Across the various platforms I've been blogging on for the past few years, I never wrote on Labor Day. I was either too consumed with work, too consumed with school, or in this case both. However, I figured I would take time out from work (yes I am at work right now) to make a small post about Labor Day.
This won't be about Paul Krugman's latest lament about the American right or Eric Cantor's tweet insinuating that Labor Day is about business owners and not about the workers. What I will discuss is labor then and labor now.
Labor Day's genesis began in earnest with a proposal by either the Central Labor Union or the American Federation Labor (depending on your desired source). While 30 states had already begun to commemorate Labor Day by 1894, it was until that year when the US Congress made Labor Day a federal holiday -- a blatant political conciliatory move after the federal government under President Grover Cleveland intervened in the Pullman Strike.
The Industrial Revolution brought a new degree of social and economic issues (which is always going to be a reality with any economic system) that arose from increased urbanization and a desire by business owners to produce as much as they can by any means necessary, workers well-being be damned. Unsurprisingly, laborers began to mobilize against poor working conditions through strikes and/or unionization, which employers sought to do anything and everything to avert. Here in the States, it lead to three of the more infamous incidents of labor violence in the late 19th century -- the Homestead Strike, the Haymarket Riot, and the Pullman Strike.
Labor unions reached their peak membership in the 1950s, but reports of corruption, stricter union laws, the shift to a service economy, the shift from production to finance being the benchmark of corporate economic success, and increased globalization have all contributed, in some form another, to a decline in union membership that has persisted since 1960. While nearly a third of public sector employees are members of unions, less than ten percent of workers in the private sector are members of a union. Furthermore, these days, only half of Americans support organized labor.
However, despite the changes over time, contemporary employees and employers should be grateful for the changes ushered in by the labor movement. Employees can be grateful for vastly improved working conditions, from reasonable hours to benefits; employers can be grateful to advocates of the labor movement because it forced them to innovate and become more efficient at production. Whether that innovation actually benefits workers is left to the eye of the beholder -- we can certainly argue either way.
I know that I have rambled, but I wanted to shove history into this post because it is far too important, especially when thought in conjunction with the issues faced today: a shrinking world where the labor pool has no borders, slowing the growth of wages and earnings in the hotly competitive secondary and tertiary sectors of the global economy; the aforementioned shift from production to financial positioning and capital structure that creates a new round of agency concerns and conflicts between management, stockholders, bondholders, and employees; and increased automation that continues to, little by little, erode the position of everyday workers that have a lot of their tasks being replaced by electronic processes. Not to mention, Labor Day is emerging as the latest holiday that shifted from mere observance to yet another major retail holiday -- me currently being here at the dealership is an example of it.
But here's the bottom line: labor back then is not too different than labor now, because as long as this is a predominantly capitalist system, little will change. Business owners and managers will always seek to meet and exceed purported benchmarks and indeed, it is often the white collar and blue collar workers that are the most affected by its consequences, whether it is being forced to work more or less hours, taking on more responsibilities, or unfortunately losing their jobs. However, it is these workers that make our world function and it is not just limited to employees of companies; this includes managers, mom and pop shops, and the self-employed.
Labor day shouldn't be about a narrative about "the worker versus the man", it should be about positive collaboration and cooperation between workers and employers, businesses and suppliers, and businesses and customers that make for a better business. (Redundant, yes, but I would imagine you'd get my point.)
Monday, September 2, 2013
Monday, June 10, 2013
The NSA Leak: A Lesson In Human Nature, Opportunistic Behavior, and Altruism's Levee
Almost overnight, Edward Snowden went from being a former NSA computer technician to civil libertarian demigod. Snowden, identified (with permission) by the UK newspaper The Guardian and The Washington Post as the informant that leaked information to the newspaper about the National Security Agency's surveillance programs of collecting records from phone and Internet companies, has been predominantly lauded for his actions. Snowden's actions are a prime lesson in human nature, the reality that we are all opportunists, and altruism's levees can and will always be subject to a breach.
The Guardian's Simon Jenkins in his praise of Snowden that "[t]he US and Britain today are as invulnerable to military conquest as ever in history" and writes that the Western counter-terrorism crusade has developed into a machine that undermines freedom by its relentless use of fear and paranoia. He's right, and this has been proven throughout history. When entities, countries rather, reach that proverbial zenith of power, they will attempt anything and everything to maintain the status quo that has entrenched itself with that assumed power. While we may be astonished at the means at which the United States is willing to do it, and by no means I am endorsing these tactics, it should really come as no surprise. The feeling of control is the antidote against paranoia, and this is true from government to our own personal lives. It's almost like a vicious cycle -- accumulate power and wealth, celebrate the success and benefits of it, become paranoid of it ending, then in response to that paranoia, attempt to alleviate it by trying to accumulate more power and wealth: all for it to repeat again. In a way, it's one seriously fucked up self-fulfilling prophecy.
