Florida in February

I must be getting old; spending January and February in Florida is starting to seem like a good idea. Oh, well, we’ll make the most of these few days. We all got a solid dose of vitamin D today and we are waiting to watch another moonrise.  Usually, I prefer the mountains, but moonrise is only this beautiful over the ocean.

Sunrise wasn’t too bad yesterday morning either. There is some unspeakable truth discovered when watching the lavendar tongue of the ocean lap a silver beach. And how quickly it all turns golden. Truth is like that, I suppose: just when it seems to be coming into focus, everything changes somehow and it is lost, except for the notion that it exists and I’ve touched the edge of it, however briefly.

Another day in the Senate

So yesterday the Republicans rolled out their own stimulus plan and the biggest selling point seemed to be that it would cost less. My family has hired contractors on the basis of monetary “cost” alone, and I can assert with all confidence that the lowest price isn’t always the best bargain. I have made my peace with H.R. 1, but certainly have an open mind about alternative ideas.

Among the alternative plan’s features mentioned by McCain on CSPAN was a comparable $275 billion price tag in tax cuts. Now, I realize that I am getting addled, but I am not getting so addled that I’ve forgotten that the tax cuts in H.R. 1 were one of the things the GOP threw a hissy about. So, I turned off the TV and turned on the computer to check out how the GOP tax cuts compared to the ones in H.R. 1. I am sure that there are a number of differences between the two, but just checking one took long enough that this the McCain-sponsored alternative was dead before I was finished.

The biggest difference I could see was that McCain’s idea included cutting the corporate tax rate. I have no use for cutting corporate tax rates. I thought it was a bad idea when McCain campaigned on it and it is still a bad idea. I have a feeling that taxes will be a recurring theme, so I’ve added an “All about taxes” page to my blog based on research I did in the run up to the election last year.

I actually don’t like using tax policy to address other issues. Not only does it complicate our tax code, it is a weasel way to “inject money” by cutting revenues rather than increasing spending. Then our legislators tell us that they didn’t increase spending, when, in fact, the net effect on our national pocketbook is the same because there isn’t as much money coming in to cover expenses. The icing on that cake is that the big winners in the tax-cut lottery (and if you are middle class, it ain’t you) tend to be far more interested in getting richer than helping the country overall. Does anybody really think they are going to invest in parks and libraries and schools other things that bring up our quality of life? So tax cut “injections” are like going into debt because you take your friends out partying every night, and targeted government spending projects are more like going into debt to buy a house, you have something of real and lasting value for your money.

Meanwhile, back in the Senate, the legislators weren’t making as much sense as they did a couple of days ago. I suppose they are getting weary, but some just seemed to be determined to waste time. One I’d not heard of before yesterday, but I won’t soon forget the name, for it is now cemented in my memory as Senator DeMint-ed. Bet I’m not the first to have that reaction.

Money is fungible

This seemed to be a big point as the Senate debated the Ensign-Boxer Amendment yesterday. I don’t actually understand why it was a big point, but it was. Maybe Senators just like to say “fungible” because it has an interesting sound and feel to it.  Really, it does. Try it. Say it right now. It’s like potato chips, you can’t say it just once.

It was gratifying to watch our government at work, though. What a blessing to live in a country where I can turn on CSPAN and actually watch my government at work. The press so often characterizes our senators and representatives in such a negative light, so it is good to tune in from time to time and see the passion and commitment that was evident yesterday. If they screw this up, it isn’t for lack of trying.

The amendment was defeated, and I probably would have voted against it if I had been able to do so. I couldn’t see how it would directly benefit anyone except large multinational corporations, and, as Sen. Dorgan pointed out, when they did this back in 2004 the companies that benefited shed jobs rather than creating them.

The Senate is still going at it today. One senator even called for scrapping the whole thing and starting from scratch. As frustrating and infuriating as the process seems for many of the legislators, this is exactly what they are supposed to be doing. It isn’t a pretty  process, but when it actually works the result can be a thing of beauty. Here’s hoping for at least a little beauty.

