who is the best friend of the mariner’s daughter and equally a friend of the mariner and his wife has written a poignant accounting of the recent election. Please, please go to http://www.refinery29.com/2016/11/130338/trump-womens-health-care-social-security . It says a lot about the intellectual demands and knowledge required of the electorate to manage a democratic republic founded on freedom.

From a different angle, at least two major futurists see this moment as the end of world polity and the associated economic model – the end of a global culture in place since World War One. This perception may be wise, even hopeful. However, the Antichrist enjoys meddling in times of great change. What can be said that is positive? Hitler and Mussolini invented the V2 rocket and made trains run on time. What will Donald and Putin do?

Ancient Mariner

 

Consider This . . .

Posted on by
2

The last post did a short analysis of the causes and voting behavior of the electorate’s response to the candidates. In this post, we look forward – not so much about the cabinet and key players in the White House, which looks neither republican nor democrat but certainly a team who will fumble as the weight of running a democratic republic falls upon them. We must give them time to fumble and see how they recover.

The Guru still is contributing to the mariner’s thoughts so our focus will address – in the looong view – well rooted troubles evidenced by the election and the consequences that will occur if they are not addressed.

Consider religion –

Guru blames our religious difficulties on Puritans and other fundamentalists who relocated in America because their practices did not fit well with a rapidly liberalizing Church in Europe. Even today, employees of Planned Parenthood may be shot, burned off the property, forced by a government who ignores the US Constitution to dismantle financial support, lay debilitating regulations upon them and otherwise ostracize Planned Parenthood from their presumed right to pursue basic human rights. When was it that Protestants stopped slitting open the length of every Quaker’s nose just because they were Quakers?

The current fundamentalist unrest should not even be an issue. The nation was clearly founded on freedom of religion. The pettiness is not really religious; it is the belief that because our money references God, the nation is a theocracy – just the conflict our founders wanted to avoid. If this conflict cannot be put to rest, the conservative theocratic movement will keep our politicians from dealing with tough issues through politically democratic compromise. The tea party folks came close to bringing down the US for good. Further, throughout time since the beginning, religious practices have changed as society changed – but not without questionable abuses of religious doctrine in defense of tradition. It is not enough to be an American Citizen and be safe from beheadings and genocide by ISIL; we owe our own nation loyalty to its premise of freedom for all citizens. Being citizens of the only nation in the world that defines itself as ‘freedom for all citizens’ requires even the religiously devout to – in this nation at least – be loyal to that principle. Religious faith is relevant or it becomes destructive if not meaningless.

We need all three branches of the Federal Government and state governments as well to deal successfully with international politics, greed-based corporatism, scientific knowledge that may leave us on a pile of extinct species before we may want to do that and a planet that is pretty much fed up with us. The new world of governance cannot be held back by regional faith; virtually every issue will require international agreements involving many faiths, cultures and races.

 

Consider economics –

The United States is founded on principles never before used to run a nation. US citizens were required to manage themselves. True, there was a republic but that was for serious things like war, taxation, balance of national economy, and dealing with other nations. In practice, citizens believed in freedom – the principle that everyone could pursue a successful life without oppression; they were free to believe independent religious beliefs – the principle that ethnicity and prejudice would not interfere with the pursuit of happiness; and they believed in loyalty to their fellow citizens to support the principles of freedom of faith, freedom of opportunity, and the personal and cultural loyalty to believe in freedom for everyone. In other words, citizens had to believe in their nation’s principle and manage themselves as keepers of freedom.

Freedom includes citizen wellbeing. If one citizen takes from another unjustly, or prevents a citizen from opportunity, or fair exchange for labor, in public discourse protects a citizen’s equal rights under the Constitution but consciously interferes with citizen freedom as a shared right, to a just and fair economy owned by everyone, then the US concept that everyone has freedom to pursue life and liberty has disappeared. Mariner does not suggest every citizen be equal in assets but taking more than is deserved, necessary or leveraging dishonestly is not in the interest of the US – which depends on each citizen to be loyal to the right of equality and freedom.

Corporatism is the belief in profit above freedom; Corporatism provokes class prejudice; Corporatism is free of allegiance to freedom, compounded by guaranteed protection as a human participant, a corporation is a double-barreled abuse of the founding fathers’ intentions.

 

Consider Globalism.