My personal feelings on the War on Terror? This is not a conspiracy theory, this is just absolute, rock bottom truth: it's more than just a counter terrorism program, it's about doing anything and everything to maintain the United States' position in the scope of world politics. Campaigns to achieve and then maintain positioning is nothing new -- the European powers did it, ancient Asian empires did it, Hitler did it, Hirohito did it, and the United States is doing it as well. However, what has galvanized the public these days is the latest chapter of the information revolution -- leaks, or more specifically, how well we can acquire information that nobody would have really thought it would have been possible to acquire. In the end though, it is a testament to the fact that as human beings, we're opportunistic. As new discoveries are made in regards to how we can secure an advantage over one another, covert programs, whistleblowing leaks, and finding more ways to deepen how well we retain and hide information creates an even more complicated Rubik's cube. This isn't a battle of "good vs. evil", it has been, still is, and always will be a battle between who's more effective than who at achieving whatever desired goal is, whether it is emotional, mental, or ideological.
When it comes to supporting those in power, there's expectation among us that the clear majority of the decisions that are made by the powers that be would have a wide ranging affect would never breach the levee of altruism. Snowden too gambled on the same thing, noting in his interview with The Guardian that he wanted to go public before, but held out hope that the then-incoming Obama administration would shift the NSA's aggressive tactics. However, the Obama administration has kept many of the Bush-era surveillance policies to his dismay, and now to the dismay of many. However, altruism's levees become subject to higher stakes -- it's either weakened or strengthened, and whatever way it leads, the response is to mobilize and establish control, through covert or public means.
In short, when I look at the NSA leak, I go beyond the relationship between the government and the governed. It's another exercise in the complexities of humanity, as we forge ahead in our epoch of existence, one new discovery at a time. So while I will continue spectate the the inane justification for this program by administration officials and the romanticized stand of solidarity and support of Snowden by many, I am ultimately going to wait to see the next great example of what lengths we're going to be willing to take as humanity to assume control of whatever we desire to frame into each of our worldviews.
The Guardian's Simon Jenkins in his praise of Snowden that "[t]he US and Britain today are as invulnerable to military conquest as ever in history" and writes that the Western counter-terrorism crusade has developed into a machine that undermines freedom by its relentless use of fear and paranoia. He's right, and this has been proven throughout history. When entities, countries rather, reach that proverbial zenith of power, they will attempt anything and everything to maintain the status quo that has entrenched itself with that assumed power. While we may be astonished at the means at which the United States is willing to do it, and by no means I am endorsing these tactics, it should really come as no surprise. The feeling of control is the antidote against paranoia, and this is true from government to our own personal lives. It's almost like a vicious cycle -- accumulate power and wealth, celebrate the success and benefits of it, become paranoid of it ending, then in response to that paranoia, attempt to alleviate it by trying to accumulate more power and wealth: all for it to repeat again. In a way, it's one seriously fucked up self-fulfilling prophecy.
My personal feelings on the War on Terror? This is not a conspiracy theory, this is just absolute, rock bottom truth: it's more than just a counter terrorism program, it's about doing anything and everything to maintain the United States' position in the scope of world politics. Campaigns to achieve and then maintain positioning is nothing new -- the European powers did it, ancient Asian empires did it, Hitler did it, Hirohito did it, and the United States is doing it as well. However, what has galvanized the public these days is the latest chapter of the information revolution -- leaks, or more specifically, how well we can acquire information that nobody would have really thought it would have been possible to acquire. In the end though, it is a testament to the fact that as human beings, we're opportunistic. As new discoveries are made in regards to how we can secure an advantage over one another, covert programs, whistleblowing leaks, and finding more ways to deepen how well we retain and hide information creates an even more complicated Rubik's cube. This isn't a battle of "good vs. evil", it has been, still is, and always will be a battle between who's more effective than who at achieving whatever desired goal is, whether it is emotional, mental, or ideological.
When it comes to supporting those in power, there's expectation among us that the clear majority of the decisions that are made by the powers that be would have a wide ranging affect would never breach the levee of altruism. Snowden too gambled on the same thing, noting in his interview with The Guardian that he wanted to go public before, but held out hope that the then-incoming Obama administration would shift the NSA's aggressive tactics. However, the Obama administration has kept many of the Bush-era surveillance policies to his dismay, and now to the dismay of many. However, altruism's levees become subject to higher stakes -- it's either weakened or strengthened, and whatever way it leads, the response is to mobilize and establish control, through covert or public means.
