Tag Archives: Economics

Is Being Upset Enough to Sustain a National Movement?

Economics, Education, News, Politics, Social Networking, , , , , , , ,

The Occupy Wall Street movement is turning out to be a very interesting flashpoint in modern day history. If you follow the news, commentators are going out of their way trying to explain away something they can’t explain by using metaphors and comparisons to previous movements that are completely void of any dichotomous connections. What is simply happening is that something new has emerged, and the media has no way of explaining it.

So, let me explain what is really going on. What we have are a lot of people who are pissed off because the American Dream (or whatever international aspirations they might have if they’re not Americans) isn’t working out as originally sold by the marketers known as government and media. It used to be if you worked hard, put in your time, and did the right things, you would come out ahead, and that your children would end up doing better than you did before. This would continue on for generations until several generations later the new species wouldn’t even recognize the old species.

That works great in theory. However, the theory doesn’t account for the concept of greed. A capitalistic system works really well at bringing the society to a higher level of achievement, but what doesn’t get discussed is that not everyone rises up with the new tide of prosperity. In reality, a capitalistic system is designed to benefit those who are capable of taking advantage of the process, and in a zero sum economy, someone generally has to do horribly bad in order for someone to do horribly well. Socialism is the economic system where everyone comes out equally, although not always at the best they could be (as government isn’t known for raising tides of boats of economies all that well when there’s no incentive to provide for upward mobility). But capitalism is a different animal, and equality has never been a promise, a guarantee or even a necessity. Instead, capitalism promises prosperity for some, and desparity for most others. What we’ve only recently discovered is that 99% is desparity while 1% is prosperity in this zero sum game.

That is why people are pissed. You see, most people don’t want to be part of the losing side of economics. Yet, whenever this gets addressed, the 1% (and the clueless numbers in the 99% hoodwinked by the 1% to believe that they’ll one day have a shot at being one of the 1%) does everything possible to make the 99% sound clueless, making such commentary irrelevant, and even more important: Unheard.

But one thing happened that wasn’t a part of the capitalistic dilemma: Education. Many more people achieved education than a capitalistic system can actually maintain. Oh, this works out well if the education is vocational in nature, in that everyone exists for the purpose of feeding the greedy animal, but if the education is social in nature, and people become made aware, rather than compliant, then there would eventually be a reckoning. It’s somewhat inevitable, although I don’t even think Marx or Hegel predicted it would happen as quickly as it is beginning to occur; they suspected much more saturation would have been necessary first, but who knew?

That’s where we are today. The movement has no leadership because there is no one who can steer a crowd to inevitable collapse. There is no rallying cry that can push people in that direction. And there is really no rallying cry that can push a population back in the other direction once the masses have been unleashed.

So, the question is: Are we there yet? If we’re at the inevitable saturation point that leads to eventual destruction of the capitalistic system, then nothing exists that can push the movement backwards. If we’re not there yet, the people who hold onto the reins of power will continue to use their influence to push the masses back to compliance again. But one thing is certain: There will be no actual compromise because the holders of power cannot compromise without acknowledging that the system was flawed to begin with.

So we’re left with the question of whether or not there is enough anger, frustration and disgust amongst the population to fuel a movement further to a point where changes will actually take place. As collective action theory points out, people will gather together for a common purpose, but if they do not receive a payoff for their efforts, the movement dies until it raises steam again. If they do receive a payoff, they may settle down, thinking they achieved their goals but not really satisfied (meaning they will eventually have to rise again and start over from scratch), or they will be so insulted by the compromises asked of them that the movement will fuel itself and sustain itself further until it actually acquires the goals it sets for itself.

Either way, no one is going to sit down and write out a list of wants and needs to sustain the movement (something the media keeps asking for). It will either achieve what it needs to achieve (fulfilling a sense of punctuated equilibrium) and return rhetoric to a sense of order again, or it will overwhelm everything until it becomes the new world order itself.

Only the future can really tell.

A Nation Without a Rudder

Business, Economics, News, Politics, , , , , , , ,

Sometimes, it is so easy to fall into partisan bickering that it’s not even necessary to write the column. Circumstances fill in all of the details for you. But if you’re one of those people who purport to be lacking in partisanship, or at least trying to avoid the pitfalls, it’s a lot harder to talk about the same issues without someone automatically believing you are part of the status quo (one side or the other) and immediately fill in criticisms because of such observations and beliefs.

The President of the United States delivered his “jobs” speech last night, and it went over like a lead balloon. The Los Angeles Times (most definitely not a conservative newspaper) took a tongue in cheek approach to covering the speech, and wrote an article that is probably one of the most sarcastic I have read in ages. Here’s an example:

But here’s the catch that Obama and his Windy City wizards missed: Most Americans are not politically obedient machine Chicagoans. Like a linebacker reading the quarterback’s eyes, they’ve already figured out this South Sider’s game.