The mariner groups several diverse movements under this term: corporatism, technology, biological progress through medicine and chemistry, protection of the biosphere, and competition by war for greedy and ideological reasons. All these activities have one thing in common: they are not based on the concept of nationalism; they are not based on one nation’s philosophy of government; and by definition, globalism cannot be allocated to nations individually.

If the reader thinks it has been a hard row to move humanity from 1760 to 2016, prepare for even more from 2016 to 2272. A person alive today cannot fathom what civilization will be like 256 years from now.

One wonders what events, provocations, inventions and changes in principles of governance will be required – either collaboratively or with great conflict – to achieve insights and rules that achieve solutions to global issues humanity has never experienced – let alone survive in the process. The triangle of strength and success written by Os Guinness[1] and resurrected by Eric Mataxas[2], that is, “Freedom requires virtue; virtue requires faith; faith requires freedom” is the only tool set available. Considering advancing historical eras by government ideologies, The United States is the beginning of a new, common governance that may be the only ideology capable to take on Globalism:

Freedom, if you can keep it.

 

[1] Os Guinness is an English author and social critic. Born in China, where his parents were medical missionaries, he is the great-great-great-grandson of Arthur Guinness, the Dublin brewer. He was a witness to the climax of the Chinese revolution in 1949, and returned to England in 1951, where he went to school and college. He received a B.D. from University of London in 1966 and a D.Phil from Oriel College, Oxford in 1981. Guinness first stated the Freedom Triangle when promoting his book, A Free People’s Suicide. Guinness is still alive at age 75.

[2] Reference to the Freedom Triangle is resurrected by Mataxas in his book If You Can Keep it, the Forgotten Promise of American Liberty. 2016 best seller. Mariner believes this book is required reading for every American citizen.

Ancient Mariner

The Campaign in Retrospect

Posted on by
Reply

Mariner, like millions of the electorate, was shut down for a few days while reasoning skills and dozens of new inconsistencies had to be rewoven into something that represented a functional reality. Guru was called in to help.
The broadest overview of the 2016 election revolved around the idea that it was time for the US to make a legitimate turn toward present and future reality. It was time to step out of the Reagan model of economy and early twentieth century social constraint. It was time to rebalance, indeed restart, the democratic model that was the foundation for creating the US Republic. It became obvious that democracy and the principles of liberty and justice were disappearing faster and faster.
More targeted were the widespread issues of race and employment. The elitists of the US have ignored the lower classes – which have long suffered, and quite severely, the loss of manufacturing, misunderstood movement of jobs overseas, influx of immigrants seen as a direct threat to any jobs that may be left. In an excellent column about the results of the election, Fareed Zakaria added urban versus forgotten rural which may be where the surprise Electoral College results emerged.
For the 2016 campaign, three prominent candidates emerged to wrestle with the unrest that was obvious among much of the citizenry: Hillary Clinton, who defended the Reagan “establishment” feeling it should continue but be a kinder and gentler government; Bernie Sanders, who championed major changes to governance that would stop the systemic abuse of democracy by republicans and special interests; and Donald Trump, who had no public service experience but had marketing and sales skills that resonated with those citizens who most desperately felt the Government had deliberately failed them.
– –
Bernie has been in government his entire life and was championed by those citizens who wanted to toss out the Establishment – replacing it with younger, more idealistic leaders. Donald was championed in similar fashion by older citizens who had lost jobs and did not share in the oligarchic wealth. His lack of experience in government, his narcissistic personality and disregard for decorum made him a perfect candidate; a good metaphor is a battering ram used to break through castle gates. His citizen base wanted the government dismantled lock, stock and barrel. Casualties be damned. Hillary carried the baggage of thirty years of Clinton management. Clearly pragmatic rather than principled, Hillary had public and private agendas which led to widespread mistrust among the voters.
The Democratic Party failed to recognize, similarly to the Republican Party, that the party had lost the support of its base. As Zakaria pointed out, the American culture displayed urban entertainment, music, movies, advertisements, and all the jobs and unshared profits; rural culture was absent and unrewarded. The democrats were pegged with a moniker: elitist democrats.
None of the three voter bases liked the other two candidates. The two democratic finalists for the Presidency would not get much voter support from the opponent’s base. From the beginning, whoever between Hillary and Bernie won the primary, the base would not receive full support from the democratic opponent for the final run. On the republican side, Donald clearly would receive little help from the republican ‘Establishment’ base but had no other republican competitors. Further, a percentage of Bernie’s base would switch to Donald because they had the same disadvantaged life as Donald’s base. The ‘silent majority’ (stressed rural populations) chose to vote for Donald – flipping the Electoral College. Hillary wins the popularity count with the Elites but rural precincts win the Electoral College.
– –
Donald swiftly is changing his platform to move to the political center. It is too early to understand what issues he actually will take a stand on to impose his platform. The people he knows and trusts are a ragtag bunch of sensationalists, racists, gofer business types and political class D ball players, e.g. Rudy Giuliani.
Guru is most concerned about the Supreme Court. Donald and the antique congress could do significant damage to the future of the US for decades. China, Russia, the Middle East and Central Banks likely have their fingers crossed on this issue.
Infrastructure may get a start but it will be a bruising experience at the state level with no compromises offered to local distribution of profit. FDR will roll in his grave.
Congress will become even more draconian about governance and liberal issues like PBS and abortion.
As far as Donald is concerned, who knows? Guru is the first to say Donald is unpredictable.

