The Economy, some thoughts from the left that are still Capitalist in principle

So I understand how the right has this divine reverence for the marketplace, and how it and the corporations that reside within it, must be left to their own devices. But that's ridiculous. Taking rules and regulation out of the marketplace is like taking rules and regulation out of a football game. It only leads to chaos.
Wouldn't a better market be one that was controlled, so that it would not periodically destroy itself. Wouldn't you want rules in place to prevent or even eliminate the chance of cheating, or unfair trade practices? Like all human systems, the market needs periodic upkeep.

And there is the argument on the right the periodic crashes are a good thing, that they weed out the problems, that it is natural selection, but what is so great about a system doesn't work all the time?

What I'm saying is that humans have this great ability to make self-correcting systems. We have thermostats that regulate the temperature of your house. We have refineries that use complex chemical engineering to create fuels. And if any of these systems failed or blew up, we would trash them. So shouldn't an economic system follow the same principles?

We need sound principles in place to prevent economic catastrophe. Because would you let a refinery run itself with no oversight?

I can add more to this point. For example, what if we combined the laws of the so called free market with the laws of nature to determine how things play out. I'm sure we'd come to some interesting conclusions.

How aren't banks that are "too big to fail" any different than dinosaurs? And following this point, if we use the dinosaur idea, what happens when a major catastrophe comes along?

The dinosaurs were large and specialized to the lifestyle of which they best could profit from. So when that disaster hit, they died. However, what survived the catastrophe that took out the dinosaurs? Mammals survived. Why did mammals survive? They were smaller and more responsive to change. They also had the ability to breed quicker. Therefore, small mammals survived because, being smaller, they didn't need to eat as much, they reproduced faster and more plentifully. So if some died off, there were others to replace them. So following this logic, small competitive banks would be more responsive to change than large investment banks. And if some of these smaller banks go under, there are others to replace them, so the hit on the economy is lessened.

Working off of that same vein, a system with smaller businesses, would work across the board for increased survivability during times of economic downturn.
For example, this model is used in Germany where these businesses are known by the name "Mittelstand." These small to medium sized enterprises do a great job weathering economic instabilities because they are more responsive to change. They are smaller, so they have less sprawling supply lines and infrastructures in place. Larger supply lines and infrastructures lead to trouble when trying to change production lines or re-educate the workforce. Consider trying to turn in Galleon around as opposed a small Clipper ship. And also if one of these enterprises goes out of business, there are always others to pick up the hole left in the economy by the business's exit.

Smaller businesses have another advantage. They actually encourage competition amongst one another: leading to lower prices, better quality and more jobs. Smaller businesses also have less of a damaging effect on government, as smaller businesses have less lobbying power.

And though it is only my opinion, I see lobbying power by businesses as a problem, because the voices of the business interests outweigh the voices of the public. However, I think that it is not a problem if the administrators and workers within a business work together to actively lobby, because then it is people that are lobbying not property.

Also, since workers make up the vast majority of the people working for a business, they will most likely only lobby where both the business's interests and the worker's interests are one in the same. It is another way to check the power of business, and theoretically discourages practices unfair to workers. It also encourages consensus between workers and administrators, thus tying their success together.

Christine Lagarde is the bee's knees

Although she will most likely be viewed negatively by the world press and Wall Street due to her stark honesty, she is now a leading individual in the analysis and understanding of the world economy. She is also the managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Born in 1956, Christine Lagarde is one of those rare individuals that combines brilliance with pragmatism, which is illustrated by the fact that instead of using the IMF to trumpet a fractured world economy, she instead has very clearly illustrated its problems--namely Europe. Regardless, it would seem the IMF has found the right woman for the job--even though she probably won't make any friends on Wall Street. I think she's great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde

Check and Balances on Capitalism

It seems that the America political elite needed to find a way to maintain cash-flow into their coffers, and thus the Citizens United case was viewed favorably.

Now I don't necessarily agree that the political elite (who do have close ties to the moneyed) see themselves of overlords or societal masters, but recently the interests they represent belong to a shrinking margin of the nation. So even if they are not intentionally only benefiting their wealthy elite companions, they are in fact still guilty of not listening the rest of the population.

So it seems that what is happening is the the political elite have turned away from the public for support, for ideas and no longer provide service to the people. They've given up on us. And this corresponds to increased connections between the wealthy and business class with the political class. After all, they went to the same schools and often have the same acquaintances. An aristocracy is forming, and we're not in it.

Therefore, I believe that if we have a representative democracy, where "crony" capitalism is the dominant economic structure, and the influx of money into the representative democracy is encouraging the growth of an aristocracy, not to mention that aristocracies are essentially un-American and un-democratic, then the "crony" capitalism has had a negative effect on the political system, and our "crony" capitalism must be better controlled as to not create aristocracies in governance.

