Consequences of Wealth Dispariites part 2

I've been spouting off about wealth disparity on, and off now for years. You can go back in this blog and see that I've touched on it numerous times. It seems to be coming more and more to the forefront. Nicholas Kristoff has written an excellent piece on the matter in his latest NY Times column: "Our Banana Republic"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07kristof.html?partner=rss&emc=rss .
He mentions how our wealth disparity is much worse than some of the countries we loved to call Banana Republics. He then goes on to claim that the real divide in this country is the split between corporate interests and average citizens. The Supreme Court has ruled this year that a corporation is extended the same first amendment rights as actual people when it comes to donating money. This is the prime example illustrating how if there is a war of capital vs. labor in this country (to borrow an old concept that should be brought back), the capital is crushing the labor.
You almost can not get ahead on your own merit, if you live in a major metropolitan area and are a salaried worker. The jobs that used to support that possibility have all been off-shored. And whats worse, is that the liberals in this country continue to support a democratic party that they believe supports their ideals for a more balanced economy, but it was the Clinton Administration that actually got the ball rolling in the free trade arena. For some reason Americans love stuff that has the word "free" in it (free trade, free market, free-dom), but in this case, free trade doesn't really mean trade in the way you think. For some reason stupid middle americans love how this sounds because it appeals to their sense of fairness. But it will not only never benefit anyone who doesn't own a large company that sells or busy things from China, it will most definitely hurt you. It will most likey involve the loss of a job, or the necesarry reduction in wages to keep your job here. Not enough people seem to get this. I didn't. Free trade actually appealed to my sense of fairness. But I realize now that it doesn't work for us. It may work great for a C-level executive of a fortune 500 company; or for anyone who works fairly high up the food chain in such a place. But it will only make everyone elses life worse. Its great that shit at walmart costs 10% less than it would w/o globalization, but that doesn't do you any good if you don't have a job. So the first problem is that not enough people "get it". The second problem is that even if they do, they don't realize that neither party is putting forth ideas that help.
There are millions of unemployed/underemployed people, many living in the upper midwest "rust belt". They have lost all their manufacturing jobs, which are not coming back. What do you propose that these people do? Where are the jobs that are going to allow them to make enough money to buy a house, save money for a nice retirement and be able to put their kids through college. Because without the opportunity to do that, nobody is going to be happy. That is really all the american dream boils down to. It used to be that if the majority of the people had a chance at the very modest aforementioned life, we were happy. But it seems now that we'd rather craft a society where 1 in 1000 people are going to "make it" (however possible) and have millions and millions; and everyone else will struggle. Nobody on capital hill wants to help you if your poor. They don't care about you. The wealth disparity will keep growing, and this is definitely not sustainable.

Obviously, politicians only want to get elected. So they push issues that are easy to understand and get people riled up: immigration, abortion, government spending (without actually outlining percentages of GDP, and putting the spending in perspective), and gun rights, just to name a few. When there are so many more important issues that just don't get discussed. This is mainly because they are complicated issues that are impossible to be on one side or the other. They are not two sided. There is no for or against when the question is "how should government spend its money?", or "how do we get more well paying jobs for people with bachelors degrees or less?", "how do we balance off our trade deficit?", and even, "how far is too far when police put GPS units on peoples cars?". A discussion about any of those issues will not increase ratings at msnbc or fox. Thus, politicians waste little time talking them up. "If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got", may be a stupid corporate slogan to make you work harder, but it carries an important message. Dems and Repubs are just pepsi and coke. You may prefer one flavor slightly to the other, but so long as you are drinking either you are still rotting your teeth.