REFERENCE SECTION

 Definition of an existentialist:


pema-chodron‘To be fully alive, fully human, and completely awake is to be continually thrown out of the nest. To live fully is to be in no-man’s land, to experience each moment as completely new and fresh. To live is to be willing to die over and over again.’
– Pema Chödrön
A spot-on description of one who experiences an existential world. Pema Chödrön is an 80 year-old Tibetan monk and US citizen. Pema is a Buddhist nun and follower of Rinpoche Trungpa Chögyam. Meditation is central to Chögyam. Dozens of websites, many with videos, are available.

About civic duty and self-governance:


eric-mataxas‘. . . So it’s not the role of the government to solve all our problems through legislation. But they [problems] must be attended to nonetheless.
And here’s the problem: The less the culture attends to these things, the more the government will attend to them and the less freedom there will be. The greater the role the government plays, the more it crowds out the culture’s role, the role of the people – and the true freedom of the people.’
– Eric Metaxas

From Metaxas’s book about the unique role of self governance in the creation of the United States and relating to the bonded relationship between the three principles of the Golden Triangle: (Os Guiness, author): The Golden Triangle of Freedom, or freedom, virtue, and faith. This triad of cultural goods is mutually reinforcing. “Freedom requires virtue; virtue requires faith; faith requires freedom.”
Ancient Mariner

We will Live Forever or Die Trying

Posted on by
Reply

The mariner was re-reading a few of the more interesting articles in back issues of magazines. One from The Economist (August 13 2016) provoked thoughts about how culture would change if we lived a lot longer and how the economy and international relations would change and….

To share some thoughts with the reader, part of the article is copied below:

“Humanity must avoid the trap fallen into by Tithonus, a mythical Trojan who was granted eternal life by the gods, but forgot to ask also for eternal youth. Eventually, he withered into a cicada.

The trap of Tithonus is sprung because bodies have evolved to be throwaway vessels for the carriage of genes from one generation to the next. Biologists have a phrase for it: the disposable soma. It explains not only general senescence, but also why dementia, cancer, cardiovascular problems, arthritis and many other things are guarded against in youth, but crammed into old age once reproduction is done with. These, too, must be treated if a long and healthy life is to become routine. Moreover, even a healthy brain may age badly. An organ evolved to accommodate 70 or 80 years of memories may be unable to cope when asked to store 150 years’ worth.”

There are other social points made in the article. If the reader is interested, see: http://www.economist.com/printedition/2016-08-13 Page 14.

Using these thoughts as a springboard, one can take off running in many directions. The mariner provides a few:

How will family life change? Today, children typically are born before parents are forty; later adult partnership has a few awkward adjustments which may have to be taken seriously on a cultural level and dealt with differently than the present decorum provides. Will a lifespan become two or three life spans? The Economist says having children at 100 could be possible.

Today, one of the serious issues that confront us is the economics of older workers; not just at age 65 or 70 but the prejudice against the middle-aged worker – say someone approaching 50. If workers lived healthily beyond 100 or 120, should they be bumped off the first team so younger blood can move up the ladder?