Thus, I have some solutions and I consider them to be checks to the capitalist system. Because if we have checks and balances in government to stop tyranny, then the same must go for capitalism. Furthermore, these checks are not regulations, they would be laws.

First, a Corporation is not a person, but rather a business entity. And though I believe that this business entity should have property rights, (to buy and sell goods and services) seeing as it is in fact property itself, I do not believe that it has personal rights--not protected under the Constitution. Therefore, Citizens United is an abomination.

Second, the the Corporate business entities should not unduly or adversely effect markets. A Corporation must not have the ability to buy or own another Corporation. This leads to a greater domination of the free market, and by default limits freedom of consumer choice in the free market. Even Adam Smith warned of the "conspiracy against the public" and by allowing Corporations to grow we have only opened the door to allowing them to have dangerous influence and set market price.

Third, the statute that declares that a Corporation must put the interests of it's shareholders ahead of all other competing interests is nullified. This frees the board of a Corporation from putting profit over people.

Fourth, limited liability is no longer in effect. When Corporations break the law, there are not merely monetarily responsible, but the guilty parties within the Corporation are personally responsible for the decisions that they make in the name of the Corporation. In egregious cases the Corporation itself is dissolved through a Corporate death penalty, assets are sold, and victims are compensated.

So finally, only through the checking of power in the capitalist system will we have the responsibility that led to sound governance. All systems need rules. After all, if we take the referees out of a sports game, it only leads to chaos. And capitalism, or more aptly the free market system, is also a game. Without rules, it will surely crumble to disaster.

Battle the Taliban with Social Media

I had an interesting idea that generated as a culmination of reading this Foreign Affairs article, "Finish the Job," "The Political Power of Social Media," and "The Digital Disruption" from last month's issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

Starting with the fact that the winds of change in the Middle East are turning against authoritative governments, why not use social media to effectively combat the Taliban?

According to the previous articles, our first order of business is to embrace or create a popular movement that stands in opposition to the Taliban values. And we would be required to expand this movement most likely through the technological benefits and advantages that we can provide to the members of this burgeoning opposition movement.

Our next step is to start a campaign that paints the Taliban as standing in opposition to new technologies. We must show that the Taliban is actively opposed to the new technologies that improve the livelihood of Afghanis. And thus, represent the Taliban as repressive. For example, there are reports that the Taliban control cell phone usage. This could be the first instance of such a campaign.

If such a movement lifts off the ground, the coalition forces would want to take additional steps, such as the use of portable cell towers and Internet access. The coalition forces could be known by their technology. Remember, we must win the hearts and minds of the people and we must do this by illustrating our desire to bring them a better life. We must also subsequently impress them with the fact that our technologies proliferate in a free society and so if they wish to embrace these technologies, they are in fact asking for freedom, and not Taliban rule.

Fundamentally, I just figure that the only way to beat a bottom driven underground guerrilla movement is with a bottom driven underground guerrilla movement.

Political Humor: A semi-farcical look at winning the war in Afghanistan and saving Pakistan, which might work

We'll never win in Afghanistan by fighting. But why is that? Well, it's complicated. But one thing we can do to help our cause is save Pakistan. It is the real problem, at least for now. And right now, a quarter of the country is underwater. Yet the citizens trust the Taliban more than they trust us. So WE should be there providing rescue, aid, security and protection.

I figure. We'd look better in the eyes of the Pakistani civilians, who as I said don't trust us, due to the fact the we are so buddy-buddy with India. The end result of this equation is a citizenry and a government who give aid to the Taliban.

Well, we need an answer. Fix Pakistan, which makes the Taliban look like big jerks for not saving lives. And that helps cut the money flow to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Hooray us.

If the President wanted to do it in one of those dramatic "Great American Idealism Speeches." He could call a temporary armistice, and send in troops as relief workers to Afghanistan. And say something like, "Sometimes the call to save lives trumps the call to fight over a nation. Today we are brothers and sister United for the common good." And everyone waves little American flags as we save lives with our superior technology and organizational skills. (That is, if we still have them.)

And then we build a government based on our glorious influence as rescuers. Okay, we win. Let's put on big Teddy Roosevelt smiles and go back to feeling good about ourselves.

HootSuite

HootSuite, it's tasty. I used TweetDeck for about a day and went, blah, whatever, but HootSuite I like it a whole lot more. For example, it Plugs in to Google Analytics, bonus. And most importantly, it's visually appealing. On another note, I finally got around to making a QR Code business card/VCard. Yeah Technology.

Tumblr...

Well I took the plunge and got Tumblr. It's like MySpace but it doesn't suck... so far. I also took the time to integrate all my media, crap I'm late for work.

Does the culture marginalize the poor and technologically illiterate. And why?