In short, when I look at the NSA leak, I go beyond the relationship between the government and the governed. It's another exercise in the complexities of humanity, as we forge ahead in our epoch of existence, one new discovery at a time. So while I will continue spectate the the inane justification for this program by administration officials and the romanticized stand of solidarity and support of Snowden by many, I am ultimately going to wait to see the next great example of what lengths we're going to be willing to take as humanity to assume control of whatever we desire to frame into each of our worldviews.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Trying to attach a political label on me? Don't waste your time
I took a look at my past posts and I more or less ran the gauntlet -- progressivism, libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, socialism, you name it, I probably wrote a blog post that would make you think there's actually an ideological school that I follow.
I've come to realize that there's no ideology that's absolutely right; there's no ideology that everybody should adhere to; and there's no ideology that's immune from endless ridicule. The truth is humanity from all corners engage in a chess game where the moves made only have personal psychological attachment and thus individual value. Personally, I'm more fascinated in the strategy where people make their decisions -- basically, I'm looking at people from a perspective that is loosely rooted in game theory.
I could sit here and preach free market fundamentalism all day long, but the vaunted free market is populated by people like myself, who have little difference from myself, and not worth it's purported pedestal. Not every thing can be regressed to an average submission of market forces (or in other words, not everything is going to submit to "market forces and behaviors"). Conversely, I can equally advocate for endless government interventionist economic policy and also realize that anybody can turn a disadvantage into an advantage if they seize the opportunity to do so (see, "Fractional Reserve Banking"). As long as there are new discoveries being made, there will be new avenues found for people to capitalize on opportunities that present itself at the behest or the chagrin of others. It is absolutely foolish to believe that governments can act as a "cure-all".
I could buy into conspiracy theories -- the truthers, the birthers, the New World Order, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group -- yet, I see that they're game theory exercises. The "plausible explanations" that come from the target of suspicion are exercises as well, just with the intent of a different outcome (comfort and control versus revelation and revolution). In truth, what I see, is two sides firing at each other in a blindfolded attempt to make a zero-sum game out of a game that is far from being zero-sum -- not even close, in my opinion. Remember: questions lead to discoveries; discoveries lead to challenges; and challenges lead to questions and whole cycle repeats itself.
I can sit here and advocate for liberty, but what liberty? The positive liberty that aims to where everybody has a fair shot in a given society or the negative liberty that advocates for freedom from coercion? Either way, strict advocacy for either will be undermined by the fact that human wants and needs are complicated, in no way, shape, or form can be reconciled to a basic set of given principles, and the unavoidable fact that advocacy of either requires a massive gamble on altruism that has yet to truly manifest itself into a bet that is safe enough to ensure that a given interpretation of liberty is the solution to the social Rubik's cube. Altruism is not an end in itself (and I hate that I use that term so much); effectiveness is key.
What about pushing for anarchy? Totalitarianism? Communism? Theocracy? Social forms of conduct (rather than me calling them political ideologies) that mainly try to paint itself as the zenith, but only illustrate themselves as an end in itself, will indeed find it's end in itself (there I go again using that phrase). It's blatant redundancy to make a point: if a political system creates dead ends then it will forced to change or ultimately destroy itself. India and China learned this as both countries embraced private enterprise in the 1980s and 1990s. The Civil War and the Great Depression arguably ended any chance of the United States returning back to a small national government when population growth, new social awareness, and the Industrial Revolution spurred convoluted issues that crumbled the small government model. It's why the USSR ended up falling on its face as it's communist model was unable to properly address new challenges and issues that arose from the impending post-industrial revolution.
What about a society built around time-honored, "traditional" values? Sounds cute until individual desire and thus hypocrisy comes into play. What about a society that is build solely on altruism? I think I mentioned this before as an unwise bet to make, but I think it's cute too until individual desire and hypocrisy comes into play. Romantic political grandstanding is cute too, until the realization that politicians win elections (as a side note, that's probably why Rand Paul will ultimately have a much more successful, effective, and memorable career than his daddy). We can dream of an ideology and philosophy becoming a global world view, but there has to be effectiveness (there's that word again) on implementation and maintenance, which includes the ability to anticipate and solve problems in damn near perfect omnipotence.
In the end though, I cannot help but to be fascinated. The hedges. The bets. The push and pull and manipulation and benevolence and malevolence and everything in between. In truth, at least for myself, I'm more interested in developing a strategy that allows me to mitigate through life rather than taking sides. However, I'll always err for human rights.