I haven’t watched much of the debating, but am grateful to have the privilege of watching as I am able. It restores my faith in our elected officials somewhat every time that I do. The big point for me, as a citizen, is that I’ve got a front row seat, and that ain’t fungible.

Fairness and Justice

“I would have to believe that “fairness” is the equivalent of justice.”

That is the one sentence from an otherwise uninteresting email that kept nagging me this week. The forwarded essay was a typical post-election screed, long on emotion, short on facts, and hardly worthy of response; except my brain kept returning to that one sentence and thinking: Well, isn’t fairness essentially the same thing as justice?

I reexamined the essay for clues to her meaning, and I couldn’t see how the other sentences in the essay related to the concepts of fairness and justice; that sentence was just hanging there in the middle of her essay like the unused anchor of a boat adrift. If she believes there is a difference between fairness and justice, and can demonstrate how that distinction is relevant to the election’s outcome, that would be a more interesting essay.

I turned to my dictionary of first resort, The American Heritage:

fair — “just to all parties, equitable”
just — “honorable and fair in one’s dealings and actions”
justice — “the upholding of what is just, esp. fair treatment and due reward in accordance to honor, standards, or law; fairness”

Justice and fairness look pretty indistinguishable from these definitions, but perhaps there remains some philosophical distinction that is lost in the dictionary. After all, it is no small thing to distill a concept into a handful of words.

John Rawls (http://www.hist-analytic.org/Rawlsfair.htm) writes that these concepts are not the same, though he asserts that “the fundamental idea in the concept of justice is fairness.” Rawls goes on to outline two principles in the practice of justice.  The first is the principle of equality amongst actors, and the second outlines when it is permissible to set aside the absolute equality posited by the first principle. In other words, mere differences are not necessarily inequalities; however, “inequality is allowed only if there is reason to believe that the practice with the inequality, or resulting in it, will work for the advantage of every party engaging in it.” I will not outline his defense of settling upon these two principles since the link is provided, but will note that these principles are ideals by which we would adjudge situations as just or unjust rather than any statement of human truth: “it is simply the acknowledgment of certain principles of judgment, fulfilling certain general conditions, to be used in criticizing the arrangement of their common affairs.”

Rawls then outlines the utilitarian notion of justice as an idea that “assimilates justice to benevolence and the latter in turn to the most efficient design of institutions to promote the general welfare. Justice is a kind of efficiency.” I almost groaned when reading the word “utilitarian,” because it seems to pop up every time I am exploring some ethical notion that isn’t making sense to me. Utilitarianism seems a perfect example of a generally palatable notion with no palatable specification, and it doesn’t get any better with age. Yes, I realized, the pseudo-quantification of humanity that is utilitarianism would require that the concept of justice be stripped of ideals and handed over to an administrator. Rawls rightly points out that such a conceptualization permits atrocities to be considered “just” so long as the perpetrators’ benefit exceeds the victims’ burden. Is this the type of “justice” the essay writer had in mind?

I believe it is. When viewed through the lens of utilitarianism, the troublesome sentence makes sense. I don’t agree with it, but it makes sense. If “justice” is seen as a societal condition wherein institutions are arranged to maximize overall “happiness” (and let’s leave aside what that may or may not mean), then it can be seen as something quite distinct from fairness. Equity becomes an aggregated good rather than a description of relationships. The rest of that paragraph reflects this utilitarian perspective, and, now that I can see it, I don’t know how I missed it before. When she speaks of “justice,” it is in a broad sense of overall societal well-being (and let’s leave aside what that may or may not mean as well).

The problems I have with this conceptualization of justice are as follows:

(1) Many things are not measurable in any meaningful sense. They can be quantified only based upon assumption and arbitrariness. There is no human objective from which to quantify non-material goods, nor is there agreement upon individual valuation of material goods. It isn’t so much that everything cannot be quantified, as that the quantification largely depends upon how the quantifier imagines a theoretical “social being.” It is possible to come up with some very scientific looking outcomes, but what do they actually mean? From my perspective, it means that the researcher has quantified an already held opinion. In the lay-usage of this concept of justice, such as in this essay, it basically boils down to assuming that a personal idea of what is “best” for everyone on average is, in fact, a universal truth.