But after the laughing subsides, you have to start looking at the bigger picture and wonder what’s really going on here. If it’s just about one side failing, and the other side benefiting, I guess it would be fine (if you were on the side benefiting, I guess), but in this case, we’re not in a zero sum situation (where one side wins); we’re in a no sum situation (where no one wins). The United States is in such need for sustained success, and we’re nowhere near finding it.

Unfortunately, our country is like a boat with no rudder. Granted, it’s a pretty strong boat, capable of floating quite well, but at the moment, no one has any idea where to take it, and even if they did, they don’t know what to do with it once we get where we’re going. Instead, the hope is that things will get better, and all we have to do is just hold our breath until we get to that better place. That’s not a plan for sustained greatness. It’s a plan to avoid bad things by hoping things won’t be so bad if we get beyond the current wave of bad things.

So what is the answer? Well, we need leadership that can focus on what’s really the problems with America and then do something about fixing them. But as long as every leader is only interested in self-interests, like getting re-elected, we’re never going to find a solution because we’re too stupid to realize that we need to allow them to fix things first instead of punishing them for trying to do what’s right. It’s like the whole Jimmy Carter election where he spent his re-election period trying to point out what needed to be done to fix America. He got slammed and destroyed by his opponent because he “hated America” and other such false-isms. We’re so stupid and incapable of realizing our own self-interests that we’ll let someone say nice things about us and then convince ourselves that the person must be a great leader because he said good things about us. That’s how simple the America psyche is. And that’s why we’ll never actually get any success.

America needs a splash of cold water in its face to wake up and realize what’s really wrong. But we’ll never get that because anyone who wants to run for office is doomed to have to say nice things and embrace American exceptionalism rather than try to fix anything that’s wrong. Think of it this way: If I was to run for office and say that the way to fix our cities is to eradicate poverty by actually focusing our attention on improving the lives of people in poverty, while creating a new atmosphere of intolerance towards gangs, racism, hatred, and corruption, and then turned around and devoted my political life to doing just that, my career would be over before it started. However, if I got up on stage and talked about how great America is, how I’ll use my office to put more police on the streets to “stop crime”, and that I will support business to “rebuild this country”, I have a far better chance of being elected, and once in office, I’ll be completely ineffective, but will probably be able to enrich myself by giving rich lobbyists exactly what they need to make sure their clients become richer, while people who really need help get limited help and lots of condemnation for not raising themselves up by their bootstraps. Think about that for a second because I’ve described practically every politician out there, from your local mayor to the President of the United States. And somewhere out there is a voice thinking to itself, “well, the problem is too big, so there’s really nothing that can be done about it” and another voice thinking, “well, if I can’t fix it, I may as well try to profit off of it and make a good life for myself”.

And so the band will keep on playing on.

Technology Companies Still Don’t Understand Their Business IS Customers

Business, Technology, , , , , , ,

Sprint PCS is ramping up its engines to try to gain new customers because their managers realize they’re just not cutting it as the third biggest cell phone company. If you looked at them on paper, they’d have everything to sell, such as the only big cell phone service that still offers an unlimited data plan (unless grandfathered in), a great all in one wireless satellite service (Clear Wire), and they’re generally cheaper. So why aren’t they defeating everyone else?

Well, let’s look at that for a moment. I had Sprint, and I currently still have Clear as my additional service. When I had Sprint as a cell phone, the first thing I noticed is that I rarely could get a solid signal. And if I did, I’d lose it. When I went in to complain, the response wasn’t “Oh, we’ll look into that” but “They’re aware of it, and we’re waiting to hear something new”. In other words, they knew they had problems and they did absolutely nothing to fix it. I had Sprint for six months before I gave up on it. When I gave up on it, of course they wanted to charge me they’re punishment fee, even though I was dropping the service because it never worked. A smart company would have said: “You’re right. It’s our fault, so we’ll pick up the charge.” That way, I might look back at Sprint with a sense of “Hey, they at least treated me with respect.” But that’s not how I left.

As for Clear, I like it, but it’s a generally shitty service for the price that I pay. I was using it at home and at work. At work, I would sometimes lose signal for a week (and no tech person on their end could fix it, other than the classic: “Have you tried restarting your computer?”). I still have it, and I paid for the modem straight out (which means there should be no fee whenever I do disconnect), but I’ll bet you every dollar the United States doesn’t have to pay its bills that they’ll try to tack on a disconnect fee, even though the disconnect fee is supposed to pay for the “great discount” I would have gotten on the equipment, which I paid full price for because they didn’t have a deal, and I really didn’t feel like renting their shit.

So, Sprint is now having trouble gaining new customers. You might think word of mouth might be their biggest problem. The woman who works in the next cubicle over from me has had nothing but nightmares with Sprint phones and service. I was on the shuttle bus going home from work last night, and two women started a chorus of how much Sprint sucks as they discussed their lousy phone service.