Retirement is a growing problem today. Depression, boredom, lack of personal value and raison d’être are psychological traps even if one lives only a decade into retirement. How about living 50 or 60 years?

The economic side of the retired lifestyle is an even larger issue. Is a retiree required to carry a pension for self support? Where does the money come from to live another 100 years?

Sociologists say that a neighborhood has a span of 60 years. Built in 1960 as a new, upscale neighborhood with lots of young people, new houses and streets, and a bustling social culture – in 60 years it will be old houses, old people, lots of rentals and a slip in economic class. What if the neighborhood has to remain dynamic for 100 years?

Will there be senior pro sport leagues? Where does Roger Federer go to play when he reaches 50 given medicine will keep him young enough not to lose that step most athletes lose around 30?

Will hotspots like Sandals move their fantasy advertisements out a few decades? What do healthy 120 year-olds fantasize about?

Malthus[1] would be in a frenzy if he heard people would live virtually forever. He believed that overcrowding would force humans back to primitive cultures because resources would become scarce. Well, how will we manage excessive population when people won’t die?

Presented a bit tongue in cheek, actually these questions will require immense change in H. sapiens’ arc of life.

Joseph Campbell isn’t here to help us make a new one.

Ancient Mariner

[1] — Thomas Malthus, 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population.

 

Hades

Posted on by
1

The mariner is reminded of the harsh apocalyptic and horrific movies popular today. Similar is his life wandering among fire pits and unexpected explosions caused by politics; ghoulish realities of extinct creatures and vacant deserts with burnt and smoking ruins where forests and clean water used to be; billions of hollow, starving humans sitting everywhere with swollen bellies; millions of fat, selfish billionaires and millionaires perched like vultures watching humans everywhere in case a profit pops up to be taken from the disadvantaged.

But all’s well – we will elect a new president on November 8, 2016.

But that is false hope. The mariner knows governments and class culture and disrespect for the planet are no more than scenery on the set – props. Reality will remain a fearful, deadly, poisoned place; it is likely that reality will not end nicely.

Times past could have been better but humans are not smart, orderly, or responsible. Humans will not be able to share the planet much longer.

The planet will take us to task. It’s called the Day of Reckoning.

Ancient Mariner

 

Analysis after the Debate

Posted on by
1

We are tracking which candidate is gaining on the other (Donald or Hillary) by scoring different elements of the election process rather than trying to guess amid the cacophony generated by media. The elements are called ‘vectors’ in that our analysis uses vector analysis – foregoing having to listen to every useless word the candidates say.

538.com (Nate Silver) – The betting odds for today are Hillary over Donald 74.4% to 25.6% – more than a trend – leaping in Hillary’s favor by 14.9%.

Electoral Vote – The latest analysis of the fifty states shows Hillary leaping ahead of Donald by 81.4 additional votes: (309.5 to 228.1 (270 to win).

Battleground States – measure is points in polls.

Arizona – Donald +2.4 trending stronger

Colorado – Hillary +3.5 trending weaker

Florida – Hillary +1.0 trending stronger

Georgia – Donald +4.6 trending stronger

Iowa – Donald +1.8 trending stronger

Michigan – Hillary +5.0 trending weaker

Missouri – Donald +7.8 trending stronger

New Hampshire – Hillary +4.3 trending weaker

Nevada – Hillary +1.0 trending stronger

North Carolina – TIED

Ohio – Donald +0.6 trending stronger

Pennsylvania – Hillary +3.9 trending weaker

Virginia – Hillary +5.7 trending stronger

Wisconsin – Hillary +4.9 steady

Down Ballot Races – The score tightened by 5 points (54.2 – 45.8) with the democrats ahead. Statistically, the democrats must win three states from the republicans: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois along with a few potential swaps:

New Hampshire R to D

Indiana R to D

The Senate race probably is more important than the President’s race.

Local Paper and Magazines – reader’s choice. Perhaps readers noticed a few odd statistics: two very conservative newspapers have recommended Hillary; no CEOs in the Forbes top 100 will vote for Donald; only 2% of African Americans will vote for Donald; only 20% of Latinos will vote for Donald; the millennial generation is drifting to the libertarian and green parties or not voting at all – Hillary has not inspired them; Senator Mitch McConnell, at a meeting of republicans, asked for a show of hands from those who think Donald will win – no one raised their hands.

