Everything one does has elements of self definition, even when acquiescing to social norms and/or power structures that define a set of rules that we must work within (since one may either choose not to oppose them or make their decisions in accordance with these norms or structures). If that acquiescence is purely intentional, then one may very well have the capacity to self definition without needing to diverge from norms.
Although social convention may tend to act somewhat against self definition in the strictest sense, it is also a required context for identity since, as social beings, we ultimately define ourselves in relation to our own community and other communities. After all, what sort of genuine individuality could be expressed by defining oneself in comparison to a monkey? We define ourselves in comparison to, and in contradiction to, other humans.
Economic factors may exclude some people from self definition if they must spend all their time working for basic survival and have no remaining energy to explore their being as a creative and thinking entity.
Trying to define self definition is, truly, a self-defeating thing to try to do, since it would suppose that some individual could understand what that would mean for each person. It would refer to things that are contingent on one’s own passions, sense of rationality, and their current context and past experiences.
Being influenced or guided by social convention is not in itself a bad thing. Being aware of the ways in which we are shaped by our social circumstance allows us to be more intentional about how we choose to define our own social, political and economic context. Many people read Foucault and decide to reject the social and political power structures or regimes that they face in society. I do not think this is what he was trying to do. I think he was trying to make us more aware of them so we contemplate how to maintain our capacity to self definition without compromising our willingness to play an active role in maintaining the practical economic benefits offered by being a part of a society where people respect rules and conventions.
The capacity to self definition could arguably be the ideal goal of democratic ideals. This is certainly more meaningful than the principle of 50% +1 majoritarian principles, although they do tend to be a convenient shortcut to making some kinds of decisions.
In short, the possibility of genuine spiritual and economic freedom may exist even when bound by sets of rules and conventions that shape one’s daily decisions. That scope of potentiality, however, generally only exists when the individual’s ability to participate in efforts to shape those very rules and conventions is presumed to be a legitimate and desirable use of one’s spiritual, political and economic self.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
to meat or not to meat. Is it natural?
I just read an article on Alternet that claims that eating meat is not natural. I'm not a meat eater, and sincerely believe that steering clear of the stuff is a much better way to live one's life. In any case, this is what I had to say about the article, which was riddled with half truths bordering on falsehoods.
To start with:
- eating meat IS natural. Humans are designed expressly to be able to eat either meat or other types of products. Hence being called omnivores, not herbivores. This is the same argument that I make when people try to tell me it's natural to eat meat. That's wrong too. It's natural to be able to do one or the other, and we have the choice.
- access to protein is a key ingredient for growth. When we started to hunt, we got the ability to access concentrated packets of protein. (We can now do so by cultivating plants with a high concentration of protein.) Getting so much bang for your buck in terms of protein would have been a huge advantage for any group of early humans who learned to hunt, since they could grow bigger and faster, and out-compete their neighbours (until farming came along, of course, which is arguably much less "natural" than eating meat).
- animals that eat plant products have long digestive systems because it takes so long for our enzymes to act on plant materials to be able to digest them. The logic of the argument that carnivores have short intestines to get rid of toxins quickly is back-asswards. Carnivores have short intestinal systems because, after chewing, meat degrades and can be digested quickly (not to dispel rotting flesh quickly.) This has been proven by comparative physiology that looks at the concentration of nitrogen (read protein) and materials that are hard to digest, such as cellulose, in animals diets, compared with properties of animal digestive systems. We need long digestive systems to be able to digest plants, not the other way around (although there are many more specifics to the story).
- also, the idea of bringing heart disease and cancer related to meat eating into an evolutionary argument is a joke. Heart disease and cancer, especially when correlated with meat eating, generally affect people well after their child bearing years, and therefore has limited (if any) relevance to an evolutionary argument.
- our hands may not be designed to tear flesh, but our opposable thumb is designed to make and use tools that do the job for us, while our large brain can figure out how best to close in for the kill. As such, the argument that our difficulty of shredding prey with our bare hands is evidence that eating meat is unnatural bears little relation to our biological and social evolution as humans.
Finally, I do believe that the vegetarian diet, if it follows some basic principles of variety, can be far more healthy than a diet that includes meat.
Eating meat is perfectly natural, but so is not eating meat, but given the health complications of eating meat and incredible inefficiency of producing protein in the form of meat, the choice not to do so is better for both us and the planet.
To start with:
- eating meat IS natural. Humans are designed expressly to be able to eat either meat or other types of products. Hence being called omnivores, not herbivores. This is the same argument that I make when people try to tell me it's natural to eat meat. That's wrong too. It's natural to be able to do one or the other, and we have the choice.
- access to protein is a key ingredient for growth. When we started to hunt, we got the ability to access concentrated packets of protein. (We can now do so by cultivating plants with a high concentration of protein.) Getting so much bang for your buck in terms of protein would have been a huge advantage for any group of early humans who learned to hunt, since they could grow bigger and faster, and out-compete their neighbours (until farming came along, of course, which is arguably much less "natural" than eating meat).