(2) Universalizing concepts such as “good” and “desirable” makes no sense. These are relative terms. I find it amusing to consider doing an analysis to determine the “best” definition of “good” before proceeding. At what point would it be completed?

(3) It seems that utilitarian evaluations are most useful post hoc. It is only after the fact that anything resembling sufficient data is present, but then the result is more of a description than an analysis. Furthermore, even if there was generalized agreement upon what the most desirable state of affairs for a group should be, the utilitarian approach offers little to suggest the best means for achieving that objective. Unfortunately, what it does provide is moral carte blanche for any action taken in pursuit of the desired objective until such time as that objective is attained. And then who decides when the objective is attained?

p.s. I found Rawls reading this essay: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v3n2/

p.p.s. A current academic treatment of utilitarianism: http://mora.rente.nhh.no/projects/EqualityExchange/Portals/0/articles/bossert1.pdf (It does give a little nod to inherent deficiencies: “Generalized-utilitarian social-evaluation functionals are ethically attractive, but some of them may require utility information that is difficult to acquire.”)

An outrageous proposal?

The more I’ve thought about the really big stimulus bill the more I’ve realized that there is something in there for everybody to hate. Some would say that is the mark of good legislation, that if everybody is unhappy a reasonable compromise has probably been achieved. Maybe, maybe not. The thing is a beast. I have not read all of it, and doubt that many people have. Here it is if you want to give it a go: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1:

I’ve clicked on the items that looked interesting to me and found some objectionable. For example, $2.4 billion for carbon sequestration seems pointless to me. Carbon sequestration uses as much as 40% of the power generated by a plant and cannot be guaranteed. To me it looks like a plan for creating expensive subterranean carbon bombs in order to continue tearing down mountains and poisoning groundwater when there are entirely viable alternatives. But, hey, one man’s pork is another man’s meat, right? I didn’t think ethanol was such a good idea either. Anyway, if you care to accompany a non-economist on a journey of inquiry into H.R. 1, read on.

I understand the argument that a stimulus  must be sufficiently large to be effective, but maybe the bill could be simpler. So I asked myself what objectives I want for this stimulus bill. First, we have already injected a lot of cash at the top of the food chain and the money seems to just disappear into the ether, or maybe into some offshore accounts. I am ready to try some demand-side economics that target businesses making under about $300,000 and people making under about $100,000, cost-of-living adjusted according to where they reside. You know, people who bank in the states and haven’t got a clue how to evade paying income taxes. Second, let’s include only the things that economists (and common sense) agree will stimulate the economy in the short-term.  So anything that does not produce benefit in the next two years may not be something we need to do right now.

The goal I have identified for this legislation is to increase consumer demand. In order to do this, I think we need to (1) boost income for people who actually need stuff and (2) focus on things people need but aren’t getting (that way they will actually buy the stuff). I also think that there are multiple levels to consider: there are individual needs, state/local needs, and national needs. For each program area covered in H.R 1, I will answer the following questions:

(1) Will it boost the incomes for people who actually need stuff?
(2) Will it provide something people need but are not getting?

Any area to which I cannot answer “Yes” to both questions is suspect according to the criteria I’ve outlined. The following categories received the requisite double yes: Infrastructure, Job training, Medicaid/COBRA, Nutrition Assistance, Human Services, Law & Justice. In particular, I can’t see why anyone would be opposed to investing in infrastructure.  Capital investments, when done well, add value for years to come.

I will admit to being suspicious when I saw the big chunk of the bill devoted to tax relief.  I feel like most Americans got snookered in the name of tax cuts more than once.  However, it appears that these tax cuts target the groups I identified for a demand-side approach, so tax cuts get a “Yes” for (1), but a “No” for (2). Let’s face it, they provide no needed service or consumable. We all got tax rebates last year, remember? The whole 2008 stimulus package was an attempt to use tax policy to stimulate the economy, and I think the reason it didn’t work is because the boost in incomes was temporary and there was no real value being created, the government was just moving money around. The tax cuts being proposed here also create no real value, but they do continue  for at least several years. Because of this, and because these occur in tandem with other programs that do create real value, these tax cuts might be more effective than last year’s stimulus checks. It is also possible that middle-class tax cuts are psychologically important enough to be vital to the success of any stimulus, but from a purely economic standpoint they are a flip of the coin.