Well then, I guess even I had to take a side somewhere.
And if you have an open mind, you'd get my riddle with that.
I've come to realize that there's no ideology that's absolutely right; there's no ideology that everybody should adhere to; and there's no ideology that's immune from endless ridicule. The truth is humanity from all corners engage in a chess game where the moves made only have personal psychological attachment and thus individual value. Personally, I'm more fascinated in the strategy where people make their decisions -- basically, I'm looking at people from a perspective that is loosely rooted in game theory.
I could sit here and preach free market fundamentalism all day long, but the vaunted free market is populated by people like myself, who have little difference from myself, and not worth it's purported pedestal. Not every thing can be regressed to an average submission of market forces (or in other words, not everything is going to submit to "market forces and behaviors"). Conversely, I can equally advocate for endless government interventionist economic policy and also realize that anybody can turn a disadvantage into an advantage if they seize the opportunity to do so (see, "Fractional Reserve Banking"). As long as there are new discoveries being made, there will be new avenues found for people to capitalize on opportunities that present itself at the behest or the chagrin of others. It is absolutely foolish to believe that governments can act as a "cure-all".
I could buy into conspiracy theories -- the truthers, the birthers, the New World Order, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group -- yet, I see that they're game theory exercises. The "plausible explanations" that come from the target of suspicion are exercises as well, just with the intent of a different outcome (comfort and control versus revelation and revolution). In truth, what I see, is two sides firing at each other in a blindfolded attempt to make a zero-sum game out of a game that is far from being zero-sum -- not even close, in my opinion. Remember: questions lead to discoveries; discoveries lead to challenges; and challenges lead to questions and whole cycle repeats itself.
I can sit here and advocate for liberty, but what liberty? The positive liberty that aims to where everybody has a fair shot in a given society or the negative liberty that advocates for freedom from coercion? Either way, strict advocacy for either will be undermined by the fact that human wants and needs are complicated, in no way, shape, or form can be reconciled to a basic set of given principles, and the unavoidable fact that advocacy of either requires a massive gamble on altruism that has yet to truly manifest itself into a bet that is safe enough to ensure that a given interpretation of liberty is the solution to the social Rubik's cube. Altruism is not an end in itself (and I hate that I use that term so much); effectiveness is key.
What about pushing for anarchy? Totalitarianism? Communism? Theocracy? Social forms of conduct (rather than me calling them political ideologies) that mainly try to paint itself as the zenith, but only illustrate themselves as an end in itself, will indeed find it's end in itself (there I go again using that phrase). It's blatant redundancy to make a point: if a political system creates dead ends then it will forced to change or ultimately destroy itself. India and China learned this as both countries embraced private enterprise in the 1980s and 1990s. The Civil War and the Great Depression arguably ended any chance of the United States returning back to a small national government when population growth, new social awareness, and the Industrial Revolution spurred convoluted issues that crumbled the small government model. It's why the USSR ended up falling on its face as it's communist model was unable to properly address new challenges and issues that arose from the impending post-industrial revolution.
What about a society built around time-honored, "traditional" values? Sounds cute until individual desire and thus hypocrisy comes into play. What about a society that is build solely on altruism? I think I mentioned this before as an unwise bet to make, but I think it's cute too until individual desire and hypocrisy comes into play. Romantic political grandstanding is cute too, until the realization that politicians win elections (as a side note, that's probably why Rand Paul will ultimately have a much more successful, effective, and memorable career than his daddy). We can dream of an ideology and philosophy becoming a global world view, but there has to be effectiveness (there's that word again) on implementation and maintenance, which includes the ability to anticipate and solve problems in damn near perfect omnipotence.
In the end though, I cannot help but to be fascinated. The hedges. The bets. The push and pull and manipulation and benevolence and malevolence and everything in between. In truth, at least for myself, I'm more interested in developing a strategy that allows me to mitigate through life rather than taking sides. However, I'll always err for human rights.
Well then, I guess even I had to take a side somewhere.
And if you have an open mind, you'd get my riddle with that.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Yet even more commentary on health care
One of the better health care commentaries I've read was written by Houston Chronicle conservative blogger Chris Ladd last Thursday. His piece, which is a call to Republicans to abandon the free market elitism that is endlessly churned out by the hard-right and libertarian wings of the Republican Party when it comes to health care, is not necessarily a watershed moment in Republican thought. It is however, the realization that there are far deeper issues when it comes to health care than trying to turn to a free market or government-based cure all.