Now, this could be just in Grand Rapids, but I’m suspecting that if they’re screwing it up here, they’re probably screwing it up in a lot more places. Big companies are a lot like that. I’ve hated Comcast practically every city where I’ve had them, and I’ve had them in Grand Rapids, Stockton and a few other places that aren’t coming to my Alzheimerish mind right now.

Netflix is another one of those companies that doesn’t seem to get it. Oh, they think they do, and they’re all meta-like, acting like they’re on top of things with their knowledge of psychology and how people will eventually get over their price hikes, but rather than first telling their customers that the price of new content requires more money to pay for it, they just upped the price and pretty much told everyone to either live with it or leave, and then did this sanctimonious crap about how they’re the best deal in town so either live with it or stare at the walls in silence because they won’t have Netflix to watch instead.

This is NOT the way to treat your customers, especially the ones who stuck by you all of these years when you were growing and struggling to grow. Right now, I’m royally pissed at Netflix, and when September comes around I will cancel their services completely. Not drop down to the streaming only, or the disks only, but dump them completely like a cheating girlfriend who was never really good in bed in the first place. Okay, that’s a bit vulgar. How about: Like an ice cream flavor that doesn’t taste as good as…ah, never mind. Go with the first, vulgar one. It works well enough.

It’s almost as if major companies are less concerned about public relations and more concerned with handling damage control. And if your company’s focus is always how to minimize your negativity from customers, then something’s seriously wrong with your business model. My advice there is fire all of your executives, hire a bunch of kids who have watched a lot of Elmo on Sesame Street, and start over.

For Whom Would a Default Really Be a Problem?

Business, Economics, News, Politics, , , , , , ,

There’s something people haven’t been discussing about the whole potential default of the United States. We hear lots of economists, bankers, businessmen and politicians talk about how horrific a default might be if our country defaults in the beginning of August. But not once have I ever heard a construction worker, an administrative assistant or the guy who empties the trash from the office ever discuss the default, other than “I heard about it on the news” and even then, they don’t really have an opinion. You might suspect the reason why they don’t comment on it or have an opinion is because they don’t know enough about it, like the really smart economists, bankers, businessmen and politicians. But I’m beginning to suspect that even if the construction workers, administrative assistants or the guy who empties the trash from the office might just not care, even if they knew and understood all of the details.

You see, the people who are shouting all doom and gloom are generally the people who are most affected by the potential doom and gloom. That would be economists, bankers, businessmen and politicians. In case you haven’t really thought about it, those positions I just mentioned don’t actually do anything to contribute anything to society. They handle money, or they handle the policies that deal with money. Physically, they don’t do anything other than figure out how to move money around. In the olden days, they were called the “money changers” and you might remember a story where some guy named Jesus threw them out of a temple, or something like that. Or maybe it was Noah. Or Moses. There might have been an ark. Or was that what Indiana Jones was looking for. Either way, the point is that a bunch of people who deal with money all day are acting like it’s some kind of tragedy that government is about to default on a subject of, yes, money, and it’s important to them because in the end, they’re not getting what they want, which is money.

To the non-banker, or person without major wads of cash, an issue of  money is unimportant, so they’re not really going to care. Sure, you can argue that it will affect them in the long run, as the money markets to eventually affect everyone, but I’m sometimes wondering about that as well, because I have this sneaking suspicion that even if everything that had to do with profit was destroyed, people would still be doing what they normally do, and people would still be out there working, making things and getting things done.

Strangely enough, if you think about it, if our government collapsed financially, the chances of it collapsing politically are not guaranteed. Sure, money wouldn’t be the foundation of the every day decisions, but politics would, and unfortunately we’ve become a finance driven system, to where our very foundation appears to be about money. Not every government is really like that, and in the end, if the strings that tie government and money together were to collapse, I’m not sure it would really be all that bad. Granted, a lot of people right now would probably suffer, and we’d hear all sorts of doom and gloom until people woke up and realized that money really doesn’t make the world go around. People, cooperation and food does. Money just makes it easy to forget that.

But we will never get back to that foundation because someone will panic enough to cause some kind of last minute compromise and the “crisis” will be averted. At least until the next one. And we’ll kick a few more cans down the road.

Is anyone else getting a little tired of the kicking the can down the road analogy? Yeah, it’s getting kind of old.

Saving Private Netflix…and dealing with cheating whores

Business, Economics, Movies, News, Technology, Television, , , , , , , ,

In the movie Saving Private Ryan, there’s a scene where Tom Hanks, playing the special ops captain who has just risked life and lost really good men, tells a young Private Ryan that he’d better do something great with his life, like invent a new brand of toothpaste or something, something to have made the sacrifices of his men worthwhile. And the young private, now grown up, asks his wife if she felt he contributed something important to the world, and she tells him he has. And all I was left thinking was, that captain played by Tom Hanks wanted something a bit more, not just that Private Ryan would make some family happy, and to be honest, I never really felt that Private Ryan lived up to the expectations that Tom Hanks’s dying character really demanded.