The education, housing, and assistance to states provisions look like a mixed bag, with some specifically meeting one or both requirements and others not.

I wanted to get an idea of how the money was being distributed amongst these areas and found this pie chart created by the New York Times based on this document: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary01-15-09.pdf.  It was created about 10 days before the Appropriations Committee would be finished tweaking the bill, but the chart closely resembles the allocations passed by the House a couple of days ago. A much better, and current, java-based graphic is at http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-bill-treemap, but I couldn’t embed it here.

The biggest piece of pie is tax cuts, which I’ve discussed above; the second biggest piece is infrastructure, when all the little pieces are added up; and the third biggest piece looks like health related items, when all of the little pieces are added up. That’s actually about 3/4 of the pie already.

---

Good Morning and Happy Superbowl! I stayed up so late last night researching this bill, certain that I would find a way to improve upon it or dismiss it. Now I’m at relative peace with it even though the numbers just stagger me. But the more I’ve thought about it, and after sleeping on it, these numbers are rather small when compared to the amount of government money that has flowed into the top of our economy over the last eight years. Run “corporate welfare” through your search engine if you want see how bad it has gotten at the top, profitable companies paying no taxes and actually receiving tax rebates. Anyway, easily over a trillion in corporate welfare, plus the bailout last year, not to mention a greatly reduced tax burden, and what did that get us? It seems to have gotten us a rather small group of hyper-wealthy people who avoid paying taxes and want the rest of us to prop up their mismanaged companies. No, I’m ready for some demand side economics, and companies that are not meeting consumer demand deserve to fail.

Good and Evil

reflecting on a short publication with that title by Albert Einstein published in 1934

Einstein asserts that it is difficult to discover who in the history of mankind has contributed most to “the elevation of the human race.” According to him, any historical figure considered seems to have done at least as much harm as good.  His answer is to give people in the present “elevating work to do” and, thereby, elevate them. He says that it really doesn’t matter whether their labors bear fruit or not, that it is the creative, intellectual process that enriches individuals and humanity.

Up to that point, I followed his line of reasoning. It is a very zen approach to the value of living, an emphasis on the process rather than the product. Then he loses me with his final sentence: “Thus, it would surely be inappropriate to judge the value of the Talmud by its intellectual fruits.”  Where did that come from? Perhaps, because this book is made up of selections, this paragraph has been removed from a context that would tie in with the last sentence. It seems his intention to infer that the process of creating the Talmud is what brings it value rather than the product of its teachings.  I am left to guess that he is writing in response to some criticism of the holy book at that point in history. In 1934’s Germany, I expect there was criticism enough to which he could respond.

News Flash: The election was last year

So why are many Americans stuck in election mode? Shouldn’t our discourse be directed at solving problems rather than trying to gain points for political parties? It is in our common interest to let go of election politics for at least a year and have solution-based discussions rather than ideology-driven slap-fests. The first step could be stating very specifically what we want to accomplish, maybe breaking big goals into managable components, and then considering evidence-based means for achieving the desired outcomes. The result should be an exchange of ideas rather than a battle between ideologies. Pie-in-the-sky-dreaming? I hope not.

I say the following as an Independent who stopped calling myself “Republican” a little over ten years ago (just for the record). Finding solutions is in no way facilitated by doing nothing but criticize everything that is said or done, and I see that type of behavior from both the left and the right. Imagine a person acting that way at your home while you are doing a home repair. At what point would you suggest they find a way to help or leave?  I am starting to feel this way about much of the political discourse I’ve been reading, if people can’t address an issue constructively, maybe they should just excuse themselves and go do something else. They aren’t helping.