- animals that eat plant products have long digestive systems because it takes so long for our enzymes to act on plant materials to be able to digest them. The logic of the argument that carnivores have short intestines to get rid of toxins quickly is back-asswards. Carnivores have short intestinal systems because, after chewing, meat degrades and can be digested quickly (not to dispel rotting flesh quickly.) This has been proven by comparative physiology that looks at the concentration of nitrogen (read protein) and materials that are hard to digest, such as cellulose, in animals diets, compared with properties of animal digestive systems. We need long digestive systems to be able to digest plants, not the other way around (although there are many more specifics to the story).
- also, the idea of bringing heart disease and cancer related to meat eating into an evolutionary argument is a joke. Heart disease and cancer, especially when correlated with meat eating, generally affect people well after their child bearing years, and therefore has limited (if any) relevance to an evolutionary argument.
- our hands may not be designed to tear flesh, but our opposable thumb is designed to make and use tools that do the job for us, while our large brain can figure out how best to close in for the kill. As such, the argument that our difficulty of shredding prey with our bare hands is evidence that eating meat is unnatural bears little relation to our biological and social evolution as humans.
Finally, I do believe that the vegetarian diet, if it follows some basic principles of variety, can be far more healthy than a diet that includes meat.
Eating meat is perfectly natural, but so is not eating meat, but given the health complications of eating meat and incredible inefficiency of producing protein in the form of meat, the choice not to do so is better for both us and the planet.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
the rare I told you so
I'm not usually the kind of person to say "I told you so", especially since it can ring false in hindsight. However, there are a couple of interesting cases that I feel like noting: first has to do with the financial crisis and the second has to do with a topic that is very much related to what I'm working on for my masters' thesis these days.
As for the financial crisis? Well, to my knowledge I was the first candidate for any political party anywhere in the world to state on the record (in a televised debate during which I more or less massacred the French language) that resolving the problems in financial markets would require a coordinated global response in terms of stimulus plans and easing problems in credit markets. (Actually, I am very much NOT a politician, but when offering to volunteer for the Green party before the last election, I was asked to be a candidate). In any case, this was ultimately the action that most governments ended up doing, in some part under pressures from experts at international institutions.
As for my particular area of interest? Well, I'm curious about the relations between violent conflict and agriculture. I happened to read last week that the recent revolution in Madagascar was largely a response to efforts to lease out land to foreign owners. The problem is that this would have pushed farmers off of land that they currently cultivate, but over which they have no secure rights. Somewhat against the primary thrust of what I'm working on was that they engaged in conflict to ensure their property rights, but the idea that the prospect of reduced certainty about tenure can have a vicious feedback cycle still rings through. In fact, the model that I'm working towards would exactly have predicted that the strategy being used in Madagascar would have increased the probability of conflict.
This is especially important because there are a large number of similar deals presently being negotiated. The benefits, of course, are the influx of foreign capital, which are important. But, without addressing the needs and 'rights' of traditional land users, the effects could be colossal. These negotiations will either have to take care of the interests of farmers who will lose their land or look towards moving to a draconian police state to prevent major civil conflict. The question might be: which types of institutions are likely to imply that governments would prefer the first approach to the second? Not exactly what I'm working on right now (which I figured out yesterday how to explain in precisely 12 words), but it is an important question nonetheless.
Anyways, there's an "I told you so" about two huge issues, the second of which is still enormously in play.
As for the financial crisis? Well, to my knowledge I was the first candidate for any political party anywhere in the world to state on the record (in a televised debate during which I more or less massacred the French language) that resolving the problems in financial markets would require a coordinated global response in terms of stimulus plans and easing problems in credit markets. (Actually, I am very much NOT a politician, but when offering to volunteer for the Green party before the last election, I was asked to be a candidate). In any case, this was ultimately the action that most governments ended up doing, in some part under pressures from experts at international institutions.
As for my particular area of interest? Well, I'm curious about the relations between violent conflict and agriculture. I happened to read last week that the recent revolution in Madagascar was largely a response to efforts to lease out land to foreign owners. The problem is that this would have pushed farmers off of land that they currently cultivate, but over which they have no secure rights. Somewhat against the primary thrust of what I'm working on was that they engaged in conflict to ensure their property rights, but the idea that the prospect of reduced certainty about tenure can have a vicious feedback cycle still rings through. In fact, the model that I'm working towards would exactly have predicted that the strategy being used in Madagascar would have increased the probability of conflict.
This is especially important because there are a large number of similar deals presently being negotiated. The benefits, of course, are the influx of foreign capital, which are important. But, without addressing the needs and 'rights' of traditional land users, the effects could be colossal. These negotiations will either have to take care of the interests of farmers who will lose their land or look towards moving to a draconian police state to prevent major civil conflict. The question might be: which types of institutions are likely to imply that governments would prefer the first approach to the second? Not exactly what I'm working on right now (which I figured out yesterday how to explain in precisely 12 words), but it is an important question nonetheless.
Anyways, there's an "I told you so" about two huge issues, the second of which is still enormously in play.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
how not to find peace - how to travel the world - the real roots of the crisis
Some people have difficulty understanding why the Palestinians are pissed off. Consider the following quote, relating to a piece of legislation that is on the table in Israel at the moment:
"Palestinian Israelis who mark Israel's independence day as their people's nakba (catastrophe) "exploit the democratic and enlightened character of the State of Israel in order to destroy it from within" - and would be punishable under the bill by up to three years in prison."
My question is simple: does this bill reduce or increase the probability that some individual Palestinians will be interested in joining violent militias.
