Category: Uncategorized

When You can’t decide, if you believe in free speech!

Many say, “ Why do I care about speech I disagree with being allowed to be disseminated?” This statement fails to comprehend that not all agree with your world view and possibly even your interpretation of reality.

There is truth, but it is not always simple to find. People are limited by their physical bodies to their experiences and the experiences they have been told of. ( even some that may be outright fabrications advanced by someone promoting a particular point of view ) People are not always truth tellers.
If you weren’t there, you learn from those, who you trust. Perhaps you trust a teacher. They are authority figures. How many students review original sources materials even, if it is suggested I didn’t. In fact I can count on one hand those who read outside sources of any kind and I am an advanced college degree holder.

Besides the physical limitations, individuals may act based upon different facts. These maybe actual facts, but outlying information, unusual occurrences of information We would refer to this as outlier data. It is not misinformation. It is actual data, just unusual in its occurrence .
Individual’s minds use information to organize their world. How do we combat use of outlier data? We combat with more information! More data means less opportunity for outlier data. We also must understand that even observations are limited by financial considerations.

Science focuses on observable processes. Value judgments can’t be scientifically measured. They may be preferred or non preferred viewpoints.  Results can be observed, but those results are data interpretations based upon facts. They can be true. They need not be. Even if the data is correct, the conclusions can be errant.

Remember values are not facts! Not everyone may share your values. Values are not misinformation. Unless they hurt someone else, you are permitted to believe differently than others. Remember Christianity was once a minority set of values in ancient Rome!

Hey Ohio, Capitalism starts at Home

Capitalism starts at the local level. The federal government is an economic macro player with large impact, but this fact does not excuse localities from acting in a manner that maximizes the creation of wealth through grassroots entrepreneurial activity.

One of the amazing universal lessons I learned from Social Psychology was that all groups in our society experience “Diffusion of Responsibility”.  This phrase is a technical way of saying “Someone else will take care of it” or if in the workplace “That’s not my job”.

The result of this failure to take personal responsibility is the delegation of our local duty to advance our community’s economic well-being to the federal government.  After all, the national government casts a huge economic footprint with many of its decisions leading to the creation or demise of entire companies or small communities.  (Doubt me, remember the dire forecasts for the demise of companies or communities, when defense contracts are threatened or military bases even rumored to be relocated.)  (See San Diego Tribune Article: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-military-base-closures-looming-again-2012may16-htmlstory.html)The federal government is an economic macro player with large impact, but this fact does not excuse localities from acting in a manner that maximizes the creation of wealth through grassroots entrepreneurial activity.

How does this apply to local capitalism.  Since and even during the national election, emphasis has been on creating jobs for our citizens.  Please notice the phrase “creating jobs” is not the same as generating wealth or increasing our gross national product.   Let’s start our conversation with a controversial statement. Creation of some jobs may actually impair real economic growth.  It is simply a method of wealth distribution.  Doubt me, witness China building empty shopping malls and unoccupied residential buildings.  Please review this article available at Forbes.com.(http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/07/20/what-will-become-of-chinas-ghost-cities/#70b1a2b0751b)   This is misallocation of resources on a grand national scale based upon the strategy of fulfilling a national plan.

Would it surprise you to learn that many US localities exercise this same economic folly?   It is done with the best of intentions and utilizes zoning laws as well as eminent domain to impose the vision of local elites upon its populace.  Why is it so widely accepted?    Individuals in our society seek to control their physical and economic environment. We are taught, since childhood the value of planning for the future, so it is counter intuitive to allow for the seeming chaos that is true capitalism.  Finally,the freedom that capitalism allows promotes uncertainty of outcome.

Residential and Commercial property owners seek certainty in their lives.  Property owners seek to grow the value of their investments by restricting the property rights of others.  How is this accomplished?  Use zoning laws to restrict competition by limiting the number of commercial sites available.  This is supply and demand at work.  If by using the force of government,  (government is majority force: witness the effectiveness of laws without consequence if you doubt this) you restrict the number of commercial sites available, then you raise the price and thereby the investment value of the already existing sites.  (fewer sites equals higher price.  More sites means greater competition and a lower price)  What is amiss here is the role of government in limiting the market by depriving property owners of use of their property as they see fit.