Those in the health care debate generally fall into two camps -- the health care as a civil and human right, advocated by those on the left, and health care as a purely economic good, so regarded by those on the right. Both sides are overwhelmingly undermined by the the lack of a legitimate buffer of altruism that would fulfill their dreams of what the health care system should be in the United States. While we would like to think that the matter of health care could easily reconcile itself to an argument over rights and personal responsibility, the truth is that as health care becomes more advanced, lives are being extended, and we search for more and more ways to provide more effective and efficient care, the stakes become raised as the issues become just as complicated.
An interesting piece from a while back that a friend shared with me, which was a New York Times op-ed that was endorsed jointly by then-U.S. Senator John Kerry, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane, pushed for evidence-based health care. The idea, coming from Billy Beane's successful approach of using statistical analysis on baseball to find success with what would be traditionally undervalued players, is thoughtful and I was a champion of it for years. However, while I still agree with the premise, I am also aware that ultimately effectiveness costs money and there's a reason why nobody ever has had a 1.000 on base percentage and a 0.00 WHIP and played an entire Major League Baseball season.
The root of changing American health care is ultimately changing how medicine is practiced in the United States. Health care costs have exploded since the 1960s ultimately because new medical discoveries and new effective treatments are being made faster than ever, and as stated before, your money spent on health care is ultimately spent paying for effectiveness and paying for the research and development that actually went into forming that certain treatment -- from medicine to equipment. You can forget about market forces being able to even buoy that with uninhibited success, considering that markets ultimately function in voluntary, mutual transactions based upon an anticipated need. Where one would demand a new computer similar to how they would demand fine dining, web design services, a new house, or a new car, one would not demand health care services in the same fashion because demand for health care services is almost always due to personal demand shock. The aforementioned change in the way medicine is practiced would require attempting to realign practicing medicine to a system that would allow health care to be framed into an idealized regular good or service that would submit to market forces, namely the force of anticipation. That's an absurd and unrealistic expectation, because then and there you would have two forms of moral hazard acting upon each other in an even worse Nash equilibrium game that exists now.
So is it up to the government to save the day? That is an equally disastrous position to take: most American health care laws are driven by emotion and ideology, and less so much critical thinking. The Affordable Health Care Act (which is more or less the maturation of the idea that the Heritage Foundation conjured up in 1989), was driven by the emotion out of a desire to provide health insurance to everybody while at the same time driven by an ideology that yes health care risk could be allocated similar to the risk of getting your car fucked up in a car accident. The AHCA primarily focuses on the intermediary of health care in the United States: the insurance company. It only complicates the actuarial science in regards to developing health care plans and the premiums that go with it: the cost of those premiums would have to be weighted between being competitive in health insurance exchanges as well as having the ability to afford claims. Denying coverage and providing for affordable premiums is completely different than being able to successfully pay out insurance claims.
In the end of it all, it's psychological and cultural. The medical profession, especially in the highest stake positions, is a high paying position where doctors charge based upon their skills and make money on their effectiveness (many get the first part, but forget the second part). The drug and insurance companies, in an advantageous position because of what they provide, could keep health care on the trek of being the first realistic example of a Giffen good. Ultimately, it is about people, just like you and me, to take advantage of others. If we collectively demand an unattainable level of altruism and collectively culturally accept otherwise simultaneously, then it is completely ridiculous to expect that overarching government involvement or the venerable free market could ever manage to a cure all when it comes to reigning in the costs of health care. I'm well aware about preventive care -- however, preventive care, in my opinion, will become the next health care cash cow.
The romanticism of the free market and the vision of the United States becoming a complete social democracy has created debate that is badly off base. We can discuss and lament Obamacare; we can whine and bitch about the insurance and drug companies; we can champion preventive care all day; however, the bottom line is that the health care riddle will not be solved until Americans, in an overwhelming fashion, ultimately decide if health care should be a "right" or should be an economic good. I will say this though -- it comes down to how big of an altruistic bet are Americans, on both the demand-side and the supply-side, are willing to make.
Those in the health care debate generally fall into two camps -- the health care as a civil and human right, advocated by those on the left, and health care as a purely economic good, so regarded by those on the right. Both sides are overwhelmingly undermined by the the lack of a legitimate buffer of altruism that would fulfill their dreams of what the health care system should be in the United States. While we would like to think that the matter of health care could easily reconcile itself to an argument over rights and personal responsibility, the truth is that as health care becomes more advanced, lives are being extended, and we search for more and more ways to provide more effective and efficient care, the stakes become raised as the issues become just as complicated.