Targeting civilians is always wrong, whether the perpetrator is a suicide bomber or state. I am also quite sympathetic to arguments of Israel's right to self defence. But sorry, when sand is thrown in the eyes of the prospective terrorist, don't be surprised at the results. Palestinians must learn to live with Israeli's as neighbours in their community, at the household and regional level. The converse is clearly the case as well. The bill outlined by the above quote is in no way illustrative of a people who wish to live in peace with their neighbours.
The historical suffering of the Jews is a reality. Let its memory not be abused to justify the suffering of another group of dispossessed people.
____________________________
Some people have sometimes wondered how it is that someone who has never earned more than 20k in any year (typically much less than that) has managed to travel substantial parts of the world before their 30th birthday. Well, it didn't hurt that money from my grandmother almost entirely paid of my student loan after my first year of university, but aside from that ...
The answer is very simple: I don't own a car and am almost completely indifferent to luxury.
________________________________________
Digging deeper into history for factors leading to the present economic crisis ...
Here is the argument - the move to flexible exchange rate regimes in Asia in the 80s and 90s is an important factor to consider when looking to the roots of the current financial crisis. I should explicitly say that this is not an argument against flexible exchange rate systems. I think the benefits outweigh the costs, but the costs may have been overlooked to some extent, due to the effects that they may have when countries look to reduce capital flight exchange rate risks associated with a flexible rate system.
The argument is actually fairly simply. Asian countries move to a flexible exchange rate system. This makes the Asian financial crisis possible because it allows credit market problems to multiply risks under capital flight, because Asian central banks had too little foreign currency on hand to ride through the crisis. After 1998, their strategy to minimize risks of capital flight and speculation under a flexible exchange rate regime was to pile on foreign reserves (especially US dollars). Had Asian central banks not, as a group, bought trillions of dollars worth of US treasury bills and bonds, the low interest rate policy following the 2001-2002 recession would never have worked, since there would not have been enough demand for these bonds at such low rates. Quite importantly, people who are looking for the historical roots of the crisis often look to that extended period of low interest rates as the cause of the subprime crisis because it underpriced risk in US mortgage markets.
Don't see the connection? Let's try it in reverse chronological order this time. The current crisis was largely triggered by the subprime crisis (although it was multiplied by the amount of leverage that financial institutions took out through various forms of derivatives). The subprime crisis was only possible with an extended regime of very low interest rates (although securitization very much exacerbated the problem). The extended regime of low interest rates was only possible due to the enormous appetite that Asian central banks had for foreign currency reserves, especially for US dollars. This appetite for foreign reserves was a byproduct of the Asian financial crisis. Especially, the desire to use foreign currency reserves to hold out against the risk of a speculative attack on a currency. Such risks are only possible in a flexible exchange rate regime. Hence, the introduction of flexible exchange rate regimes in Asia as a necessary (although clearly not sufficient) cause for the present global crisis.
Again, this is not an argument against flexible exchange rate regimes. They are a key ingredient for markets to find "efficient" prices. However, the argument does point to the fact that the indirect effects that shifts between exchange rate regimes have on global macroeconomic disequilibria have received rather insufficient attention.
Why is this important? Well, one of the largest issues on the table concerning global macroeconomic disequilibria is China's lack of interest in adopting a flexible exchange rate regime. What would China's optimal holdings of various international currencies be under a flexible exchange rate regime, and how would this affect risk evaluations among other market actors? What are possible long term effects of these decisions?
I don't think that history can precisely repeat itself, but that's not to say that we can't learn a whole lot from it. Let's not rush into a flexible exchange rate regime for the Yuan until central bankers in the world's largest currency areas (US, China, Japan, EU) have had a chance to carry out cooperative analysis of possible long term effects of a fully convertible Yuan.
"Palestinian Israelis who mark Israel's independence day as their people's nakba (catastrophe) "exploit the democratic and enlightened character of the State of Israel in order to destroy it from within" - and would be punishable under the bill by up to three years in prison."
My question is simple: does this bill reduce or increase the probability that some individual Palestinians will be interested in joining violent militias.
Targeting civilians is always wrong, whether the perpetrator is a suicide bomber or state. I am also quite sympathetic to arguments of Israel's right to self defence. But sorry, when sand is thrown in the eyes of the prospective terrorist, don't be surprised at the results. Palestinians must learn to live with Israeli's as neighbours in their community, at the household and regional level. The converse is clearly the case as well. The bill outlined by the above quote is in no way illustrative of a people who wish to live in peace with their neighbours.
The historical suffering of the Jews is a reality. Let its memory not be abused to justify the suffering of another group of dispossessed people.
____________________________
Some people have sometimes wondered how it is that someone who has never earned more than 20k in any year (typically much less than that) has managed to travel substantial parts of the world before their 30th birthday. Well, it didn't hurt that money from my grandmother almost entirely paid of my student loan after my first year of university, but aside from that ...
The answer is very simple: I don't own a car and am almost completely indifferent to luxury.
________________________________________
Digging deeper into history for factors leading to the present economic crisis ...
Here is the argument - the move to flexible exchange rate regimes in Asia in the 80s and 90s is an important factor to consider when looking to the roots of the current financial crisis. I should explicitly say that this is not an argument against flexible exchange rate systems. I think the benefits outweigh the costs, but the costs may have been overlooked to some extent, due to the effects that they may have when countries look to reduce capital flight exchange rate risks associated with a flexible rate system.