I hate the Tea Party. I welcome the Tea Party

There is no way for a self-respecting scientist to consider any of the Tea Party candidates for even a second. Since I'm not self-respecting, I'll give it a second. They are the most ignorant, awful, loathsome group of closet racists and sheep that I've ever seen. And they might just do some good.
The problem isn't with liberal or progressive ideals. The problem isn't even with conservative ideals. All of these political ideologies have their proper times and places, and I believe the best governments can use bits and pieces of each to govern most effectively. The problem is corruption and systemic failure. Let me ask any Barrack Obama supporters in what ways is he really that different than any of his predecessors. He may be winding down the war in Iraq, but he is amping it up in Afghanistan. So the peace-niks shouldn't be happy with him. He took on healthcare, but did any liberals really get what they wanted? The only real thing to be happy about is that insurance companies can't drop children. Thats pretty good; but nowhere near what he set out to do. For all the political capital he spent on that fight, we now have a system that is going to require you to pay for insurance. Wow! Do you really think people weren't getting health insurance because they didn't want it? Maybe I'm missing some wonkish details of the policy, but it seems that the only big winners are the insurance companies. The Tea Party wants to undo this on the grounds of it being unconstitutional; and I think they may have a point. This is crap. Believe me, if a republican president passed this bill; the democratic bloggers, main stream media, and just about every American that lives inside a major city or suburb, would be screaming their heads off. He would be called a fascist pig and blah blah blah. But a Dem can get away with it. People should be outraged at this legislation.
What else is there? Well, Obama is OK with the federal government increasing their abilities to invade privacy on the internet http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Obama-Administration-Internet-Wiretapping-Wiretapping-Law-privacy,news-8163.html . Obama has not closed gitmo http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6jTooRHtlhvNqlz4NB-jWaaddeAD9I55K882 . So on four really big issues :
1) WAR. no significant difference in terms of financial or human output.
2) Health Care. A whole bunch of fuss over a bill that requires you to pay for it, or else suffer a fine.
3) Privacy. He is basically extending things started with Bush's PATRIOT Act.
4) Human Rights. Gitmo is still open. The talk about torture has just stopped. Its been swept under the rug.

This article sums up what I'm trying to say:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/obamas-failure-making-it-easy-for-republicans-20101001-160zo.html .

So, back to the Tea Party. What the Obama administration proves is that the only real difference between an elephant and a donkey is the sounds they make. The policies keep promoting a large military; they keep the divide between the wealthiest and most poor growing, they keep decreasing our privacy, and reducing our rights. (how about this one for horrific..http://www.asuherald.com/opinion/court-gps-detours-fourth-amendment-1.2344402). Where is Obama on illegal search and seizure. Apparently its ok for the cops to come into your house and put a GPS device on your car, so long as its not in a garage. Basically, if you can afford a garage, the bill of rights applies to you. If not, well, don't expect any privacy.
The tea party wants to tear everything down. If I didn't depend on a healthy government funded dedication to scientific research for my livliehood, I'd be in favor of this too. There isn't much in Washington that isn't tainted with a corrupt big-budget military industrial complex; hypocritical financial industry or greedy corporate lobbyists. This sounds trite, but they don't give a crap about you. Don't believe me, how about this memo from citibank that states just that. Their consultants did an analysis to show that all but the top ~3% of Americans are heading for ruin, but thats OK, because the wealthiest will have enough money to support their industry..(http://www.scribd.com/doc/34641013/Plutonomy) This came from the Michael Moore movie, "Capitalism. A Love Story"
So the Tea Baggers may be dumb as a box of rocks, but they aren't corrupt yet. If they could stay more libertarian and not so much evangelicals; they might be electable. And who knows, could they be much worse than what we got? Maybe highly educated, super-motivated, Rovian-types in the office is the problem. Some slow moving, big dumb animals might just be what we need.

consequences of wealth disparites

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425983109795768.html

I read this article from Peggy Noonan, which was in reference to the Scott (?) Slater, chute exit from the Jet Blue flight, meme. Apparently this event has touched off some skirmishes in the class war that is always going on in the background in this country.
I actually agree with Ms. Noonan's comments. Manners are no longer a matter of any consequence for most Americans. Similarly, and possibly related, is the fact that we are completely informal in our dress. Wealthy Conservatives like Ms. Noonan don't like this. They would love to see all the servants dressed up nice and acting accordingly. And they might, except for one thing, the Nations' wealth disparity. I think that it explains many of our society's ills, that the difference between the wealthy and the not-so has grown so wide, most of us can't plan on retirement, are upside down on our mortgages (or barely treading water), are trapped in our current jobs and current homes because we can't afford health care, and have not been able to sock anything away for a rainy day.
People are bitter and angry because if capitalism is a game, they are losing...badly. And this why the Ayn Randian philosophy of zero goverment intervention into the economy is nice for a novel, but absurd for policy, the people that lose in the game of Capitalism, still exist. They don't just get erased. If they did, and new people were allowed to jump in the game, the model might work. But with millions of "losers" still breathing and trying to make a living, simply ignoring them will ultimately result in a social revolution. Perhaps we are seeing the beginnings.