The mariner has the opinion that this campaign has not measured up to the issues the nation has at hand. The campaign is nothing more than two eight-year-olds trying to put the blame on anyone else. Has the electorate heard any solutions to climate change, fixing the TPP agreement, specifically restructuring taxes, redefining each discretionary funding category or Social Security or Federal mandates for minimum wage or bank regulations or….

Then there are global issues like global warming, environmental destruction, and limiting the social powers of corporatism.

Finally, an entirely new philosophy for international economies must be invented before automation and shifting population collapse our current ideals.

Sympathy notwithstanding, what does Donald’s narcissism do to help? What does Hillary’s preoccupation with children’s rights do to help? Neither candidate will bring back the golden age of industrialism; a labor-led economy is in the past. The US economy has been a service sector economy for twenty years.

Other major issues are within Government: How will all private money be removed from all elections? How will regulations be rewritten to minimize lobbyist ownership of politicians? How will gerrymandering be eliminated? The media hasn’t helped shape the dialogue – it is too easy to watch two eight-year-olds cast blame.

Oh well, only 38 days until it’s over and Hillary wins. Then what?

Ancient Mariner

Beyond Voting for People

Posted on by
2

Reader Ben submitted a website that provides another perspective into the will of the people rather than the will of legislators. It is the referendum or public initiative. A referendum is a petition signed by enough citizens that it qualifies to be on a ballot along with the vote for elected officials. It is true that state legislatures may submit a referendum as well. The importance of referenda is that they are driven by pure populism; it is the mood of the people at the street corner. There is no better source about the American attitude than to track ballot initiatives based on signatures of individual voters proposing legislation. Ben recommended a very rich source for learning about the world of public initiatives. See:

https://ballotpedia.org/2016_ballot_measures

Referenda are proclamations that rise out of discontent by the common masses. Typically, they are confrontational declarations reflecting a dissatisfied and often constrained public. While referenda allow the lowest personal emotional attitude to be expressed, the referendum process also demonstrates the fallacy of populist resistance.

For example, in California, a tax referendum was proposed that would change the state’s well being through to today (source: Wikipedia):

Proposition 13 (officially named the People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation) was an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative power. It was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was declared constitutional under federal law by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the California Constitution. Proposition 13 has been part of the California Constitution for 38 years, 2 months, and 25 days.

The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate:

Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for in cases of (a) change in ownership, or (b) completion of new construction.

In addition to decreasing property taxes, the initiative also contained language requiring a two-thirds (2/3) majority in both legislative houses for future increases of any state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates and sales tax rates. It also requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote majority in local elections for most local governments proposing to increase special taxes.

end quote

The impact of this initiative brought the California government to its knees. Every category dependent on property taxes essentially went bankrupt – especially education. It remains this way today because the initiative requires a two-thirds vote to change it.

Alternatively, in many states, ballot initiatives have moved the role of marijuana toward legitimacy – in spite of Federal resistance.

There are two ideas in play that often are lumped together but in fact are clearly different. One is populism, which is an action in resistance or rebellion; the other is egalitarianism, which is a philosophy of government often in conflict with capitalist attitudes. The following is from a Stanford University tract:

Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-mentioned option: People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. So far as the Western European and Anglo-American philosophical tradition is concerned, one significant source of this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human souls equally. Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, or might relate as equals, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term “egalitarian” is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently exists. End quote.

The philosophy of egalitarianism and the emotional act of populism have the same objective but require different processes for implementation. Egalitarianism requires a government which governs a culture of equality while populism does not require a pairing of government oversight with public attitude.

However, expediency is a tool of change. Bookmark Ben’s link.

Ancient Mariner

No One is talking about the Economy

Posted on by
Reply

2016 Presidential Election

It’s been a long, long campaign. Odd that neither party has a candidate who lifts the spirit of voters – with the exception of the hard core base for each candidate. For them, what their candidate says can do no wrong. It is a campaign without policy – especially economic policy. One candidate is full of character assassination; the other is full of detailed objectives not bound by policy. In each case, we’ll have to discover policy after one is elected President.

The press, too, has done a poor job. We should be used to it; they have done a bad job since Murrow, Huntley and Brinkley were news anchors. Unfortunately, the on-the-ground news journalists really would like to do a better job but they are constrained by bosses who want only news that brings viewer share. Not only should big money be removed from the politicians, it should be removed from news rooms as well.