Does this mean there is no role for community control of its environment?  No, what it means is that the power of government should be used only in circumstances, where safety is at risk.  No property owner has a right to impose a real nuisance upon its neighbors.  This idea has been corrupted to mean that any use, which lowers property value is sufficient reason to restrict property rights.  We now have government elites crafting master plans for communities.  These are planned communities.  ( Sounds like well meaning Soviet economic planning and suffers the community with the same result.  i.e. ( use shortages, resource misallocation.)  When the local government is asked to select winners and losers, the result is no better than when the national government does so.  Why, because choices  made are based upon limited existing information and with built in biases.  Capitalism is based upon a  different idea.   Individual choices made in the property owner’s best interest will result in maximum economic benefit for all.  The net result of master plans is misallocation of local resources and lost opportunity for economic growth.

Why is this capitalistic idea so universally opposed by so many?  The answer is simple.  The community believes in control and planning has been promoted in all aspects of life, so surrender to capitalism is counter intuitive and threatening because it allow uncertainty.  Residential property owners fear that a “biker bar” or a “convenience store” will be placed on their block threatening the safety of their children or a factory or commercial property increasing traffic or other pollution to a dangerous level.  These are real concerns.  Coping with them requires creation of  a more flexible method of adjudicating nuisances.  Courts and lawsuits are too slow.  Zoning boards are too easily swayed against the proposed use in our modern democratic society.  Remember NIMBY (Not in my back yard) This is why here we have a limited republican form of government.  Democracy can be as tyrannical as any dictator.  It is merely tyranny by many rather than by a few or one.  (Please think about that!  The will of the many can be as restrictive as any despot).

Zoning laws must be crafted to be minimalist in scope.  It must impose use restrictions only when there are greatly increased (demonstrable)health and safety risks.  There will be errors as with any human system.

Why do I say greatly increased risk?  Consider how past break through inventions might be perceived today in our risk averse culture.  There would be no automobiles, if a risk free environment was sought.  Who would sanction high speed projectiles hurtling through population centers with a volatile payload.  (gasoline)  Remember all economic activity engenders some risk.  The only truly risk free life is conducted under a rock in a cave with limited human interaction.  (this assumes your cave and rock are structurally sound.  Life is short, measured in days, but certain and relatively risk free).

Sure, there are now and will be errors. Please remember the community can be damaged greatly not just by the results of economic activity.  i.e. car accidents or diminished air or water quality.  Some may even lose their lives as a result of lost economic activity.  The scope and extent of this loss by decreased economic activity is indeterminable and as such is dismissed out of hand.  i. e.( it is impossible to account for the number of deaths caused by the failure to mass produce a beneficial product i.e. a pesticide or more food).  I postulate that property owner’s right must prevail absent a showing of greatly increased risk.

This sounds cold compared to the liberal platitude, which states if it costs one life the risk is too great.  The fallacy of this statement becomes evident, when it is considered in historic perspective.  Consider the number of lives that would have been lost had this standard been applied to building projects, (Yes, people die in construction) automobiles ( a big killer) or electricity production.(ever hear of an electrical fire or electrocution)  So what is right.  There is not always a clear good or bad.  I am suggesting we weigh with a presumption in favor of the property owner’s rights.  That presumption of benefit from economic freedom can only be overcome by a demonstration of greatly increased risk to the public health or safety.  Wherever possible where real concerns exist compromises should be crafted to accommodate the use, while reducing the risk to the public.  (This is not an endorsement of the status quo, where property owners are subjected to community exploitation for more parks at the owner’s expense or outright seizure by the public of a portion of the property owner’s land in exchange for a use.  Demands should be directly related to the diminution of the demonstrated risk (not just perceived risk)(remembering that some risk will always be present.)

What will result from the absence of a master community plan is growth, which will inure to the community’s benefit.  This is controversial and I expect many parents and residential property owner’s will be opposed because this approach, while promoting economic growth also promotes uncertainty of value and use.  As I indicated earlier, certainty is always the easier path and economic growth requires risk taking.  Remember along with growth comes the many benefits of a modern society.  i.e. more food, more shelter and even cleaner air and water

Your comments are welcome, whether in agreement or opposed.  No judgement here!