I’m kind of left with that same feeling when I received an email from Netflix yesterday informing me that it was going to be raising my rates 60 percent to give me exactly what I have always been receiving. In other words, rather than raise my rates AND give me a little more value, they’re giving me exactly what they always give me, and charging me more for it. Not very impressive.

And that action has caused all sorts of backlash from the community that makes up the customer base of Netflix. You see, they tried to do this a long time ago, and it failed miserably. Some years ago, they tried to raise rates BIG TIME, and most of their customers revolted. I did, too. Instead of quitting Netflix, I decided to switch from three DVDs at a time to 1 DVD at a time. The result was that I ended up paying less than what they were receiving from me before the change. A month or so later, Netflix completely reversed course, lowered their rates back to the original amount, and then people started to come back; I personally went back to my 3 DVDs a month.

Recently, they quietly raised prices on us. Not a huge amount, but enough to be noticeable. I thought about leaving but then just decided it wasn’t a big enough increase to cause me to leave. Kind of like the frog in a warm pot who doesn’t jump out even as the water slowly begins to boil. The slow burn and the slow increase of heat remains comfortable until you cook to death and die.

Well, this change is much different. They’ve decided that they want to be a mainly streaming company now, which is not what they were designed to be in the first place. There’s a whole lot of literature in Economics 101 about how a company shouldn’t change what it does best or to try to do more products than it is known for, but Netflix has always felt that it could buck the trend and win the brass ring no matter what it did. Rather than just increase rates, they’ve decided to charge people for both streaming AND DVDs, where they used to be lumped together in the past. I think they believe that people will respond by dropping one or the other, but I don’t think they realize the real implication, and that’s that they’re about to lose customers forever. I’m not talking about people getting pissed and changing their options until Netflix backs down. I mean people leaving in droves and being so pissed at Netflix that no turnaround will cause them to come back.

That’s where I am right now. I’m in the middle of watching Rescue Me through streaming, and when that show finishes its run (in other words, I get through the last season), I’m ending my Netflix subscription forever. I haven’t really watched any DVDs in a long time, having held onto the same ones for a long time, so that’s not a big deal. And I’ve never been all that much of a fan of their streaming service as most of the choices have been crap, and when I have watched something, half of the time the connection is not good enough to where I’m constantly watching a smooth experience. The continuous buffering thing gets old, and I won’t miss that.

What Netflix doesn’t seem to get is that they are not part of a necessity for most people. Television and movies is a luxury, and to be honest, I really won’t miss it all that much. Yeah, I could go find alternatives to seeing the same programming, but most of it has generally been crap. Every now and then a good show comes on that I’ll watch through its run, but quite often almost everything I watch has been a waste of time. Movies are almost always a waste of time because Hollywood has been making nothing but crap for years now, and for the five movies I’ve enjoyed, I’ve probably watched a hundred I didn’t. The odds just don’t make it worth it.

For the longest time, I’ve stayed with Netflix more out of nostalgia than anything else. It was convenient and comfortable. That’s it. It hasn’t been that useful. Years ago, when there were lots of things in my queue, it was wonderful. But years later, I’ve gone through my queue, and where I used to have blockbusters in it before, I have mostly second rate choices that were put in there and constantly pushed to the bottom of my queue so I could watch stuff that seemed more interesting. With that to look forward to, Netflix doesn’t offer a whole lot of wonderful things for the future.

So I’ll be dumping them like a girlfriend who has been cheating on me for years, and I’ve just been too busy at work to sit down and explain to her that we need to see other people. Well, the rhetorical job just told me to take my vacation, and I’m realizing I now have to spend a week with the cheating girlfriend, and the girl next door has been giving me the eye. Okay, it’s a bad analogy, and unfortunately all it does is remind me that I don’t actually have a girlfriend, and even worse, a social life. But at least I won’t have Netflix either. I’m dumping that cheating whore.

Cell Phones and Cancer

Business, News, Social Networking, Technology, , , , , , , , ,

It turns out that there may be a link between cell phones and cancer after all. About a decade ago, there was a lot of talk about the potential for cancer being caused by using cell phones, but as we’re apt to do in a capitalist society, we ignored it and trusted the companies that make products to tell us the truth. Why are we surprised that model has yielded bad results again?

I’ve always suspected there was some kind of risk when it came to cell phones, which is why I’ve always been glad that I don’t really use one that often. Yes, I have one, and I take calls on it when people call me, but I’m not the social type, so my amount of use on my cell phone is minimal, which means my chances of getting cancer are a lot less than most other people. Had I been a constant user of my cell phone, I probably would have been a lot more concerned, but I’ve always kept it in the back of my mind that there’s probably something wrong here with this picture.