Many voters the mariner has spoken with have placed their hopes on the Congressional races. It will take nothing short of collusion between voters to replace a decadent and bought Congress with a modern, statesmanlike one.

Lack of economic plans for the next ten years and beyond.

Neither Donald nor Hillary has had a sit-down with the American voter to discuss the realities of US economics. To quote economist Robert Gordon[1]:

“Even if innovation were to continue into the future at the rate of the two decades before 2007, the U.S. faces six headwinds that are in the process of dragging long-term growth to half or less of the 1.9 percent annual rate experienced between 1860 and 2007. These include demography, education, inequality, globalization, energy/environment, and the overhang of consumer and government debt. A provocative “exercise in subtraction” suggests that future growth in consumption per capita for the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution could fall below 0.5 percent per year for an extended period of decades.”

In a past post, the mariner took a thread of thought from Gordon’s paper published in August 2012, Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds. Gordon’s logic is a central pillar in the mariner’s economic perspectives. The topic in the post was whether rapid product versions were actually growth. In a recent interview on PBS’ News Hour, Robert touched on this thread, covering his entire presumption about future growth – the six headwinds.

Given the nation’s current state of affairs – especially an election offering a rich narcissist or a richer establishmentarian, Gordon’s concern about restoring an historically robust economy is real. To paraphrase Gordon, We invented cars – no more horse manure to clean in the streets; we invented electricity – no more drudgery for housewives and services; we invented air conditioning and heat – no more coal to shovel or sweaty homes; we invented airplanes – transforming travel; we invented Interstates – now everyone can travel coast to coast; we invented radio and computers and speed of light communication. What is the next “new” phenomenon that will change the world and provide huge numbers of jobs for generations?

This requirement for a new direction in the daily life of 300 million Americans is a stiff requirement. Already, the US has reported that ‘there are no more jobs.’ Unions are driven out of existence, salaries continue to drop precariously as a percentage of GDP, and oligarchy is entrenched in the American culture. Rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, from potholes to fiber optics, will not be a permanent reprieve.

Gregory Clark[2], an economist as well, challenges Gordon’s view by suggesting a computerized future is the new economic force. The mariner agrees with Gordon: Already we have invented computers; Gordon sees computers as a dividing force in economics – making the rich richer and the other 99% poorer.

Well, Donald and Hillary, what say ye?

[1] Robert Gordon is a renowned economist who has published many books and papers challenging many economic assumptions. Liberal in thought but conservative in assumptions, he is a leader in predicting future economic conditions.

[2] Gregory Clark, a professor of economics and department chair until 2013 at the University of California, Davis is most well known for his theory of economic history related to the change in behaviors that enabled the Industrial Revolution, discussed in his book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World.

A Farewell to Alms discusses the divide between rich and poor nations that came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution in terms of the evolution of particular behaviors originating in Britain. Prior to 1790, Clark asserts, man faced a Malthusian trap: new technology enabled greater productivity and more food, but was quickly gobbled up by higher populations. In Britain, however, as disease continually killed off poorer members of society, their positions in society were taken over by the sons of the wealthy, who were less violent, more literate, and more productive. This process of “downward social mobility” eventually enabled Britain to attain a rate of productivity that allowed it to break out of the Malthusian trap.

Ancient Mariner

Liberal Arts on Cable TV still exist.

Posted on by
Reply

For those who have not been exposed to liberal arts and to those frightened away by the word ‘liberal,’ let the mariner assure the reader that liberal arts means the study of humanity and is neither liberal nor conservative. It is open-minded – which may be frightening to any close-minded person conservative or liberal.

Many TV viewers are moving on to the new marketing format available through HULU, NETFLIX, HBO, SPORT networks and even social networks. The channels rich in liberal arts are not the reason for this move; rather it is less costly and provides more personal control over channel selection although not much. To be honest, most viewers consider liberal arts channels the ones they don’t want to pay for.

Still, there is a growing need for some percentage of the American population to understand that mental sophistication and insightful judgment are critical both to our enjoyment and to our future. Liberal arts sources grow scant and even unavailable as college after college drops liberal art majors and humanities requirements from its curriculum. It is a dangerous time for dismissing sophisticated thinking about humans and what may be important digressions from the powers of artificial intelligence.

