Challenges and Solutions

Here we will be discussing challenges, exploring their history and causes, and debating real world workable solutions. The format will follow the above sequence.

State the Challenge:
Explore how it arose and why it is an issue that needs a solution:
Work out realistic solutions: All three phases will be interactive. 

Anyone on earth can submit a challenge, in any social, political, or economic area.

Then we will collaborate to define the problem in a way that reveals it's true essence.

Then we will explore the story and causes of the problem to attempt to clarify it further and possibly spot the seeds of a solution.Finally we will welcome possible solutions from all comers and try to forge them into a solutions that will be acceptable to all reasonable people.

Maddow on Guns

Here is a link to a recent Rachel Maddow clip where she "Tears into Ted Cruz" (sorry Jason) and talks about clips.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/rachel-maddow-ted-cruz-gun-control_n_2883141.html

So I agree with her take on Ted Cruz. He must think pretty highly of himself to lecture our fine senator like she is a third grader. Of course he was playing to the hometown audience so you can hardly blame him for being insincere.

I would agree with her that there are limits on the second amendment already, and the first and probably others as well. And it is right and reasonable that the rights guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights are not unlimited. If they were we would not need either and there would be anarchy.

I won't get into why ordinary citizens shouldn't own RPGs or Nuclear Subs.

But saying that the 2nd amendment can be limited does not necessarily mean that we should ban assault rifles and high capacity clips.

As Sam Harris says in The Riddle of the Gun, (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun) "According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 47 percent of all murders in the U.S. are committed with handguns. Again, only 3 percent are committed with rifles (of any type)."

So at best banning assault rifles would only prevent 3% of murders in the U.S.. But that is really an overstatement. Unless you collect every assault weapon from every citizen, and figure out a way to stop soldiers from taking them home after work, and seal the borders up tight there will still be assault weapons available for murderers.

So this another fallacy Maddow falls into. She claims that if the assault weapon ban had still been in effect the Newtown shooter's mother could not have purchased those rifles and high capacity clips. That is assuming a lot. I don't know if she purchased her weapons before the ban went into effect or after it expired, but if were going to play "what if" which is what Maddow is doing by saying what if the ban was still in effect, then I say what if she purchased the guns before 1994? It is just as valid. 

Again according to Harris who is quoting FBI figures, you could stop 13% of all murders by banning knives. That's over 4 times as many as a theoretical perfect assault weapon ban.

Then next "fact" that Maddow makes a big deal about is that if high capacity clips were banned he would have only had to reload 14 times instead of 4. She seems to think there is no way he could have done that and still fired 152 shots in 5 minutes. Well I think she may be mistaken again. Someone completely untrained could easily reload in 4 seconds. A nerd who practices in his basement for hours at a stretch could probably do it in less than half a second. Again, "what if" his gun jammed? Well he had another. What if he dropped a clip, well if he was limited to 10 round clips he probably would have had 20 more. He would have to carry 14 clips, well most of the weight is the bullets themselves so it wouldn't be a major hardship.

So why are Maddow and so many others so passionate about this issue? In Maddow's case she has to sell Cialis or whatever they advertise on her show. Feinstein thinks it will get her reelected. Do either of them really care? It's an emotional issue that is easy to get behind when you know kids are being killed.

If your goal is to save lives though why not do things that are actually effective. More people still die on the freeways than are killed by guns. What are the reasons people murder?

As I said in a previous post.

Murder=Life in Prison 
2 strikes max for gun crimes including straw buyers
While were at it Rape=Life
Universal Background Checks for criminals and mental health
More mental health care
Your thoughts here...
So I say let's get the data, let's study this. I think the NRA was silly to stop the NIH from researching gun deaths. I think there might be useful data out there that would save lives and keep guns in the hands of responsible citizens.

Some of the things I really can't stand!

Lobbying, campaign finance, congress can legally do insider trading, citizens united, revolving door between elected and appointed officials and the industries they regulate, pork.

I mean how is it that so many people enter congress with a middle class net worth and somehow when they leave they are multimillionaires? Isn't that a little suspicious.