An interesting piece from a while back that a friend shared with me, which was a New York Times op-ed that was endorsed jointly by then-U.S. Senator John Kerry, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane, pushed for evidence-based health care. The idea, coming from Billy Beane's successful approach of using statistical analysis on baseball to find success with what would be traditionally undervalued players, is thoughtful and I was a champion of it for years. However, while I still agree with the premise, I am also aware that ultimately effectiveness costs money and there's a reason why nobody ever has had a 1.000 on base percentage and a 0.00 WHIP and played an entire Major League Baseball season.
The root of changing American health care is ultimately changing how medicine is practiced in the United States. Health care costs have exploded since the 1960s ultimately because new medical discoveries and new effective treatments are being made faster than ever, and as stated before, your money spent on health care is ultimately spent paying for effectiveness and paying for the research and development that actually went into forming that certain treatment -- from medicine to equipment. You can forget about market forces being able to even buoy that with uninhibited success, considering that markets ultimately function in voluntary, mutual transactions based upon an anticipated need. Where one would demand a new computer similar to how they would demand fine dining, web design services, a new house, or a new car, one would not demand health care services in the same fashion because demand for health care services is almost always due to personal demand shock. The aforementioned change in the way medicine is practiced would require attempting to realign practicing medicine to a system that would allow health care to be framed into an idealized regular good or service that would submit to market forces, namely the force of anticipation. That's an absurd and unrealistic expectation, because then and there you would have two forms of moral hazard acting upon each other in an even worse Nash equilibrium game that exists now.
So is it up to the government to save the day? That is an equally disastrous position to take: most American health care laws are driven by emotion and ideology, and less so much critical thinking. The Affordable Health Care Act (which is more or less the maturation of the idea that the Heritage Foundation conjured up in 1989), was driven by the emotion out of a desire to provide health insurance to everybody while at the same time driven by an ideology that yes health care risk could be allocated similar to the risk of getting your car fucked up in a car accident. The AHCA primarily focuses on the intermediary of health care in the United States: the insurance company. It only complicates the actuarial science in regards to developing health care plans and the premiums that go with it: the cost of those premiums would have to be weighted between being competitive in health insurance exchanges as well as having the ability to afford claims. Denying coverage and providing for affordable premiums is completely different than being able to successfully pay out insurance claims.
In the end of it all, it's psychological and cultural. The medical profession, especially in the highest stake positions, is a high paying position where doctors charge based upon their skills and make money on their effectiveness (many get the first part, but forget the second part). The drug and insurance companies, in an advantageous position because of what they provide, could keep health care on the trek of being the first realistic example of a Giffen good. Ultimately, it is about people, just like you and me, to take advantage of others. If we collectively demand an unattainable level of altruism and collectively culturally accept otherwise simultaneously, then it is completely ridiculous to expect that overarching government involvement or the venerable free market could ever manage to a cure all when it comes to reigning in the costs of health care. I'm well aware about preventive care -- however, preventive care, in my opinion, will become the next health care cash cow.
The romanticism of the free market and the vision of the United States becoming a complete social democracy has created debate that is badly off base. We can discuss and lament Obamacare; we can whine and bitch about the insurance and drug companies; we can champion preventive care all day; however, the bottom line is that the health care riddle will not be solved until Americans, in an overwhelming fashion, ultimately decide if health care should be a "right" or should be an economic good. I will say this though -- it comes down to how big of an altruistic bet are Americans, on both the demand-side and the supply-side, are willing to make.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Bankers and the Truth About Power
Power is not given, it's taken.
Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian School of Economics (which, for the record, I don't really care for because of the sanctimony some have for this and it completely turned me off), wrote that fractional reserve banking only started when bankers (generally goldsmiths), realized that not all depositors withdraw (demand payment) at the same time. Thus an opportunity arose: goldsmiths that normally stored gold and silver could make extra income by giving out interest bearing loans, because receipts, such as ones given out by the Bank of Amsterdam, were not always redeemed at the same time. More or less, fractional reserve banking, the heart and soul of contemporary banking, was born. Goldsmiths realized the advantage that they had as being storage points of bullion for holders and saw the opportunity of how they could earn more money doing it. An advantage was realized, the opportunity was seized, and power was gained.
The Bank of Amsterdam had similarities to the current United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve: they stored currency, gave out loans, conducted a lot of business with no transparency, and all currencies and monies were backed by government. The Bank of Amsterdam was no stranger to be opportunistic -- it charged storage fees, became a source of revenue for the city, but as it allowed too many accounts to be overdrawn, it crumbled under insolvency in the aftermath of its lending practices becoming public knowledge towards the end of the 18th century, finally closing after nearly 2 centuries in operation in 1819.