 

 

 

East Coast Media (When you operate in a limited geographic and demographic sphere, can the public receive objective information?)

We just experienced the conclusion of the Presidential election cycle and the beginning of a new Presidency. Anyone, who reads this blog must have concluded by now that I am not a “Trumpeteer”. I am a conservative with libertarian economic leanings.
I spent the majority of my professional life in local government. As a result of my time spent in government, I am familiar with what I like to refer to as proximity bias. This occurs, when you spend the majority of your waking hours within an employment defined sphere of social and idealogical thought. As a result of your daily cultural confinement, you begin to to perceive others and the world based upon your professional goals and problems. Most individuals recognize this as a bias. It needn’t be bad or good either. It can become problematic, when it interferes with your world perception to such an extent that you can no longer report accurately to others what occurs in the world.
l am not nor do I claim to be a journalist, but like many, who embarked upon an educational path in Arts and Sciences, I took the obligatory journalism survey course. These classes seldom provoked strong curiosity within me, however occasionally an exercise or assignment stood out and proved to be of value in evaluating life’s events.
I had a task from a survey journalism class, which struck a chord with me. As with many true learning experiences, the task was not complex. It was simple actually and involved watching television news and logging content, content order and content duration.
News was different in the 1970’s, when I was an undergraduate at a midwestern university. News was consumed by watching one of the three news networks. My assignment was to watch the three news networks and log their story topics. I dutifully tuned in to watch the broadcast and manually flipped between channels logging the order and storyline from each network for future class discussion.
The class reported back with each network’s stories their order and duration. As a group we discussed our findings. We were all astonished by the similarity of news content as well as the similarity in broadcast order and even the duration of stories. This similarity was explained as journalistic professionalism. These editors and reporters had the nose for sniffing out the important story of the day.
The experience now tells me a different tale. We now have more sources of news than ever before, yet major news organizations across multiple media platforms all too frequently choose not only the same story, but all too frequently even weigh in using the same keywords. Can you recall the first time you encountered widespread use of the word “gravitas”? What about use of the terms “feckless”or “mainstream”. My bet is your experience is similar to mine. These terms weren’t originated as a result of casual Sunday evening dinner conversation, but became part of common parlance only after seeming constant bombardment with the terms on the network news broadcast.
These are fairly recent examples that come immediately to my mind. My guess is you could recite your own litany of terms and stories, which have been repeated ad nauseam, so that they now are now have earned a place in our community daily banter.
So how is it possible in a “diverse society” that we choose to elevate the same stories and sometimes even describe them using the exact same terms? Allow me to say after experiencing life in a government agency that I no longer believe it to be simply “a nose for news”. I also do not believe it to be a knowing left wing media conspiracy. It is I believe a proximity bias orchestrated by an elitist bi-coastal news, higher education and entertainment industry, which still dominates news gathering circles
This phenomenon is the natural result of the dominance of east and west coast universities as well as the bi-coastal location of news organizations. Individuals in these organizations share a common daily experiences and share common associations, which are foreign to many of us in the country’s interior. As a result of this “proximity bias” the public conversation is frequently centered on what many in the remainder of the country would characterize as “bi-coastal minutia”.
We live in a time when information is more readily available to all in this country. The coasts no longer should dominate and be “news central”unless the populace chooses to continue to consume their product.. Isn’t it time we ask what are we doing rather than what did President Trump or Senator Schumer do today? Isn’t it time to report the truly spectacular innovations that occur daily in our country yet receive very little attention as compared to the latest Washington Ad Hominem fresh from the popular social network site?
Think this proximity bias is restricted to the major networks? Listen to Fox News or Fox business then tell me there exists no proximity bias. Listen to the questions asked of guests. At their worst they sound as if they are pleading with their guests usually from DC to lead them from out of their ignorance to the promised land. This is a rewrite of history, if ever I heard one..
Our once uniquely proud and self reliant people now are captive,listening intently to dissociated east coast news readers beg our public servants to guide their subjects in their daily life rather than reporting the important life changing events occurring outside their coastal silos. They don’t even bother to research their questions anymore, so they don’t even know what to ask or where to raise objection. They precede their questions with the now seemingly universal”I’m no expert but…or I’m not an Attorney, but..”. As if this admission relieves them from their responsibility to do research. Hey media Associate degreed para legals do much better research. They continue to operate within their sphere of information, never truly questioning their own biases.