Now, having an iPhone, there’s no way for me to know that just carrying the thing around isn’t causing some kind of damage, which has always been one of my other concerns. But I figure that over the average lifespan of a human, I’m probably not going to be around that much longer to make a difference anyway. I’m just glad I don’t hold that thing up to my ear on a constant basis like so many other people do.

What does concern me is the sort of thing that we have no control over, and that’s the bigger picture. I mean, there are cell phone towers all over the place, which means these signals are floating all over constantly. To me, this has always felt like I’m being subjected to potentially dangerous signals, but I’ve also realized that there’s nothing I can do about it. In order for Muffy and her friends to have 24/7 phones stuck to their ears, I may end up dying of cancer just because I exist. Unfortunately, that’s one of those sign-offs I never got to sign off on at any particular time.

But what doesn’t surprise me is that corporations went out of their way to debunk any criticism against cell phones, mainly because they want to sell you shit, and information often gets in the way of doing just that. Because the cell phone industry is so interwoven into our society, I doubt anything will be done even if there’s hard evidence that proves that cell phones are definitely killing you. People just aren’t willing to give up their convenience in order to let a few other people live. We’re not designed that way.

Which means that we’ll continue killing ourselves, if these phones are, in fact, killing us. 20 years ago, had the manufacturers been a bit more honest, it might have made a difference, but when there’s a dollar to be made, I don’t have a lot of confidence that the “right thing” is going to be done. Why should we start doing that now when we’ve been going the opposite direction for as long as we’ve had a civilization?

Make Coupons Optional Plz!

Business, Economics, Technology, , , , , , , ,

I shop at Meijer’s stores for groceries. I really like it. It’s one of those grocery stores that have pretty much everything you need, and I’ve been happy with it. Unlike most supermarkets in California, this one actually sells everything. And I’ve learned to like it.

What I haven’t learned to like is how they want to force coupons on me. I’m not a coupon kind of person. I just don’t like cutting them out and bringing them in. I’ve also come to the conclusion that coupons force people into buying products they wouldn’t normally buy anyway. I might buy a package of Charmin, but just because I have a coupon for it doesn’t mean I really want to go shopping for it. If it was convenient, I might think about it, but cutting out coupons, storing them for future use and remembering to bring the right one just seems like a waste of time. Sure, you save money, but sometimes convenience of peace of mind is much more economical than actual cost savings.

But I can’t get Meijer to stop handing me a handful of stupid coupons that I don’t want. And they’re rarely for anything I’ll ever buy anyway. They’re always for things that are kind of like the thing I bought, but not exactly it. In other words, they’re trying to intice me into buying things I don’t normally buy. And I don’t play that way.

So, I’m stuck leaving Meijer each time I shop with a handful of useless coupons that I then feel guilty for having to throw into the trash can. And I don’t do it immediately because they wrapped those coupons around my final receipt, so that receipt goes into my pocket, and then a few days later, it gets pulled out with a gob of useless coupons that end up on my counter, and they accumulate because they join the other coupons I’ll never use. Basically, Meijer is contributing to more and more trash that I end up having to throw out of my house, adding to landfills in a way that wouldn’t have been necessary if they would just give me an option at the beginning that says: “Paper or plastic and coupons or no coupons.”

Simple as that. And we’d all be happy.

I’m just saying.

Sidelined Onlookers Documenting the Last Days of the Republic?

Business, Economics, News, Politics, , , , , , , , , , ,

When I was working on my Ph.d for political science (how’s that for a first line, name-dropping, “look how important I think I am” opening?), one of the observations I kept making was how so many political pundits of their day were constantly making the prediction that the empire was about to crumble. There would be all sorts of analogies pointing at the fall of Rome, and yet another self-important political pundit of that time and day was convinced that the United States republic was about to collapse upon itself. It got to the point where I started to make predictions about the predicters, figuring that the eventual demise of a political entity is the propensity to fall into the ultimate entropy of political discourse: The belief that eventual destruction has to come on that person’s watch.

So, as I am watching the events of today unfold, I can’t help but find myself making the same mistake that everyone of these Thomas Paines, Mark Twains, Bill Buckleys and Helen Caldicotts kept making. We underestimate the inevitable apathy of the American people to care enough about their own circumstances to ever want to try to make things better.

You see, that’s pretty important, and as a political observant, it’s equally important to understand why people don’t do something as well as why people do the things they eventually do. Political scientists are very good at seeing French Revolutions under every rock, but incapable of seeing Moscovites living in squalor and despair, yet never doing anything to change their personal situation because while the payoff might seem great, the cost of achieving that payoff is sometimes just a bit more than any one man (or woman) is willing to pay. It’s one thing to complain about current events and to demand justice, but when that demand requires that you stand up against oppression by personally risking your own hide, that dynamic changes quickly. Oh, don’t get me wrong. We’re really good about making grandiose statements, like “give me liberty or give me death” or “I may disagree with you but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it” but when it comes down to actually putting up one’s survival against one’s survival instincts, survival instincts win almost every time. We’re really good at complaining and claiming a backbone that we believe we might have, but like every bad war movie there’s that inevitable scene where the cigar-chewing sergeant reveals that a soldier may act all tough, but it’s only on the battlefield when you see whether he puts up or shuts up. In reality, we’re very much like that. We’re often all talk and very little action. I’ve often thought that political science could benefit from incorporating psychology into its discipline (where we put people into a room to see how much their political rhetoric stands up to experimentation…for the record, we don’t do that sort of thing because it’s ethically vacant in social science, but I’m really only talking in semantics right now).