The argument is actually fairly simply. Asian countries move to a flexible exchange rate system. This makes the Asian financial crisis possible because it allows credit market problems to multiply risks under capital flight, because Asian central banks had too little foreign currency on hand to ride through the crisis. After 1998, their strategy to minimize risks of capital flight and speculation under a flexible exchange rate regime was to pile on foreign reserves (especially US dollars). Had Asian central banks not, as a group, bought trillions of dollars worth of US treasury bills and bonds, the low interest rate policy following the 2001-2002 recession would never have worked, since there would not have been enough demand for these bonds at such low rates. Quite importantly, people who are looking for the historical roots of the crisis often look to that extended period of low interest rates as the cause of the subprime crisis because it underpriced risk in US mortgage markets.
Don't see the connection? Let's try it in reverse chronological order this time. The current crisis was largely triggered by the subprime crisis (although it was multiplied by the amount of leverage that financial institutions took out through various forms of derivatives). The subprime crisis was only possible with an extended regime of very low interest rates (although securitization very much exacerbated the problem). The extended regime of low interest rates was only possible due to the enormous appetite that Asian central banks had for foreign currency reserves, especially for US dollars. This appetite for foreign reserves was a byproduct of the Asian financial crisis. Especially, the desire to use foreign currency reserves to hold out against the risk of a speculative attack on a currency. Such risks are only possible in a flexible exchange rate regime. Hence, the introduction of flexible exchange rate regimes in Asia as a necessary (although clearly not sufficient) cause for the present global crisis.
Again, this is not an argument against flexible exchange rate regimes. They are a key ingredient for markets to find "efficient" prices. However, the argument does point to the fact that the indirect effects that shifts between exchange rate regimes have on global macroeconomic disequilibria have received rather insufficient attention.
Why is this important? Well, one of the largest issues on the table concerning global macroeconomic disequilibria is China's lack of interest in adopting a flexible exchange rate regime. What would China's optimal holdings of various international currencies be under a flexible exchange rate regime, and how would this affect risk evaluations among other market actors? What are possible long term effects of these decisions?
I don't think that history can precisely repeat itself, but that's not to say that we can't learn a whole lot from it. Let's not rush into a flexible exchange rate regime for the Yuan until central bankers in the world's largest currency areas (US, China, Japan, EU) have had a chance to carry out cooperative analysis of possible long term effects of a fully convertible Yuan.
Monday, June 1, 2009
the early retirement subsidy - the undesirability of Too Big To Fail
When the CPP started, life expectancy was 67. Today it is nearly 80, but the CPP continues to pay out as of one`s 65th birthday. Combined with rising health costs, we are paying through the teeth to subsidize our elder's early retirement.
Medical advances, most of which cost a lot of money, allow us to live longer and generally better lives. This gain has largely been transformed into a gain for those who benefit from subsidized early retirement. The solution, as proposed numerous times before, is that retirement ages have to go up. People can still retire when they want, but it should not be seen as a public right that the rest of us should have to subsidize an early retirement.
I don't propose significant changes to health care costs associated with an aging population, rather, that our social safety net should not be set up in a way that encourages people not to plan for their own retirement, all the while encouraging them to go into retirement when they may well continue to fruitfully labor on.
Unfortunately, many people have already made savings decisions that rely on assumptions about the nature of public income provisions beyond the age of 65. As such, any changes to the age where people become eligible for old age income supports, and perhaps also the CPP, should rise fairly slowly. It would be quite unreasonable to suppose that we should say to people who are presently 63 years old that their planned retirement date should move back by 2 or 5 years. A month or two would be much easier to swallow, and if they already had fixed plans then all they would be missing out on would be a couple of months of CPP payments. Perhaps a one month per year over 60years would be reasonable. Given ongoing medical developments and greater public knowledge of lifestyle choices that are conducive to a long and healthy life, presumably the life expectancy in Canada will be higher in 2070 than it is today, making a retirement age of 70 years old reasonable by that point in time.
Until some such changes are put into action, the Canadian tax code will continue to subsidize early retirement at a significant cost to the younger tax-paying generation as well as economic potential. Given concerns about the effects of declining population growth on the labour market, such a policy a) mitigates the undesirable side effects of slowing population growth, allowing society to benefit from the skills and experience that older workers have developed through their careers and b) limits the cost of subsidized early retirement to the tax-paying youth of today.
____________________________
I read an argument that Germany's financial sector is at a disadvantage because regulations limit mergers in the sector.
I have one main thing to say. "To big to fail" is not a feature of a desirable market structure.
How desirable has that proven to be? Economies of scale in marketing and synergies in operation aside, it seems that once again, a childhood expression yields insight that persists over the years. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. German banks may, on average, be somewhat less profitable than their more aggregated international peers, but German taxpayers will presumably never not face the burden of hundreds of billions of Euros for bailouts for companies that were too big to fail.
Their smaller banks also face greater incentive to differentiate themselves and experiment in innovative marketing and business methods. It seems to me, particularly when faced with evidence of the enormous failures of the highly aggregated American financial system, that placing limits on bank size carries certain benefits in terms of limiting risks and encouraging banks to become profitable through offering tailored products to market segments.