signs that our nation is rotting from the inside. part 1

I think the USA is rotting from the inside. The main reason is that we hate each other. We are cynical, greedy, lazy and have no cohesive glue binding us together. The USA may be a country and a sovereign state, but we are not a nation. The only commonality that Americans share is our laws. But our laws have run a muck. We are way over litigious and so ready to drop a dime and press charges for the littlest thing that we are all prisoners. And the cops can't help. They are trapped within a system that forces them to follow orders, even when it doesn't make a drop of sense.
Example.
http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-naked-kitchen,0,7977988.story

this guy was arrested for being naked in his own home. The greatest country on the planet overreacts again!

Identity Politics Alive and Well.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/first.lady/index.html

most people would read that article and think how great it is. But not me. I'm happy that Indian Women are inspired, I guess. And happy that they no longer think they're ugly because of Michelle Obama. But the problem with that is it shows us that this world is still engaged in Identity Politics. People, the globe over, rarely judge people by what say or do or how they think. They judge you by who you are perceived to be. Michelle Obama allows these young women a world away to feel beautiful not because she is smart, funny or accomplished, but because she is the first lady and she has two daughters. Both of those things are out of her control. The message this article sends to me is that women are trying to make their way through the world passively, in terms of what other people judge them to be based on their looks. "Its OK to have dark skin", or its "OK to have two daughters" or "Its good if an ambitious harvard educated lawyer is interested in you". Women should be outraged by this idea.
But its not just women in India. Take a look at the most recent presidential campaign. The democratic party is traditionally one of highly educated lawyers. And the democratic party is also the one known for being friendly to minorities. Who were the two candidates from that party, a women and a black man, both minorities and both Ivy League educated lawyers. The republican party base has recently been: the military, big business and religion. Who were the three candidates for their nomination: John McCain (military family), Mitt Romney (2nd generation multi-millionaire) and Mike Huckabee (ordained minister). The point is not whether I found these candidates worthy, but the point is that it wouldn't really have mattered. We still view people for what they represent and/or look like and not who they are and what they say. When the young Indian Woman feel encouraged by Michelle Obama because of her stance on some important issue and not for how she looks, I'll start to be encouraged.

-"studies" and blame

I listened to an interview recently of a right learning historian named Victor Davis Hanson. He is a professor of classics at Stanford University I believe. He was asked what he thought it meant to study the Classics, why people don't study them as much and what are he consequences. His answer fascinated me in a non-pc way that only a conservative military historian could. He said that the Classics aren't about learning facts, but they are about learning how to think. When you study Ancient Greek and Roman texts, there are no preconceived notions about right or wrong. That is probably because it is so long ago that we have no moral bias as we might if we were studying Nazi Germany (my point, not his). So modern education has become more fact based. But thats not the interesting point. The thing he said that struck me cold in my tracks was that the Classics died as soon as Universities started offering departments and majors that end in the word "studies". For example, environmental studies, women's studies, asian studies, african-american studies, etc. The problem with these types of programs, he claims, is that the start off with a prejudiced blame, inherent in the teachings. The entire basis of environmental studies is that Man has done something to the globe to ruin it. At the base of all women's stuidies as well as any other "culture-studies" is that white, european men did something wrong or evil, which created their current situation.
I'm not nearly as interested in whether or not white man did ruin the globe or ruin other cultures, that is a complicated question. But what is interesting is how accurate his statement of those new age departments really is. Those types of classes do have, at their core, the belief that somebody did something wrong and created a screwed up situation in the world. Is it a good idea to send off college graduates with the idea that someone is to blame? If you look at American Society, we love to lay blame. It is at the heart of everything we do. Our society is as over-litigious as ever. Every car accident has to have someone to blame, even thought its very name, "accident", implies that there is no blame. I think we would be doing ourselves a favor if we stopped trying to post blame every time something in our world is wrong and started to try to understand things better, purely for understanding's sake.