Which brings me to my thesis for today, and that’s that I’m seeing all sorts of “fall of the Republic” activity happening on a daily basis right now, and I wonder how much of it is in place observation that always happens versus actual observations of real implications. In other words, I wonder how much my educated observations are really seeing as opposed to how much my educated perspectives are skewed by that same institutional framework I’ve been talking about since the beginning of this essay. In even more words, am I really seeing what I think that I’m seeing, or am I just another one of those overly observational folk that see things that have always been there but our current paradigm now recognizes it as something less than it really is?

I mean, let’s look at some of the evidence. We’re currently in a budget mess that this country has never been in before. Unlike the past, our solutions were usually to go back to the drawing board and come up with new solutions. Today, we aren’t going back to the drawing board but spitting out rhetoric that doesn’t solve anything but actually makes things worse. People are out of jobs because we may have exhausted the majority of the low-hanging fruit that was once available to us by virtue of our ever-expanding economy and untouched resources. Our economy is no longer expanding, and our resources are essentially tapped, overtapped possibly. The solution was always to find cheaper labor and cheaper resources, but we’ve run out of those options because the former labor solutions have wised up to this act and now controls the labor channels that we used to exploit. Instead, we have lost revenue sources, labor pools, and our own people don’t seem to be able to find the jobs that they used to find that usually existed on top of these other resources and lower income labor pools. If you look to our political leaders, the choices are either to raise more taxes or to cut spending. But neither solution is a solution to the actual problems we seem to be facing. Raising taxes doesn’t do any good if you have no one to raise them on, especially if we have fewer and fewer jobs. Cutting spending is great, but at the same time that only kicks the can down the road again because as we lose that choice labor we used to have, more people end up relying on government to fill in the gaps, yet cutting spending makes that even harder. In the end, we have what’s called the continuous rush to the bottom, and rather than recognize this and try to push back up, we are building infrastructure to make sure the trip to the bottom happens a lot more comfortably.

So what’s the solution to all of this? Well, if you’re a naysayer or a doomsayer, your answer is pretty simple. We let it all collapse and start over again. And sadly enough, we have political leaders that seem to be advocating just that. Oh, they won’t say that exactly, but their solutions are just that. Rather than try to find viable solutions to build prosperity, we seem to have a lot of leaders who are basically just trying to fund the megastupidopoly a little bit longer so they can cash out before it all comes crashing down. The solutions all appear to be named: I’ll get mine and the hell with the rest of you.

Which brings us back to the “people”, the ones who are responsible for fixing it all sans great leaders. But what can we really expect from them when the only input we allow from them is to punch a Yes or No hole on a ballot? We don’t ask for their ideas. To be honest, our political leaders don’t care about their ideas and are really only interested in their money, support and again, what the people can do for their leaders rather than the other way around. Oh, the rhetoric always sounds the opposite of what I just said, but actions speak much louder than words, and those bad actions have been speaking a lot lately.

When the economy started to collapse, our leaders bailed out the car companies, the banks and Wall Street gazillionaires. The common person received zilch. When the common person had his house foreclosed on, the government backed the banks. When it become political impossible to keep doing that, the government stepped in and demanded the banks be slower about taking everything away from their customers. Not that they stop taking everything away. Instead, they gave the banks everything they wanted in practically every area of discourse. Credit card companies received guarantees that people could no longer go completely bankrupt without some kind of continuous debt to the banks involved. When banks were discovered with their pants down involving overdraft charges, government stepped in and did as little as they could there as well. Even with the tiny movement made by government on the people’s behalf, the banks managed to get huge lobbying to soften the changes, and even now are working on reversing some of the impact they have “suffered” as a result of government forcing them to be less greedy and more upfront about their attempts to screw over their customers.

But what it really comes down to is the question of whether or not the common person in America really cares enough to pay attention to what’s happening. President Obama and the minions of government are trying very hard to convince the rest of the country that the budget impasse is important. The media is starting to make comments about how much the debt really “costs” each person and how much in debt EACH person is as a result of the debt ceiling we are currently living under. But what none of them have been capable of doing is convincing the average American that he or she really should care. Oh, they’re trying to make that argument, but it’s falling flat. Let me explain why, using simple logic that the average American is using.