For an accounting of Liberal Arts in past posts, use the search box to recover posts containing the term liberal arts.

In this post, the mariner will point out a number of broadcast and cable TV channels that give generous time to thoughtful programming across the spectrum of insight, education and art. Cultural events are available as specials, for example, “The Kennedy Center Honors” is primarily entertainment but the program’s tone acknowledges cultural style and cultural significance – artificial intelligence unnecessary. News specials appear regularly on all the broadcast channels: ‘Special Reports’ programming typically focuses on important events more deeply and insightfully; Frontline on PBS always is on the frontline…; calendar specials – recent broadcasts were informative about Jackie Robinson and Martin Luther King; another was about the mindset of the founding fathers. There is a bit of burden on the reader to peruse broadcast listings and promotions to identify thoughtful presentations about any subject. Even CNN and MSNBC broadcast good ones once in awhile.

Of notable contribution to liberal arts is PBS. Viewed in collaboration with PBS on line, a veritable library of liberal arts topics is available from Pushkin to Pythagoras to Emerson. Add NPR on the radio and all programming is treated as serious, personal and event oriented. Did you say goodbye to Garrison Keillor and A Prairie Home Companion? President Obama did with an on-the-air telephone call.

BBCHD and BBCAHD contribute a good amount of broadcast time to humanities programming. On Saturdays there is a series of programs that are enjoyable yet targeted around topics one would think have little of consequence. Try Studio-1 and Brilliant Ideas.

CSPAN1 and 2 are rich in humanity programs. The library of videos on line has tens of thousands of programs. Not all are based on book reviews with authors; they include interviews with world leaders, US politicians, government actions and human interest in all the humanities. One never knows when a particular author interview may spark enough interest to buy or borrow the book at the library. Mariner can attest to dozens of interviews that led to further research.

Discounting Fox channels because they reinforce close-mindedness with their already close-minded audience, there is little left to represent humanity’s political ideology. Two liberal channels, LINK and FSTV, present material close to the positions of Bernie Sanders but their material frequently is out of date and may not match current reality. Still, liberal figures whose ideas represent mainstream socialism appear in their broadcasting; examples are Chomsky and Ralph Nader plus activists and personalities participating in current activity. Mariner watches occasionally to keep his ship’s keel in line. (If all the reader does is watch news on TV, one will be led quickly away from reality. Humanities is not a strength of news media.)

Then there is the champion of free information on any subject one can imagine. Unlike TV, which feeds the viewer a pre-researched topic, the viewer can know everything plus more if the viewer does all the research about a topic of personally determined interest. Mariner has said in the past that Wikipedia is a playground for liberal arts.

The point is this: Every element of our species that we hold dear is vulnerable to displacement by the digital takeover of “big data.” Computers already have learning algorithms that teach them to form their own functional solutions to computer-determined needs; give computers access to all there is to know about you, your environment, your motivations and the patterns of human behavior, and the computers will live your life for you and do the work that once needed you. Humans will be displaced to the point that economic rules will collapse and humans will have no way to produce income. Only the enrichment of liberal arts in the minds of leaders will have any chance to divert pure digital solutions from displacing humanity. Chicken Little, Amos and the Guru all agree on this outcome. Further, you can find television programs and books already describing this future. Even Stephen Hawking feels computers will dislodge the human species  as humans give up human functionality. Care to consult a digital psychologist for counseling? That function already exists.

– – – –

There are two ‘third party’ options for the 2016 election: The Libertarian Party and the Green Party. The libertarian party promotes a harmful, draconian view of government that would destroy today’s culture; it allows only military, printing money and international relations as Federal functions. There is no room for anything else. All other matters are left to the fifty states. The other party, the green party, has Jill Stein running for President. The Green Party is left-center but notably more progressive. The political platform can be read at http://www.gp.org/four_pillars_10_kv . If the two major candidates don’t fit the bill for you, check out the Green Party manifesto. The mariner personally does not recommend Donald.

REFERENCE SECTION

The latest Atlantic Magazine has a good lead article, “How American Politics Went Insane.” Check out the September issue or read it on line at

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

Even more insightful is to watch “The Greeks” on PBS TONIGHT (Tuesday, July 05, 2016). Everyone will recognize the similarity of American history to Greece’s path to democracy.

Ancient Mariner