It is time this east coast proximity bias ceases and is replaced by reports of who,what, when,where and why.
If you agree or disagree, please let me hear from you. Add your voice to this discussion by commenting. This is not a test. There is no grade given and there are no wrong answers.

Hey Conservatives it’s voter education stupid

Every election cycle as long as I can remember Republican candidates with conservative values have waged uphill battles against liberal candidates. The post election reviews have repeatedly concluded that the Republicans need to appeal to more minority voters. The most recent review I saw basically indicated the path to these voters is to adopt a lighter version of democratic positions. Even though the electorate gives signals that it is tired of the same old government answers, the proposed remedy offered to conservatives is to mimic the Democratic establishment and promise more of what many voters reject. Conservatives need not run as light Democrats! Conservatives need to employ effective voter education strategies.

“Hey Conservatives, it is Voter education that is the missing ingredient. Education is necessary before, during and after elections.

Democrats win elections by appealing to voters sense of compassion. Democratic sycophants sing the same song before during and after each election cycle. ( e.g. Doesn’t everyone deserve more stuff? Shouldn’t everyone make $15.00 per hour? Shouldn’t everyone, who desires it, get a college education?) These are no more than thinly veiled emotional appeals, which not only do not reflect what is possible, but also do not reflect, what the economy needs. It is emotional pandering! Everyone feels good, when passing out gifts.

Prices for goods and services in a market economy are set by supply and demand. Most of the populace didn’t study even basic economics and the role of markets in determining the price of goods and services. This presents conservative proponents with some educational challenges. Proponents of the free market economy can’t merely tug at the heartstrings of the single mother or father by spinning a modern day fable. Markets while they serve a vital purpose and allow for the many choices available to the individual consumer and employee are based upon mathematics. Mathematics revolving around the concepts of supply and demand and are difficult to reduce to a fifteen second sound bite. Resources, which includes human resources move within the economy to where they are most needed and best used in the economy. These concepts don’t lend themselves to emotional gimmickry and market fluctuations frequently cause temporary worker displacement

How might the concept of supply and demand be applied to the “college for all” discussion. Let’s suppose an individual would like to pursue his or her interest in Art History. If there are many individuals, who pursue this academic field of study and no one or few companies can find a use for individuals with this type of knowledge, then you would expect the wages for individuals with this degree to be low. However, unlike in a command economy, this doesn’t mean an individual can’t pursue this course of study, but it does indicate that the workforce may not need this type of worker at this time and the chances of a person with this field of study finding gainful employment and getting a return on his or her education in the field are limited or perhaps even nonexistent. When you say everyone should get student loans without regard for the market need or assert that college should be free for all, you distort the market and run the risk of producing individuals with skills, which aren’t needed in the economy. This is malinvestment. Government by offering something for nothing invests in skills, which the job market doesn’t need. The ordinary market price forces are disregarded and the result is a class of educated unemployed. Frequently this malinvestment is at the expense of other needed productive jobs which go unfilled.

What about the Minimum Wage increase arguments. Everyone wants more money. Not everyone requires or will demand $15.00 per hour for their services. Additionally some industries simply will not support that wage level because people are unwilling to pay for the product or service at that cost. (Witness the elimination of the service station gas pump attendant) Additionally some people are willing to work for less. Perhaps they wish to supplement their income. ( e.g. retirees or those in school or the young starting their working careers) Some workers may simply wish to gain a foothold in a new occupation or may be workers achieving their full potential and the lower wage acts as motivation to the individual to change or increase their skill set to become a better contributing worker. Raising the minimum wage eliminates opportunities for some workers to enter the workforce and increases the demands of those, who formerly made more than minimum wage workers to increase their wages. finally some workers may simply make a choice to live at this pay level. People have free will and the poor will always be with us. These truths are difficult, but most adults will understand them if the arguments are made.