Lobbying:

Is basically bribery. If a company or individual makes a campaign contribution, buys a senator a trip, or buys a congressspereson some Wizards tickets, they expect something in return, or they are rewarding the politician for something they have already done. Why else would congress consistently pass laws that benefit the big buusienesses and unions at the expense of the average American? The really sad part is how little money it takes to sell us out. I'm sure lobbying has the greatest return on investment of anything big corporations do. And the money doesn't stop when they leave office. Right away politicians get jobs as lobbyists themselves and that is where they get the big payoff. Now i am not calling our politicians criminals or even unethical, this is the culture of Washington but it needs to change.
I propose making all lobbying that involves money and/or gifts, and promises of future gifts, money or jobs illegal. Let people persuade our politicians on the merits of their proposals. If politicians can't survive on the salary and benefits they receive they should look for another job.

Campaign finance:

Just another bribe. Who is the politician going to remember, the citizen that gave her $5 or the industy that gave a million? Level the playing field. NO contributions over $100 from any person or group to any single candidate during a particular election. And candidates cannot use their own money or take loans. This would level things right out. And pass a law that reverses Citizens United. Really money is not speech, and when the right talks about activist judges they should remember this decision.

Capitalism and Democracy

Remember that Capitalism does not equal Democracy. Remember if you want to quote the founding fathers, that they created a Democracy, or a Republic if you need to be precise. They did not create a free market capitalist state. In fact they went to great lengths to rein in government and markets.

Many people talk as if free and unrestrained markets were the goal of our nation and of the architects of the constitution. They are not. The constitution was designed to allow as much freedom as possible without allowing people, or groups of people to infringe on the rights of others.

Increasing GDP is not the only goal. The goal is to increase GDP, and increase the standard of living of everyone in the USA because people follow the rules and play fairly.

There are no truly free markets in the US. If there were wealth would quickly become concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and huge corporations. The US would start to look like Libya under Gadaffi, or North Korea, or Burma. Free markets are not worth that outcome, and that is why we have anti-trust laws and government regulators.

Capitalism is a great thing and it is part of what has made our country great, but it is not the only thing. There is no need for it to be unrestrained for it to be good, in fact some restraints make it fairer and better.

Who Doesn't Pay Taxes?

A nice graphic form the right leaning (who am I kidding, they leaned so far to the right they fell over) San Diego Union Tribune.




http://www.utsandiego.com/paying_taxes/

Wealth Inequality

I just saw a post on facebook with a link to this video (http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/) describing wealth inequality in the U.S.. It was under a cartoon describing the evils of socialism. It was a appropriate that it was a cartoon because the logic was cartoony.

The common argument is that doing anything about wealth inequality is equal to socialism. It is not.

1. I am not in favor of any more socialism in the U.S. than we already have. Yes America is socialist to an degree. If you don't know that you might check the definition of socialism, and then look at programs like Social Security and Medicare and charging oil companies nothing to drill on public land.
2. Creating more wealth equality does not have to come through socialism or "redistribution." It comes through making the rich play by the same rules as the poor and middle class. This huge increase in inequality in the last 30 years did not come about because the super rich worked that much harder. They have gamed the system! Their lawyers and accountants have figured out every loophole, and when there weren't enough loopholes they got Congress to create more. They are truly playing by a different set of rules.
3. So how do we level the playing field? We could start with a progressive tax with no deductions for anything. Most people could pay a lower rate because closing the holes would raise more revenue. Every person and corporation pays the same rate at each income level. Eliminate the Capital Gains rate and tax everything as income. No moving money offshore to evade. If you live in the U.S. you pay on any money you make in the U.S. or bring into the U.S..

What are your ideas? Let me know if you think I got it wrong.

Not a Zero Sum Game

Economics is not a zero sum game. If it was the earth would have run out of food and collapsed centuries ago. Almost every year GDP grows. Where does that growth come from? Do we create something out of nothing? No, we create it with our work and our innovation.




Scarcity is the greatest myth in economics. It is the first principle that all economic theories are based on. This is not some pie in the sky spiritualist abundance idea. There really can be enough for everyone, if we focus on creating more of what we need.




Eventually creating more out of less will become more and more difficult, so we need to either decide that we can and will innovate as fast as we can, or we need to slow population growth. But in the meantime if we realize that we can make more, and that we do it all the time, it changes the argument.