Let’s call me Citizen A. The government tells me that my current debt (as a result of the deficit) is $70,000 (just for the sake of using an arbitrary number because the real number is just that, a number). My first thought is that as a citizen of this republic, I should be concerned, but in reality, I’m more concerned about the $150,000 student loan debt I’ve incurred trying to get a college education, my $350 monthly car payment, and my $500-1000 monthly rent bill I have to pay. Adding in a whole bunch of other expensese I probably have to pay a month, Citizen A really doesn’t care one iota about the personal $70,000 that is part of my slice of the deficit because to be honest, it’s not really my debt. I don’t see it that way. That $150,000 I owe in student loans is my debt, but it’s going to take a lot of rhetoric, a lot of speeches and quite possibly an overweight FBI agent in a bad suit with a crowbar to convince me that the government’s deficit is in fact, MY deficit. Citizen A doesn’t feel a connection to that debt. In fact, he thinks the government squandered that money, and that it’s really the debt of people who work for the government. That, in fact, it’s THEIR debt, not his.

Now, as a rational individual with a bit of education, I understand it shouldn’t be this way, but game theoretics are involved here, and when it comes to payoffs, the average citizen feels just like Citizen A. We don’t feel the debt is ours. It belongs to the government that for years has treated the “people’s” money as its own. When we took away the draft, made voting voluntary, and made presidential state of the union addresses optional television programming, we eliminated the ties between government and Citizen A. People see our government as an entity that exists because it has to exist, but as none of us fought to create this republic, very few of us actually have served to defend it, and most of us are oblivious to what this republic does on a daily basis, it’s very difficult to sell the supposition that government and people are tied to each other.

So, I ask: Are we seeing the end of days, or is this just another hiccup in the usual way things happen? And if it’s the latter, then how do you get people to care enough so that it doesn’t end up becoming the former by eventual default?

Sony’s Incompetence Just Proves How the Rest of Us Are Screwed

Business, Economics, News, , , , , , , ,

I received an email today from Sony Online Entertainment, indicating that their networks had been compromised and that, as a result, a LOT of my personal information (possibly my credit card information as well) has been compromised as well. It states how sorry Sony is this happened, and that it’s essentially now my responsibility to cover my own ass for the near future because of the complete, utter incompetence of the empire that is Sony. The fact that they waited until they couldn’t sit on the story any longer only makes it worse, because if someone was going to compromise my identity and start emptying the accounts in my name, the damage is probably already done.

What bothers me mostly is that I’ve always felt Sony to be incompetent and really hated the company with a passion. Granted, I own a Sony Playstation 3, which I use mainly to watch blu-ray dvds and Netflix streaming, but because of this whole debacle, I’ve basically lost any ability to do anything involving Netflix. Yeah, I can watch a dvd (at least I think I can; it’s been some time since I’ve actually turned on my Playstation 3), but that’s about it. Thanks, Sony.

But as for me hating Sony, I’ve felt this way ever since I first started playing online games that had Sony Online Entertainment tied to it. Everquest was my first experience. And while I enjoyed it when it first came out, at some point you started to feel that Sony’s only intention was to separate as much money from you as possible before you realized there was a lot of bait and switch going on with that game. You know the kind I’m talking about. They promise one thing, but in the end, they give you something you weren’t really desiring. Everquest was constantly like that from servers that couldn’t handle the capacity of the players (or just constantly failed) or quests that were broken, and no matter how many times you contacted customer service, they would never be fixed. And then they started the whole micro-transaction thing where they tried to sell you a whole bunch of things that you should have been able to get for free within the game (because you were already paying them for access). After time, I started to feel I was a cash cow for the company, and I left.

Then SOE started integrating themselves into other games that really could have been so much better if Sony was never involved, like Star Wars Galaxies. Some of the worst decisions of online computer gaming were made by SOE with this game, to the point of where I began to believe the whole process was some kind of psychological experiment to see how much ridiculousness they could spread to their user community before people threw their computers out the window. Again, I left that game very upset.

Whenever I heard that SOE was going to be involved in yet another game, I decided to pass. Even when I hear they’re only slightly involved, I pass. I just no longer felt like being fleeced by that company.

So, yesterday I receive an email from SOE telling me they screwed up again. Except I’m not even a customer of theirs anymore. No, they screwed up with information that was on file YEARS ago when I was subscribing to one of their games. For reasons that escape any rationality whatsoever, they maintained my information so that someone could break into it and steal it. YEARS AFTER THE FACT. We’re talking half a decade here. Yet, Sony has proven yet again that because I made the mistake of doing business with them years ago, I’m screwed.

Which brings me to my supposition that this proves that no matter what I do in the future, I”m always going to be screwed because it now means that every company I’ve ever done business with is just waiting to screw me because of incompetence. So, because I bought a toaster from the Good Guys (a company that’s been out of business for about a decade or so), someone can break into their records and have all types of personal data on me that they can use to take over my identity. I mean, we haven’t even touched the surface of the crimes against individuals that exist because someone might have your personal information, yet all of us are victims because we can’t do a single, freaking thing to avoid the fact that at some time we trusted a commercial entity with our information because they required it in order to buy a package of Twizzlers.