The Federal Reserve and United States Treasury hasn't suffered the same fate because the functionality has been effectively split. However, the Reserve is effectively shrouded and secrecy and aside from establishing the federal funds rate ("interest rate"), economic analysis, setting inflation goals, and basically being the psychological economic base of the United States -- their methodology and reasoning leaves much to speculation. What is truly known and what doesn't need any speculation is this -- the Bank of Amsterdam, the Federal Reserve, and the United States Treasury, ran by human beings, are not above what human beings are going to do anyways -- to take advantage of a given situation and seize any opportunities that will be provided.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I'm not going to speculate on theories. However, I will say that banking enterprises and corporate coalitions achieved the position that they are in because of being effective at seizing the opportunities given to them. The crowning achievement of the banker influence on day to day operations of the United States government is not anything you've see in the past few years: it was when John Pierpont Morgan, along with the Rothschild banking dynasty, personally bailed out the U.S. Treasury during the Panic of 1893. Combine that with William McKinley's victory over the populist William Jennings Bryan in the election of 1896, and it is no surprise that the aforementioned enterprise and coalitions have reached the pedestal that they sit on.
Taking advantage and seizing opportunities is not a villainous concept: it's something that each of us do every single day on just about anything -- no matter how morally reputable, ambiguous, or reprehensible it may be. As much as we are willing to respect the rights of others based upon a given moral and ethical benchmark, we are willing to violate same the rights of others on that same benchmark, if we feel that we can emotionally, physically, or mentally have the means justified by the end outcomes. However, at it's bottom line, rights are not facts, but widely accepted and valued opinions that haven't been or ever will be shielded from differing opinions.
We do it every single day. I always found it funny that a lot of people romanticize where they stand right now, especially on the class ladder, lamenting how these big banking enterprises and corporations are opportunistic and always get their way, when in reality, they're ran by people, just as we are people (no, they are not boogeymen that emerged from a black hole) that do what is natural: they look at themselves, see their advantages, see the opportunities that can be had with those said advantages, and take them. As I said, we do it every day, whether it is kids trying to get something out of their parents, students cheating on a test, successfully getting someone to join your cause, petitions, a man trying to get laid, you name it -- it's the same thing much of a time albeit a different medium. However, collective action takes an equal and more effective reaction. You saw that in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Wealth is not necessarily power. Wealth is the accumulation of resources deemed valuable by others and coveted by them as well. Power, however, is the ability to be in a leveraged position with those said resources and use that position effectively to, once again, seize opportunities and take advantage of a given situation. Hence why power is not given, it's taken. The United States Constitution can provide expressed powers to Congress, reserved powers to States and the People, and implied powers out of Alexander Hamilton's vision, but if the given advantage is not realized and opportunities are not seized upon, then the words are worthless -- might as well not even have it.
The truth about power -- along with these vaunted and vilified (and many times, rightfully so) banking enterprises and corporations -- is that they seize opportunities presented to them with the advantages that they have. There's a reason why that Chase and Bank of America can charge $3 to $4 dollar ATM fees and still be the most widely used banks in the country; there's a reason why Chase, Bank of America, HSBC, amongst others can be subject to millions and millions of dollars in legal fines and fees and still be in business doing the same thing as before; there's a reason why Goldman Sachs is the U.S. Treasury Secretary Factory; there's a reason why countries defend human rights causes as fast as they violate them; there's a reason why global derivatives and other financial institutions have been backed for years by one of the most damning instances of banking collusion in history that shows that LIBOR is a banking cartel of the grandest stage.
If you're interested in curbing the power of banks and corporations, you must do the exact same thing that they are doing -- using the advantage that you have (in being the consumer, the constituent, the taxpayer, the everyday working person, or however you want to romanticize yourself to be in your socioeconomic and sociopolitical position) and seizing the opportunities that are given by your advantageous position. The key thing is -- your eyes have to be open to it.
Their eyes are, why don't you open yours?
Remember, power is not given -- it's taken.
Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian School of Economics (which, for the record, I don't really care for because of the sanctimony some have for this and it completely turned me off), wrote that fractional reserve banking only started when bankers (generally goldsmiths), realized that not all depositors withdraw (demand payment) at the same time. Thus an opportunity arose: goldsmiths that normally stored gold and silver could make extra income by giving out interest bearing loans, because receipts, such as ones given out by the Bank of Amsterdam, were not always redeemed at the same time. More or less, fractional reserve banking, the heart and soul of contemporary banking, was born. Goldsmiths realized the advantage that they had as being storage points of bullion for holders and saw the opportunity of how they could earn more money doing it. An advantage was realized, the opportunity was seized, and power was gained.