In short, I am doubtful that the benefits of banks that are "too big to fail" outweigh the costs. Perhaps we could learn something from the German model of financial markets, much like the world could learn something from the Canadian regulatory framework.
Medical advances, most of which cost a lot of money, allow us to live longer and generally better lives. This gain has largely been transformed into a gain for those who benefit from subsidized early retirement. The solution, as proposed numerous times before, is that retirement ages have to go up. People can still retire when they want, but it should not be seen as a public right that the rest of us should have to subsidize an early retirement.
I don't propose significant changes to health care costs associated with an aging population, rather, that our social safety net should not be set up in a way that encourages people not to plan for their own retirement, all the while encouraging them to go into retirement when they may well continue to fruitfully labor on.
Unfortunately, many people have already made savings decisions that rely on assumptions about the nature of public income provisions beyond the age of 65. As such, any changes to the age where people become eligible for old age income supports, and perhaps also the CPP, should rise fairly slowly. It would be quite unreasonable to suppose that we should say to people who are presently 63 years old that their planned retirement date should move back by 2 or 5 years. A month or two would be much easier to swallow, and if they already had fixed plans then all they would be missing out on would be a couple of months of CPP payments. Perhaps a one month per year over 60years would be reasonable. Given ongoing medical developments and greater public knowledge of lifestyle choices that are conducive to a long and healthy life, presumably the life expectancy in Canada will be higher in 2070 than it is today, making a retirement age of 70 years old reasonable by that point in time.
Until some such changes are put into action, the Canadian tax code will continue to subsidize early retirement at a significant cost to the younger tax-paying generation as well as economic potential. Given concerns about the effects of declining population growth on the labour market, such a policy a) mitigates the undesirable side effects of slowing population growth, allowing society to benefit from the skills and experience that older workers have developed through their careers and b) limits the cost of subsidized early retirement to the tax-paying youth of today.
____________________________
I read an argument that Germany's financial sector is at a disadvantage because regulations limit mergers in the sector.
I have one main thing to say. "To big to fail" is not a feature of a desirable market structure.
How desirable has that proven to be? Economies of scale in marketing and synergies in operation aside, it seems that once again, a childhood expression yields insight that persists over the years. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. German banks may, on average, be somewhat less profitable than their more aggregated international peers, but German taxpayers will presumably never not face the burden of hundreds of billions of Euros for bailouts for companies that were too big to fail.
Their smaller banks also face greater incentive to differentiate themselves and experiment in innovative marketing and business methods. It seems to me, particularly when faced with evidence of the enormous failures of the highly aggregated American financial system, that placing limits on bank size carries certain benefits in terms of limiting risks and encouraging banks to become profitable through offering tailored products to market segments.
In short, I am doubtful that the benefits of banks that are "too big to fail" outweigh the costs. Perhaps we could learn something from the German model of financial markets, much like the world could learn something from the Canadian regulatory framework.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
minimum wages - just equilibria - uniqueness of the moment
Been pretty busy for a while. Haven`t even been writing down stuff that I plan to write about, but in any case here are a couple thoughts that stuck, in short form. It would be interesting to develop them more thoroughly later on.
______________________________
First:
Increasing minimum wages may be good for long term economic growth.
The logic? A simple economic argument and three lines (plus a dotted one) on a graph can be used to show that increasing the minimum wage will increase short term unemployment. This means that there are more workers competing for jobs. This gives them incentives to go and improve their skills, either through education or apprenticeships or whatever. Since wages are higher, and it is harder to find those jobs, they face an absolutely higher incentive to improve their productivity. Productivity is, at the root, the sole basis of long term per capita economic growth. When people are more skilled they can be more efficiently combined with capital, making returns to capital higher. This also acts as an incentive to investment in technology. ALL of which are good for productivity. Again, the basis of per capita economic growth.
However, there is an important effect pulling against this. Higher wages also have a marginal effect of reducing returns to capital in the short run. This reduces the funds available to companies for investment. It is certain that this effect will be larger for SOME companies in the mid to long term than the effect of having more talented workers in the labour pool, but which effect is larger is a matter of debate. Incidentally, higher wages themselves act as a direct incentive to investment in technologies to save money on labour. When technological progress is achieved, each hour of labour can become more valuable.
THUS, there is a very solid argument in favour of the proposition that increasing a minimum wage can be beneficial for long term economic growth via its effects on technical progress (people need to improve skills, companies want to spend on technology, and technology companies have more reason to suppose that there will be markets for products that they will invest in producing).
Obviously this does not mean that minimum wages should be raised ad infinitum. It does, however, imply that the economically optimal level of unemployment, as determined by minimum wages, is likely to be quite a bit higher than full employment. Not, as sometimes argued, because a pool of unemployed cheap labour is good for business, rather, because this creates incentives for workers and companies to take steps to become more productive.
________________________________
This one is tougher ...
Think Bentham's panopticon, J S Mill's discussion of behaviour as limited by socially acceptable norms, Foucault and docile bodies and the state's ability to control behaviour just by surveiling the public, the conspiracy theory movie called "Enemy of The State", China's use of online monitoring, Britain's use of CCTVs, and finally, the enormous power held in the hands of the global public via the internet and mobile telephony.
Conclusion?