All we can do is be more suspicious of everyone we do business with in the future, which is great, but it doesn’t change the fact that at one time we were stupid enough to not realize that the future was one where Big Brother isn’t government, but it our own information. Okay, I take that back. I still don’t trust government, but instead of just worrying about them, I have to worry about any dealings I did by paying with a check at Chuck E. Cheese back in 1970.

So what is the common person to do? We have no recourse whatsoever. Sure, we can sign onto a class action suit, but that doesn’t do anything but make a bunch of lawyers rich, and the rest of us get a month worth of coupons for Tide laundry detergent, if we choose not to send in an opt out form. Count on Congress to respond? Yeah, I’ll hold my breath on that one.

Basically, we’re all screwed. And we have Sony to thank for that. And then every other company we’ve ever made the mistake of ever doing business with in the past.

We Still Don’t Get the Whole “Education” vs. Incarceration Thing

Economics, Politics, , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the continuous statistics that plagues the United States is our incarceration rate, especially when compared to how unwilling we are to support education. Some time ago, like back in the 1960s, social scientists figured out that if we wanted to grow our country as it needs to grow, we needed to stop putting people in prison and start taking extra efforts to educate the people who generally end up in our prisons. But rather than put together a national effort to turn this population around, we responded to fear and opportunistic politicians who realized that we’d put them in power if they pretended to be doing something about crime. You know the old call of the politician (“elect me, and I’ll clean up crime because my record has always been about putting bad criminals in prison”). Yet, no matter how many of these politicians we put into office, they don’t clean up crime, they don’t make the streets safer, and that population of potential criminals just seems to soar.

We know all of this. We realize what’s wrong. We know EXACTLY what we have to do to fix this. Yet, we don’t, and we won’t. Instead, some prosecutor or district attorney from Bumfuck, Montana, or Idaho, or Utah, or wherever, is going to make a career out of locking up violent criminals who took the only path they have ever been taught. What no one ever focuses on is WHY DO WE KEEP DOING THIS?

The reasons are simple if you understand game theory. Actually, the reasons are simple if you understand common sense, but I probably shouldn’t have to go there. But in game theory, the simple prisoner’s dilemma gives the rational choice explanation that people tend to do what is easiest and provides the best payoff with the best incentive. Sometimes, even the best incentive doesn’t matter. In the end, people want to travel downhill because once the wind gets into your sails, you don’t have to do a lot of work to get to the bottom of the hill. So, if we examine a system where we offer almost no incentive to educating our population, but there are incentives to go into lives of crime (sailing downhill without any real resistance; face it, police departments are obstacles, not impediments), the most obvious result is going to be a life of crime rather than a life of productivity in society.

Our response has always been the most ridiculous one available: Morality. We try to put forth this argument that if we try to convince people to do the “right” thing, they will, because that’s what good, moral people do. But morality is based on societal norms, not on what is right or wrong, and that’s where we error most of the time. Most people who argue morality tend to have their grounded in some higher concept (either religion or a history within a government that has served them well). When you try to convince everyone else that they need to comply with the same moral foundation, what incentive do they have to participate? If someone isn’t a strong follower of your religion or hasn’t benefited from the civilization like someone else has, what makes any logical thinking person come up with the determination that someone deciding on a future will choose the more difficult path? Logic says it’s probably not going to happen. Reality agrees. History confirms it.

So, what is the solution? Well, first off, we have to get rid of this whole moral foundation crap and find a commonality that everyone can actually agree on. Doing the right thing means nothing when doing the right thing equals starvation, social pariah status and a pretty crappy life. But doing the right thing might mean something if the bar is raised so that those who aren’t participating in the game actually start to see the payoffs as productive AND achievable. For too long now, we’ve played this game of wanting people to rely on government to assist them, but then allowed government to only do as little as possible so that we’re lucky if the rising tide equals basic survival needs. America is a place that offers this fantasy dream for everyone, and as long as we keep the ability to achieve that dream too high for the average person, then people are going to reinvent their path to achieve it.

What needs to be done is nothing less than a nation’s desire to raise everyone to a level of an agreed upon American Dream. This means that everyone gets to participate, and the bar isn’t constantly lowered so people can achieve some level of clout that’s higher than everyone else. Yes, we’re talking about a socialism of ideas, although not necessarily a socialism of economy. As long as there are people who feel the need to want to be “above” everyone else, we’re never going to achieve a level of sustained prosperity. And without everyone able to prosper in society, we’re left with what we’ve always had: A civilization that constantly strives to reach for the bottom.

It’s not just enough to increase education at the expense of incarceration. It’s a need to make that education lead to something bigger than we already are. Otherwise, we’ll never achieve anything other than classism and separation. Unfortunately, we’ve gotten really good at reaching just that.