Conservatives need to stress the concept of opportunity. We must teach others that society should always seek to maximize opportunity. This means we may have to educate the public about supply and demand. Remind the citizenry that competition is global and if we seek protectionism, we risk loss of market both now and in the future.

Remember protectionism takes many forms. Sometimes it may be disguised as a safety regulation, which limits innovation or prevents a new life saving drug from coming to market. (e.g. Regulations requiring that all autos must have steering wheels because consumers have always had them in cars. Steering levers, joy sticks or other control methods are prohibited or so severely disadvantaged that they are never pursued) Sometimes it protects groups by demanding a service be provided in a certain manner or referencing a certain pricing structure. (e.g. wages are preferred by government regulators to be priced per hour)

If we pursue protectionism, job loss will result as the competition elsewhere adjusts the price of their human resources and takes over markets. Unions are aghast at these market realities and refer to this as a race to the bottom. It is in fact a race to the top. The best prepared workers will produce the most goods and will be rewarded accordingly. (Wage increases occur even in the absence of unions) Innovative companies will gain market share at the expense of those, who lag behind. Don’t be a laggard, if you want to get ahead!

We must encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. This must occur in commerce as well as those sectors traditionally done in the public sector. We must encourage lifelong skill development. This by the way is not the continuing education requirements imposed on industries by government, but rather concrete targeted training, which is market driven and serves the purpose of increasing worker preparedness and productivity. Educational requirements imposed by governments are all too often simply protectionist measures intended to favor their donor constituents. More is not necessarily better.

Movement toward targeted lifelong education will make some educators and administrators uncomfortable and may mean some employment displacement, but will result in an updated workforce and should result in increased employment over the long term. Conservatives will have to explain this idea to their donors and educational professionals, who favor a more traditional and less focused educational model. There will be failures and unfortunately educational mills. Education is an industry and it will have institutions, which will innovate and fail or simply be fraudulent. It has failures now! The market will reward the best and jettison the rest and the individuals will vote with their dollars as to whether an educational service should be continued.

Conservatives must educate the populace in economics and the value of markets in economic growth. This is not a thirty second campaign. Conservatives thus far have done a poor job in conveying their message. Liberals have characterized market forces as ruinous or villainous. Many times it is legislation, which distorts the market and causes long term human misery and long term market problems. Markets are not good or bad. They are pricing tools for goods and services. The nation that harnesses education, so that needed skills can quickly be adapted and acquired as needed for growth will truly be the nation of opportunity. It all begins with a market savvy populace.

Conservatives, if you want to win, educate the populace on market theory and opportunity. Use concrete examples. Make the public aware of the damage done by government malinvestment. Not every public works project even if it be a bridge, road or building project in your hometown assists economic growth. Remember scarcity still exists as does global competition and those, who fail to produce what the world needs are destined to fail. Government does not create jobs, but malinvestment and over regulation by government certainly can retard growth and job development.

Conservative politicians should be at work targeting removal of protectionist regulations. A party, which doesn’t hold the office of the executive can still propose changes, which limit government and promote market access. This type of pre-election legislative targeting, if explained properly could be a catapult to winning future executive and legislative office. Currently, conservative politicians simply languish in the shadows and shout “Wait till next time!”. This type of wait and see attitude allows the forces of the left to capture more and more of an educationally deprived electorate. Education must occur before during and after the election cycle. It must be ongoing, continuous and contain a feedback loop, which measures success outside the election cycle.

Educational accreditation in private and public sector institutions should be scrutinized to assure that they serve a valid purpose of enhancing the educational experience and are not being employed simply to prop up existing institutions or limit field access. This scrutiny can be initiated in the private sector. If an institution produces candidates for positions that meet business needs, then candidates from that institution should receive employment offers. This will in the short term lead to unrest in human resource departments and even at the executive levels. There will be new searches required without the old yard markers and goal posts of the past. Merit and productivity should become the new king of industry. Companies must cease giving only lip service to “professional recruitment”. No longer should the junior human resource assistant be permitted to screen applications and no longer can the technocrat write job descriptions. This type of recruitment has produced the great fails of the latter part of the twentieth century and are not consistent with the new concept of continuous education.