Well ... Technology has significantly increased the state's ability to impose it's power by surveiling the public. This carries certain risks. However, technology has increased the public's power to monitor, record and disseminate information about actions of the state. (Clearly this is not absolute, but surely more so than before). It has also increased the public's power to maintain some level of panopticon-like social observation, with the sheer number of cameras on phones, etc, around the world, that can instantly transmit information just about anywhere.
The result is perhaps a fairly just equilibrium, with a balance achieved with the combination of society's ability to maintain soft social pressure via perceived possibility of observation, society's ability to observe and disseminate information about the government, and the state's ability to use its surveiling capacity such that the dominant forces in society can feel sufficeintly comforted that they will not wish to impose more draconian forms of state intrusion that carry the risk of driving the public to turn things upside down.
All, of course, with two implicit assumptions: first, that the arms of the state are fairly accepted or tolerated by a fairly substantial portion of society, and that they also generally represent the public interest including at least some diversity of groups, and second, that there exists some mechanism through which society's ability to monitor the state places either implicit or direct limits on the state's use of coercive power such that it is not deemed as unacceptable (at least not sufficiently unacceptable to drive revolutionary fervour) by a substantial portion of the society
Of course, if the state limits the ability of citizens to disseminate information or filters such information (with reasonable allowances for state security, etc), then no such equilibrium can be achieved.
That is to say that I think we are not particularly far from this just equilibrium (at least here in Canada), but that both the public and the state should remain vigilant to ensure that we do not sway too far either way. Neither the chaos of unlimited freedoms nor the chains of imposed order are desirable. As Rousseau argued, we are in a sense forced to be free by social and state rules. At the end of the day, the subtle nature of social coercion in the information age may leave a space for us all to be more free, so long as this just equilibrium is maintained.
_______________
Think Douglas Adams and the improbability drive. Think infinite time and infinite numbers of particles, each of which are made of a finite number of constituents in a finite number of states. Consider any given object as being defined in physical or conceptual relation to, or opposition to, all other entities.
Is it possible for the same thing to happen twice?
What are the ontological implications of an answer to the negative as opposed to an answer to the affirmative?
What parameters are needed to answer these questions? Can it be supposed that empiricism has anything meaningful to offer to such contemplation?
______________________________
First:
Increasing minimum wages may be good for long term economic growth.
The logic? A simple economic argument and three lines (plus a dotted one) on a graph can be used to show that increasing the minimum wage will increase short term unemployment. This means that there are more workers competing for jobs. This gives them incentives to go and improve their skills, either through education or apprenticeships or whatever. Since wages are higher, and it is harder to find those jobs, they face an absolutely higher incentive to improve their productivity. Productivity is, at the root, the sole basis of long term per capita economic growth. When people are more skilled they can be more efficiently combined with capital, making returns to capital higher. This also acts as an incentive to investment in technology. ALL of which are good for productivity. Again, the basis of per capita economic growth.
However, there is an important effect pulling against this. Higher wages also have a marginal effect of reducing returns to capital in the short run. This reduces the funds available to companies for investment. It is certain that this effect will be larger for SOME companies in the mid to long term than the effect of having more talented workers in the labour pool, but which effect is larger is a matter of debate. Incidentally, higher wages themselves act as a direct incentive to investment in technologies to save money on labour. When technological progress is achieved, each hour of labour can become more valuable.
THUS, there is a very solid argument in favour of the proposition that increasing a minimum wage can be beneficial for long term economic growth via its effects on technical progress (people need to improve skills, companies want to spend on technology, and technology companies have more reason to suppose that there will be markets for products that they will invest in producing).
Obviously this does not mean that minimum wages should be raised ad infinitum. It does, however, imply that the economically optimal level of unemployment, as determined by minimum wages, is likely to be quite a bit higher than full employment. Not, as sometimes argued, because a pool of unemployed cheap labour is good for business, rather, because this creates incentives for workers and companies to take steps to become more productive.
________________________________
This one is tougher ...
Think Bentham's panopticon, J S Mill's discussion of behaviour as limited by socially acceptable norms, Foucault and docile bodies and the state's ability to control behaviour just by surveiling the public, the conspiracy theory movie called "Enemy of The State", China's use of online monitoring, Britain's use of CCTVs, and finally, the enormous power held in the hands of the global public via the internet and mobile telephony.
Conclusion?
Well ... Technology has significantly increased the state's ability to impose it's power by surveiling the public. This carries certain risks. However, technology has increased the public's power to monitor, record and disseminate information about actions of the state. (Clearly this is not absolute, but surely more so than before). It has also increased the public's power to maintain some level of panopticon-like social observation, with the sheer number of cameras on phones, etc, around the world, that can instantly transmit information just about anywhere.
The result is perhaps a fairly just equilibrium, with a balance achieved with the combination of society's ability to maintain soft social pressure via perceived possibility of observation, society's ability to observe and disseminate information about the government, and the state's ability to use its surveiling capacity such that the dominant forces in society can feel sufficeintly comforted that they will not wish to impose more draconian forms of state intrusion that carry the risk of driving the public to turn things upside down.