You are what you care about (aka..why our economy is crashing)

I read a very interesting article from wired magazine today.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/17-04/ff_perfectmemory?currentPage=3.

The article is about a woman who has been interviewed all over the main stream media because of an apparent perfect memory. Every time the main stream media interviews her, they make her out to be a walking hard drive, that can never get anything wrong. And of course, this makes her out to be somewhat of a sensation. It seems, she should be someone that is idolized. I mean, there is a whole industry of people selling you products that are going to increase your memory so you can be better at work. And this story, is a clear example of why scientists don't get to be featured in the main stream media very often, because they have very keen bull shit sensors. And thats not to say that this woman doesn't have an incredible memory (google "jill price and you can see her recollection abilities), she can recall exact dates of things that happened 20-30 years ago. She can recall exact dates of airplane crashes, TV shows, or where she was when something happened or even what the weather was when it happened.
But that is why the psychologist that does this piece is great. There's a line in his story where he talks about how everyone seems to know someone with a "photographic memory" but there is never any indication. Its kind of like telepathic powers, its bullshit, undocumented, urban legend. His point could've been made much clearer than he did (because he was being nice), there is no such thing as photographic memory!!!
Wait a second, you might say if you read up on Jill Price. She really can remember those dates, this in not a hoax! No, but you have to dig a deeper. The question is not what CAN she remember, but what can't she. So this psychologist gives her a series of tests, "what year was the magna carta signed, read back to me a list of these words, etc." When given these types of things, Jill Price's memory is no different than anyone else. She is unable to remember the list of 7 and even adds some words that weren't on the list (this is apparently very common). She has no idea when the magna carta was signed (neither do I).
To explain why, one needs to digress and talk a bit about memory. You do not store things in your brain the same way a computer does. There is no one place for a specific memory as there is on a computer hard drive. Furthermore, there is no difference in the human (or animal for that matter) brain between learning something and remembering something. To remember something is to learn it all over again. You remember things by repeated learning. That is to say, your brain, molecularly speaking, has to continually go through the process of relearning something to make it stick. The more times you recall it, the more times its likely to stick. This is why you can remember your pin, passwords, addresses, etc. And you can't remember something by taking one good look at it and just really really wanting to remember it. You have to say it aloud a few times, either in your head or aloud.
So why does this woman have such a remarkable memory, well, basically because a) she does not seem to get out much and b) all she does is ruminate about her own past. She is pretty self-absorbed it seems. And when they look at brain scans of her, it appears that the only thing even remotely different about her brain is that it is similar to people afflicted with OCD. She obsesses about her own past and thus she can remember anything that happened during her life with computer-like precision. Its really no big deal. This woman should be pitied, not held on a pedestal.
Now, how in the world can I compare this to troubled US economy. The answer has to do with the difference between truly understanding what is going on by asking a couple extra questions or just looking at something with a quick glance and concluding that it contains some crazy secret to success or almost other-worldly grace. Companies treated the real estate market and investment models as if it would go up forever. People thought that they could live off of refinancing their homes because their value would go up forever. People who were smart enough to make millions of dollars and then hand it over to someone else to watch while they retired at 40 or 50, were stupid enough to think that it was normal or sustainable to be receiving the EXACT same sum of money each month from investors like Bernie Madoff. The connection with Jill Price is that people will watch her on 20/20 or the like and conclude that there is some genetic component to learning or memory and use that as an excuse for their lot in life. And further down the road, someone might use Jill Price to separate some fool from his money in a scheme to enhance your memory that you may remember things like Jill Price. The person who should be getting interviews from 20/20, and be going on non-stop press junkets isn't Jill Price(she needs a hobby)its the psychologist/journalist who wrote the story; so he can teach Americans a thing or two about thinking and analysis that might prevent some simpleton from thinking he/she/it just found out about the next big thing.