I'm looking at how in our society, where things are driven by consumerism, there are subconscious effects left on the populace. I was always wondering why there seemed to be a development of inferiority complexes among students and even adults, whereas in areas such as New York or Philadelphia, this does not occur. So I've been postulating ideas off of this.

I think it comes down to culture and money. I'll start with money. In areas of greater economic wealth there seems to be more of an equilibrium. Everybody has exactly what everybody else has and therefore less people fall victim to feelings of economic inferiority, which is something I see a great deal of in rural communities. This economic inferiority complex has a greatly negative backlash effect in that those with money begin to act with arrogance and superiority, little aristocracies begin to form. So I wonder if this is a subconscious behavior or if these behaviors are actively executed? In essence, do people subconsciously embrace elitism and aristocracy?

What I'm talking about is the sections of America that cannot afford products that are conducive to communication and therefore fall victim to being blocked out of these points of access to the culture. This is where I see an issue. A subconscious inferiority complex forms among them, and these people are seen as less valid to the culture. They are also ridiculed by the culture. This is why we use words like Rednecks, mountain-folk and ghetto trash.

Thus, I think that certain elements of technology should be universal, especially internet access. The grid should be available for everyone, seeing as it is an information resource. Of course there's no way anyone would pay for it, especially when people these days have been talking about having government do less for the less.

Yet, it advances the culture. I'm not a socialist, seeing as I don't see the possibility of economic equality. I know people will always want to find way to make more money than someone else. However I do believe in meritocratic equality, which means everybody gets a fair chance and then they are given the ability to advance based on their own drive. Thus, I figure that there is no reason to push people out based on their lack of access to the culture. We could be losing great minds.

And that is the danger of building aristocracies and systems of elitism. We push the potentially brilliant out.



In order to further make the point, it would seem high technology or gadgetry has become a rat race fetish. And those restricted from the technologies, possibly through a lack of finances, are pushed out of the system due to their proverbial loss in the rat race. They are seen as the losers. And they show signs of having an economic inferiority complex as a result. Whereas the members of the society that can afford said technologies are seen as the winners. And they often act as aristocrats as a result.

In the past, much of the technology that was more expensive, was more expensive due to higher quality. However, now we live in a world were most goods are made in low cost factories. As a result, higher price is now a result of more complicated technology being added into the product. Basically, everything is cheap now. And it is the rat race mentality that is the only thing supporting the artificial inflation in price.

So really, our society is just living in a delusion where people are hurting each other through what products they can afford. They are lulled into this system of elitism that has been in existence from a time when products actually had quality. But today, most products are truly valued at next to nothing.

Let's Be a Democracy Again!

I think it's we become a Democracy again. It's time to rebuild. It's time to start talking again. I've decided to work for getting people to do this. I've decided to work for getting people thinking about big things again. I see how our culture has fallen apart since then. Thus, it's time for all of us to rebuild. This is about more than social justice and fighting against corporate power, it's about getting back our culture of teamwork, unity and respect for each other. My generation has to pick up the torch. So I'm going to start.

Google brings Information Literacy

I deal with information retrieval all day and with services like iGoogle or MyYahoo, it is wonderful to instantaneously be piped into my research, news, blogs, email and calendar. But I like it so much I brought it into the classroom. I often have students of various majors asking how to find information on a whole variety of topics. And I used to dig through the library subscription services and then domain limit Google to retrieve academic information.

However, I work with some younger innovative professors who want the students to embrace Web 2.0 technologies and use them to aid in academic research. So I taught a class in which I showed the students how to use their iGoogle home pages as a means to catch RSS feeds on academic topics from our library subscription services, pickup blogs from reputable sources and even pull relevant news sources all into the iGoogle pages. I think this is revolutionary because it fundamentally changes academic research. It has led to conditions in which there is less information research and retrieval and more information mining and analysis.

This delves into a new field of instruction called information literacy. And iGoogle has given us a tangible information retrieval system, which we can then use in our instruction of information literacy. Hey, let’s design a Google curriculum. An ancillary benefit to automated information retrieval is that people tend to click on information they find interesting. Maybe we could also plug the data into Google Trends, and have a real-time Zeitgeist meter for trends in respective fields.

Information Economies of the Future

We live during the end of an era. The policies of unfettered capitalism combined with the mass market are no longer meeting the needs of the world. Or rather, we can no longer afford to have those needs.

(Rising energy prices for mass shipping, separation of markets, natural distrust of large corporations, more saving less spending)

However, new technological achievements, such as universal broadband enable the possibility of building an information economy in which more trade and commerce occur online. This will fundamentally change the market because as opposed to homogenizing products with mass market super-stores, the small businesses, with consumer/vendor relationships will grow instead. The is the possibility that the local business of the past, which occurred in small town shops, will be replaced by a future in a which those small shops sit online, and have international reach.

Things just might get interesting.

Batteries not Included, or Instructions

Batteries not Included, or Instructions