All, of course, with two implicit assumptions: first, that the arms of the state are fairly accepted or tolerated by a fairly substantial portion of society, and that they also generally represent the public interest including at least some diversity of groups, and second, that there exists some mechanism through which society's ability to monitor the state places either implicit or direct limits on the state's use of coercive power such that it is not deemed as unacceptable (at least not sufficiently unacceptable to drive revolutionary fervour) by a substantial portion of the society
Of course, if the state limits the ability of citizens to disseminate information or filters such information (with reasonable allowances for state security, etc), then no such equilibrium can be achieved.
That is to say that I think we are not particularly far from this just equilibrium (at least here in Canada), but that both the public and the state should remain vigilant to ensure that we do not sway too far either way. Neither the chaos of unlimited freedoms nor the chains of imposed order are desirable. As Rousseau argued, we are in a sense forced to be free by social and state rules. At the end of the day, the subtle nature of social coercion in the information age may leave a space for us all to be more free, so long as this just equilibrium is maintained.
_______________
Think Douglas Adams and the improbability drive. Think infinite time and infinite numbers of particles, each of which are made of a finite number of constituents in a finite number of states. Consider any given object as being defined in physical or conceptual relation to, or opposition to, all other entities.
Is it possible for the same thing to happen twice?
What are the ontological implications of an answer to the negative as opposed to an answer to the affirmative?
What parameters are needed to answer these questions? Can it be supposed that empiricism has anything meaningful to offer to such contemplation?
Saturday, March 21, 2009
6 in 1
A few interesting observations/conclusions/events this week:
___________________________________
“Keynesian” policies that make public investments should be highly effective at restoring economic growth when the economy is running below “full employment.” Otherwise, such policies should have little or no effect, being marginally positive in the long run if the returns to public investment is greater than returns to the resources remaining for investment after consumption, and marginally negative in the long run if the crowding out effect results in generally lower rates of technical progress.
Given the general assumption that entrepreneurship and technical innovation is more likely in private markets (regardless of whether they receive public support), I conclude that “Keynesians” may generally be more right than wrong in hard times and more wrong than right in good times.
(quotation marks used because what is generally called “Keynesian” economics is barely true at all to the actual works of Keynes, and is used as a blanket term to describe all economic arguments that favour public spending, often referred to in conjunction with the 1970s crises to discredit such approaches)
___________________________________
Consumption taxes should, in sum, after counting for other effects, be marginally effective at stimulating investment, since savings (which are then invested, in some manner or another) become relatively more valuable in relation to consumption.
This realization makes me happy for several reasons:
a) I have long argued for a revenue-neutral increase in consumption taxes, in order to fund lower income taxes. I like this because lowering taxes on labour improves the relative value of returns to investments in productivity, while increasing consumption taxes similarly increases the relative returns to investments in productivity,
b) productivity growth is the only basis for long term growth, and such an approach both improves private returns to productivity growth and acts as a disincentive to excessive consumption, a cause of significant environmental damage as well as enormous long-term fiscal disequilibria for private and public consumers,
c) there no is question whatsoever that the savings rate must rise in the medium term in most Western economics, and such a policy can accomplish a) and b) while simultaneously providing governments with the financial resources to provide services and improving the savings rate,
d) I have an ideological preference for taxing consumption rather than income (presuming that transfers are tweaked accordingly, such that real income remains unchanged), since it offers greater freedom for consumers to decide whether to save or spend their income. An income tax offers no choice on the matter, whereas a consumption tax allows the consumer to make the choice between savings and consumption. This is consistent with the micro-economic principle that the greater the portion of income that consumers are left to allocate independently, the more they are able to maximize their satisfaction according to their preferences, yielding a net improvement in the social outcome and consumer satisfaction, and
e) Finally, I’m happy about this because such a policy was just announced in Quebec. I have long railed against Harper and friends for being knobs for using an increase in income taxes to pay for a decrease in consumption taxes (the GST), and have hoped that provinces would take this chance to undo this move, either as a tool to improve public finances (the case for Quebec) or to decrease income taxes.
___________________________________
I was shocked to receive a grade of 0% on an essay exam written about the cancellation of the re-enactment on the Plains of Abraham. (and rest assured, it's not going to stay that way).
In general, I find that the people I meet in Quebec are quite respectful of various cultures, more so than I had supposed given the legal status of non-French rights in Quebec, as well as the media attention given to a handful of attempted xenophobic measures in certain municipalities. However, this is the first time that I have submitted something that was critical of the potential dark sides of Quebec nationalism (except for this article , which has been read by not a soul, to my knowledge). As such, I am left to conclude, for now, that I have been correct to express my concern in many-a-conversation over the years that Quebec nationalism risks becoming a negative vent for frustrations rather than a channel whereby the history and culture of this region can become a meaningful source of pride and identity.
My parody of an informative essay, which itself played with words and events surrounding this contentious re-enactment, was designed to be inflammatory on the one hand, but largely as an exploration of how the challenge of maintaining an strong, unique and independent culture in Quebec such that the act of celebration can itself become an effective cultural ambassador for the Quebecois.
___________________________________
An interesting example of journalistic manipulation on Radio-Canada I heard this morning: the first announcement of a $100 million dollar federal project to repair tourist destinations in Quebec City is immediately followed by a complaint that they didn’t even spend more money on some other project, then, an immediate a rapid switch, with barely the pause of a breath in between to… Four soldiers killed in Afghanistan, eight injured, including plenty of mentions of war and suffering.