My heart goes out to Newtown

Newtown is a tragedy, it is impossible to imagine what it feels like to the people who lost loved ones. What the nation should be doing is trying to console them as well as we can. Many people feel the need to take action, that is a worthy sentiment, I recommend doing something that will actually make them feel better. Of course everyone handles grief and adversity differently so we need to ask them what would make them feel better, not just assume they respond like we do. 

Let's not turn this into a political fight that only distracts from the tragedy. I know many people are so worked up they think they need to do something immediately. Rather than doing the first thing we think of let's think a while and do the right thing.

For now I will take my own advice and stay quiet about what I think should be done, and instead focus on doing something positive for the families of the victims.

The Other Myth of Economics

The thing economists never tell you is that no one really understands economics or can predict the effects that actions will have. Sure maybe in some small controlled situations, but if someone really knew how to create a stable growing economy wouldn't every country be doing it all the time. The Fed can manipulate interest rates to slow inflation or spur growth but that isn't always enough.

Even given the differing ideologies of our two parties don't you think they would agree on economics if they knew it would create economic growth? Actually maybe not. I think Republicans might be so opposed to government spending and debt that they would oppose stimulus even if they knew it would help. And on the other side Democrats might be so opposed to cutting entitlements that they would do the same.

SDG&E WTF2

As Reagan would say, "Here we go again." Once again you knew of the problem before it happened, when it was still preventable, but you went ahead anyway because you thought you could pawn the consequences off on us, the sheeple.

For those who are unfamiliar with SDG&E's current debacle they knew the new turbines were faulty before they installed them. Then they installed them. Then there was a radiation leak. The plant shut down and now SDG&E want us, the ratepayers, to pay for the plant even while it is not producing electricity.

I personally do think that is fair, or right, or legal. SDG&E you should be ashamed. I know it is in the corporate mindset to try to pay as little as possible while charging as much as possible but you even you should have a limit where you just think, "I can't be that big a jerk."

Apparently you don't have that limit.

My good friend Jody asked what I thought of Nuclear energy and I said I was in favor but that the government couldn't regulate it. By this I mean the Company that owns the plant will always be trying to maximize profit. That's Ok, that's what companies do. A company, especially a big corporation has no morals. The leadership can try to write morals into the mission statement, and I commend that, but once there are stockholders involved morals drop to a kind of lowest common denominator minimum.

So the goal is profits and that means saving money wherever possible. Safety, health, and the environment are not priorities. Even though it might make long term sense to not spill nuclear waste everywhere in the short term a manager will choose the cheaper drum for storage.

In a word corporations will not police themselves, so for the common good government must. But, just like the banks, power companies are always one step ahead of their regulators. I don't know if it can ever be otherwise.

So like marriage, nuclear power is good in theory, but I don't know if it can ever be safe. Maybe if it were a coop owned by the people who live near it, receive it's power and live near the waste. They would have the incentive to keep it safe. But i think like fossil fuels, when you add in the real costs in health effects, environmental damage, regulation, subsidies, storage costs and in the case of oil the cost of wars fought, suddenly solar and wind are cheaper than anything.

SDG&E WTF

SDG&E your audacity is amazing. You started the fire! You started it and you were warned that the way you were doing things could start a fire. Now you want your customers to pay for your mistake. That is ridiculous. 

You say the price for insurance was too high. Well perhaps if you showed the insurance companies a better safety record or better practices it wouldn't have been so high. But high price is no excuse. Either pay it or self insure. What happens when a driver or homeowner has no insurance? They pay the consequences.

So who is responsible for the fire and the associated costs? Your management and executives. They made the decisions that created the problem. Why should the ratepayers pay for your mistakes? Our only mistake was buying electricity from your monopoly. 

So who should pay. If I were a stockholder I would want the managers and executives responsible to pay until their money ran out. When it does it really falls to the stockholders. We can't continue with this corporate welfare. If you want the profits when you make the right decisions then you need to be prepared to pay for the losses when you make bad decisions.

You can't have all reward and no risk. That isn't Capitalism, that's a system rigged to reward the rich by taking from the poor.

So pay up and quit asking for a handout.