Conservatives must lead these educational initiatives. Remember conservatives, it’s voter education, stupid!

Failure to connect the dots!

Watch any news broadcast about terrorism and you will hear the cliche “failure  to connect the dots”.  This phrase is usually associated with a failure of a government agency to link information in its possession to a future terrorist attack.  We have become accustomed to hearing this phrase repeated ad nauseum with every new terror incident.  The government is not the only entity, which fails to connect the dots.  Witness the failures of fourth estate. (the traditional media)

The press has been relied upon as the check on government.  It has been referred to as the watchdog of a free society.  This watchdog has become the ultimate pet with liberals and conservatives each supporting their own pets.  Refer to my prior post.   How many conservative or liberal news outlets pursue in depth investigations when, comments are made by “their side”.  They seldom if ever pursue an objective investigation of the other side.  It is easier to just report what is said even when what is said is simply an obfuscation or contains glaring inaccuracies.

Research uses resources, both human and financial.  We live in a twenty four seven news cycle and a market where traditional media is in decline.  It is expensive to do research, so we depend on less experienced employees, who spoon feed the “on air talent”.

What is the result of this?  No one in the media connects the dots.  The viewers see the same tired quotes repeated over and over again throughout the day and in the case of many outlets repeated over and over within the same hour of any given day.  Analysts appear and repeat the party talking points, while the facts are never explored.

Witness one Hillary Clinton, who is heard repeating her talking points about never sending emails marked as classified or top secret.  The lapdogs play her comments over and over.  They parse her words instead of asking simple questions.  Is this the type of conduct expected of the most experienced and qualified female attorney in the U.S.?  What should be expected from someone with her background and experience?  Does it really matter whether her conduct reaches the threshold of criminality, when she is seeking the highest office in the land?  The Clintons learned the game long ago.  Repeat a line often enough and it becomes tomorrow’s fact.

Meanwhile a plethora of political operatives flood the airwaves masquerading as political analysts and proclaim the depth and breath of Ms Clinton’s experience, yet no one really can cite accomplishments.   As a matter of fact, her history is riddled with failure.  Her healthcare reform in the nineties was a failure.  She failed to understand the will of the voters of that time.  Her time in the Senate as a  carpetbag New York Senator was unremarkable.

The airwaves are filled with platitudes yet her time as Secretary of State will be known for her failure to protect state secrets not her brilliant foreign policy strategies.  Now she talks of her opponent’s temperament.  No one explores her character.  No one connects the dots.  How can the most qualified candidate ever and a brilliant politician be such an abject failure?  Why does she always try to have the public judge her conduct by a criminality standard.  (If it’s not criminal,then it’s okay?)

Now witness one Donald Trump.  The conservative media fawns over his decisiveness and his willingness to fight.  Never do they bother to ask, if this is the way an individual seeking the highest office in the land should conduct himself.  It doesn’t matter whether his outbursts have any basis in fact.  He is permitted to whine about how he is characterized in the media, yet thinks nothing of resorting to calling his opponents names.  Truth is not important, as long as the comments are directed at others.

He brings ratings.  He threatens defamation suits, never realizing he is a public figure and the standard for defamation is and should be higher.  The media doesn’t report the consequences of the changes he says should occur to the standard for defamation even though his proposals would severely limit free speech in political contests. What needs to happen?  The dots need to be connected.  The public has a right to more than the superficial pablum served up by the media sycophants.

Character assassination is the hallmark of  Donald Trump’s campaign, yet no one in the conservative media does any more than report what he says.  They would rather photograph an empty podium, then make an investment in researching, whether what he says has any basis in fact.   Chants of “Trump! Trump! Trump!” bring increased audience.  Catering to him by referring to him as Mr. Trump is easier than calling him out for his boorish name calling behavior  The media never connects the dots.  They would rather report on the horse race than give the public information necessary to make an informed decision.

So what are we left with at a crucial time in our nation’s history?  A name calling contest.  A choice between two unvetted political lightweights.  Neither has been truly tested by the fourth estate.  So what do I say ” a pox on all of your houses”.  Now we can only hope one of these two pretenders steps up and becomes a leader.  The country hangs in the balance!