Among the things I have read on the right this week are that Obama’s is a failed administration (Really? After just one week?), that all our economic woes can be attributed to the slim majority that Democrats held in the House after Jan 2007 (Yeah, I got that ridiculous email last summer, too. ), that good Republicans will refuse to work with Democrats no matter what the issue or circumstances (Because their constituents elected them for the sole purpose of doing nothing?), that the government has no place telling financial institutions to forgo bonuses this year even though they’ve already ingested billions of taxpayer money (Because the free market must always be free to do as it wishes, even if the money isn’t theirs) …. I think those are enough eyebrow-raising examples of the rhetoric out there. I found nothing constructive from the right anywhere this week, just constant attack without offering any alternatives.  Doing this makes sense a couple of months before an election, I suppose, but at what point do we get any work done around here? Oh, maybe that IS the point — to try and be certain that nothing gets done so that Republicans can say that nothing got done on the Democrat’s watch next time there is an election. After all, getting things straightened out for our country is far less inportant than winning the next election, right? Just so you know, that’s how you guys are looking to this swing voter.

On the left, this week I’ve read, or actually stopped reading, far too many attempts to polish up the Obama franchise until it is absolutely, unstoppably blinding in it’s glory. The nearly worshipful descriptions of Obama and anything remotely related to his presence on earth are past the sell-by date, folks. He won, okay? He doesn’t need your adulation, and he doesn’t need another bumper sticker at this point. He needs all of us to roll up our sleeves and get to work.  And take him down off of that pedestal so he can get some work done, too, please. More importantly, try to remember that ALL politicians should be watched, and ALL people are fallable. You might also keep in mind that a lot of us who voted for Obama in this past election did so only because he seemed the more capable leader with the best platform. There are a lot of us who didn’t care whether we were working with a Democrat or a Republican after the election, just so long as it was a person who could get the right things done. So let’s get things done, and if the Republicans don’t want to help, let’s get things done anyway.

The Meaning of Life

A short observation by Einstein published in 1934

“What is the meaning of human life, or, for that matter, of the life of any creature? To know an answer to this question means to be religious. You ask: Does it make any sense, then, to pose this question? I answer: The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for life.”

This seems almost a paradox to me. First, he acknowledges that there is no definitive answer to the question, “What is the meaning of life?” Whatever answer a person may settle upon will be the product of reasoning rather than research, and will exist firmly in the realm of the sacred. Then, he immediately asserts that failing to engage in the inquiry makes one unfit  to live. So the meaning of life is to discern some meaning of life? What evidence could I produce to prove otherwise? None, so …. whatever.

The World As I See It

reflecting on a two-page essay with that title by Albert Einstein published in 1931

Why people exist

Einstein asserts that a person exists for other people, stating that:

“A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving.”

This observation leads Einstein to endorse a “frugal life” for everyone, so as not to require “an undue amount of labor” from others.

Social class

Although he uses but a single sentence to express his thoughts on class distinctions, and tosses the line off like a footnote to the previous, there is a lot to discuss in his simple observation that class distinctions are “unjustified and, in the last resort, based on force.”  One reason this statement intrigues me is because it seems to contradict the popular idea of a “meritocracy” in which people’s access to resources is commensurate with their ability and overall worth to a society.  Of course, there are enough examples of wealthy waste to demonstrate that meritocracy is more an ideal than a reality, but Einstein dispenses with the whole idea that some are more worthy of reward than others with a casual verbal backhand.

The other aspect of this statement that I have mulled is that social distinctions are ultimately based on force. There are any number of ways that we are persuaded to accept roles or act in ways that we would rather not, some subtle and some not. I am not certain that the whole of class distinctions can be found in these social machinations, though. More than once I have found myself a reluctant leader, such that I neither sought nor desired the deference I was accorded. I suppose it could be argued that in such a case the forceful action is upon the leader who feels obligated to fulfill the requirements of others, and perhaps Einstein saw the forceful maintenance of class hierarchy as moving in both directions, and I assumed only top-down force. The thing is, though, if it is conceptualized as move both up and down the class hierarchy, then who is the victim?