The Bank of Amsterdam had similarities to the current United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve: they stored currency, gave out loans, conducted a lot of business with no transparency, and all currencies and monies were backed by government. The Bank of Amsterdam was no stranger to be opportunistic -- it charged storage fees, became a source of revenue for the city, but as it allowed too many accounts to be overdrawn, it crumbled under insolvency in the aftermath of its lending practices becoming public knowledge towards the end of the 18th century, finally closing after nearly 2 centuries in operation in 1819.
The Federal Reserve and United States Treasury hasn't suffered the same fate because the functionality has been effectively split. However, the Reserve is effectively shrouded and secrecy and aside from establishing the federal funds rate ("interest rate"), economic analysis, setting inflation goals, and basically being the psychological economic base of the United States -- their methodology and reasoning leaves much to speculation. What is truly known and what doesn't need any speculation is this -- the Bank of Amsterdam, the Federal Reserve, and the United States Treasury, ran by human beings, are not above what human beings are going to do anyways -- to take advantage of a given situation and seize any opportunities that will be provided.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I'm not going to speculate on theories. However, I will say that banking enterprises and corporate coalitions achieved the position that they are in because of being effective at seizing the opportunities given to them. The crowning achievement of the banker influence on day to day operations of the United States government is not anything you've see in the past few years: it was when John Pierpont Morgan, along with the Rothschild banking dynasty, personally bailed out the U.S. Treasury during the Panic of 1893. Combine that with William McKinley's victory over the populist William Jennings Bryan in the election of 1896, and it is no surprise that the aforementioned enterprise and coalitions have reached the pedestal that they sit on.
Taking advantage and seizing opportunities is not a villainous concept: it's something that each of us do every single day on just about anything -- no matter how morally reputable, ambiguous, or reprehensible it may be. As much as we are willing to respect the rights of others based upon a given moral and ethical benchmark, we are willing to violate same the rights of others on that same benchmark, if we feel that we can emotionally, physically, or mentally have the means justified by the end outcomes. However, at it's bottom line, rights are not facts, but widely accepted and valued opinions that haven't been or ever will be shielded from differing opinions.
We do it every single day. I always found it funny that a lot of people romanticize where they stand right now, especially on the class ladder, lamenting how these big banking enterprises and corporations are opportunistic and always get their way, when in reality, they're ran by people, just as we are people (no, they are not boogeymen that emerged from a black hole) that do what is natural: they look at themselves, see their advantages, see the opportunities that can be had with those said advantages, and take them. As I said, we do it every day, whether it is kids trying to get something out of their parents, students cheating on a test, successfully getting someone to join your cause, petitions, a man trying to get laid, you name it -- it's the same thing much of a time albeit a different medium. However, collective action takes an equal and more effective reaction. You saw that in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Wealth is not necessarily power. Wealth is the accumulation of resources deemed valuable by others and coveted by them as well. Power, however, is the ability to be in a leveraged position with those said resources and use that position effectively to, once again, seize opportunities and take advantage of a given situation. Hence why power is not given, it's taken. The United States Constitution can provide expressed powers to Congress, reserved powers to States and the People, and implied powers out of Alexander Hamilton's vision, but if the given advantage is not realized and opportunities are not seized upon, then the words are worthless -- might as well not even have it.
The truth about power -- along with these vaunted and vilified (and many times, rightfully so) banking enterprises and corporations -- is that they seize opportunities presented to them with the advantages that they have. There's a reason why that Chase and Bank of America can charge $3 to $4 dollar ATM fees and still be the most widely used banks in the country; there's a reason why Chase, Bank of America, HSBC, amongst others can be subject to millions and millions of dollars in legal fines and fees and still be in business doing the same thing as before; there's a reason why Goldman Sachs is the U.S. Treasury Secretary Factory; there's a reason why countries defend human rights causes as fast as they violate them; there's a reason why global derivatives and other financial institutions have been backed for years by one of the most damning instances of banking collusion in history that shows that LIBOR is a banking cartel of the grandest stage.
If you're interested in curbing the power of banks and corporations, you must do the exact same thing that they are doing -- using the advantage that you have (in being the consumer, the constituent, the taxpayer, the everyday working person, or however you want to romanticize yourself to be in your socioeconomic and sociopolitical position) and seizing the opportunities that are given by your advantageous position. The key thing is -- your eyes have to be open to it.
Their eyes are, why don't you open yours?
Remember, power is not given -- it's taken.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)