Freedom

Einstein reports not believing in human freedom, stating that:

“Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer’s saying, ‘A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants,’ has been a very real inspiration to me since my youth …. an unfailing well-spring of tolerance.’ “

I stopped reading here and considered this perspective carefully. Is it true that everything a person wants is dictated by reaction and/or need? I think the question can consider only internal need, for the reason external compulsion is effective is that it incites some internal need. If you chose to hit me until I got up, and I did not care how often or how hard I was being hit, you would beat me to death before I would formulate the desire to get up. Anyway, as I played with this idea of having no freedom to want what I want I considered a number of possible wants with questionable motivations.  For example, if a person wants to run down the middle of a highway naked, we are left to wonder what inner need would require this want? I don’t know, but if considered in the context of Maslovian theory the need being fulfilled would be up near the top of the pyramid, and be contrary to fulfilling the other levels. Perhaps this idea only works if we assign a certain well-defined rationality to the actors.

Meaning and Ideals

“To inquire after the meaning or object of one’s own existence or that of all creatures has always seemed to me absurd from an objective point of view.”

I was amused to read this line after reading his own answer to his own inquiry into just this matter, ie, that people exist for other people. I think, however, that he was just hedging a bit before describing his ideals. So, first, a little hedge, and then a rejection of what he calls “the ideal of a pigsty,” which is, for Einstein, the life goal of achieving ease and happiness.

The ideals he puts forth as worthy of pursuit are kindness, beauty, and truth. He does not expand on what he means by these terms, though kindness is easily understood. Beauty and truth, however, fit into what I think of as the Capital Letter Word Category, concepts at a level of abstraction generally requiring some explanation when used philosophically. He leaves no doubt that he isn’t talking about “possessions, outward success, luxury,” which he describes as “trite” and “contemptible.”

Politics

Einstein defines democracy, his political ideal, as “every man… respected as an individual and no man idolized.” He says that it is important for those being led to choose their leader because an autocratic system “always attracts men of low morals.” He admires how democratic principles have been implemented in the U.S., preferring only one aspect of the German political system: that it takes better care of citizens who are ill or needy.

He asserts that it is the creative individual who brings the most value to society, not political elements. Then he denigrates most people as a “herd” that “remains dull in thought and dull in feeling.” So much for the ideal of kindness.

Einstein is most fierce in his opinion of the military, which merits the terms “hate” and “abhor.” He says that the military is “the worst outcrop of herd life” and that it should be abolished. His tone softens somewhat when he postulates that the only reason military institutions persist is because people’s natural good sense had “been systematically corrupted by commercial and political interests acting through the schools and the Press.” Wow. But then I considered when this was written (1931) and where Einstein lived at the time (Germany) and the depth of his feeling is understandable even if his idea of abolishing the military seems at turns naive and irrational.

Religion

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion.”

This is how Einstein sets up describing himself as a “deeply religious man” who feels wonder and awe of things beyond human comprehension. He goes on to make clear that he “cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience within ourselves.” Further, while he assumes an eternity of life, and the mystery it holds for humans, he rejects the idea of surviving physical death, suggesting that such beliefs are due to “fear or absurd egoism.” The term he uses to describe God at the end of this essay is “the Reason that manifests itself in nature.”

It often seems to me that much religious discourse anthropomorphizes God, but such are the terms best suited to how people think and understand. Human metaphors are useful for making abstract concepts accessible to even children. I do not think most adults conceive of God as an old guy sitting on a cloud smiting people. Though probably a workable conceptualization for children, I would not expect to find it endorsed by Einstein the adult scientist, and am not disappointed in that expectation.

More interesting to me was that Einstein assumes an eternity of life. Contrary to popular theories of his time, he was apparently comfortable with the idea of an infinite universe. The cyclic models of the universe are actually fairly recent. I wonder if this was just a gut instinct, and I wonder if any other physicists teased him about it.

just feel good

I just feel good this morning. The banana bread is in the oven, pinto beans are in the slow cooker, I’ll cook up some kale around 6 and pop some cornbread in the oven. Perhaps I will find someone who would like to share such a fine winter meal.

Last night I became irate reading some things that seemed hateful and selfish to me, but I have found peace with such rantings. Those who insult people suffering in this country, or any country, and glorify greed as a human right cannot help but land on the wrong side of history.

For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.  Deut 15:11

Amen.

And pass the cornbread.