The following program is about a francophone author from Manitoba, Gabriella Roy, who is presented as perhaps the best Canadian writer ever. Fine. Dandy. Second mention of $100 million of federal funding coming to Quebec City, immediately followed by complaints that they didn’t even provide more funding for some other projects, then, with a half a second pause … 15 year-old child killed in scooter accident. Awful, terrible. Suffering. War… goes on.
Already, after the first ploy, the immediate image that came to mind as they mentioned the project for the second time was the four dead soldiers that were tied to the project in the first announcement. I am readily susceptible to association by suggestion, but am typically being well aware of it when it happens.
I support journalistic freedom as a bedrock principle or a free society, but it seems to me that some of the producers and/or announcers at Radio-Canada in Quebec City are abusing their privilege of access to a large audience promote bad sentiment towards anything to do with any federal project or politician. This is something I had already noticed with the morning announcer (who is my alarm in the morning), who cuts off anyone who is on the verge of saying something that has positive connotations for anything federal, and then goes on to mock the argument or comment that was about to be said.
That would all be fine and dandy on a private network, but the notion of announcers, paid with federal money, using their access to manipulate an audience against all things federal, just rings wrong to me. In the interests of national unity, it is certainly not a smart idea to cut funding for the programs, but perhaps some directives of more objective reporting and commentary would be nice.
I suggest the following approach for the “journalist” to imbue their bias into today’s announcement: $100 million for repairs of tourism destinations in Quebec. The announcer, if he were up to date with local opinion surveys, could then accomplish his goal by alluding to the fact that these reconstructions will take place not far from the proposed site of the Plains of Abraham, leaving listeners to colour the story with their own preconceptions. However, the way that this was brazenly carried out this morning was certainly in breach of journalistic ethics, in the way that it overtly manipulated listeners’ mental associations with this sizeable public investment in tourist facilities in Quebec City.
___________________________________
I have long preferred to think of “problems” as “solutions waiting to happen.” However, there are numerous cases where this outlook is naïve, with complete solutions being unlikely or impossible. As such, I am generally a proponent of managing many kinds of problems rather than supposing that we can eradicate them.
The first application of this concept resulted from readings on the strategies to deal with criminality over the ages. One theme seems to be separating the deviants from society and the other is the idea that criminals can be rehabilitated, or at least forced to conform to social norms. In the absence of any convincing evidence that severity of punishment is an effective deterrent for most crimes (possibly because most offenders think they will get away with it), and ignoring the proclivity towards punishment as an animalistic reaction of vengeance rather than any sort of genuine solution towards deviant behaviour, I am left with segregation and rehabilitation as the dichotomous approaches. In the end, I reject this dichotomy in preference of managing deviance rather than abolishing or healing deviants.
This led to a months long project to evaluate GPS monitoring bracelets for non-dangerous offenders as a way to save money, improve inmates freedom and privacy (which could hardly be more impaired than it is in a prison), improves a societies productive potential, reduces the damaging effects that some criminality may have on children due to a ‘lost’ parent, and as a way to deter many types of crimes (just think, would you rather spend a month behind bars or three being tracked with a GPS bracelet.
This is only a minor technical modification of the conditional sentence, but one that makes conditional sentences rather than prison term practical for a greater number of cases. The costs and benefits, however, are hard to pin down, and it may be a politically difficult program to implement. Ironically, my laptop was stolen before I completed the project. Since then, I have never gone more than a few days without making a backup copy of all my work.
In any case, I only mention this project because it is where I came across the general notion that, given an enormous variety of behaviours among humans and differing views of what is acceptable, we should look to “manage deviants, rather than suppose that we can eradicate deviance.”
The main logic that drives this conclusion is that it is easier to influence (or even control) deviant or risky behaviours if they are in the open than if they are driven underground, outside public view. Of course, there are concerns on the outside limits that such a program could be abused to Orwellian proportions, which makes me hesitant to endorse GPS monitoring of criminal offenders on a large scale.
The logic that I came across is hardly original (although it was to me at the time). The most I can say is that it repackages common intuition from risk-management in enterprise and in finance into a language that may make it seem more applicable to other social or security problems.
A handful stand out to me, the last two of which are the main reason I jotted this down…
Given: we cannot eliminate risk in international financial systems, so we should look to regulatory systems that manage levels of systemic risk rather than trying to eliminate it.
Given: the production and consumption of drugs will not be eliminated any time soon, as evidenced by the near-total failure of incredibly expensive and draconian war on drugs, as well as thousands of years of experimentation with drugs across nearly all societies over history. Therefore, we should manage or regulate the production and consumption of drugs, bringing this social issue within the scope of public influence rather than driving it into the black market where the public has little or no influence.
Given: the risk of terrorism cannot even be eliminated entirely therefore we should look to manage the problem by reducing incentives for terrorism. This probably means taking measures to enhance education and economic opportunities among the populace in regions that tend to export terrorists. It also sensibly points to the need for some domestic security measures (roughly in proportion to the risk), but the impossibility of completely eradicating the risk implies that we rapidly reach a point where it is not worth it to allow our government to usurp ever more control and surveillance over the citizenry.
Given: the nascent Afghan state will not be a replica of American, British, German or Swiss democracy. Therefore, resolving the insurgency implies that any central authority in Afghanistan will have to manage the realities of shifting inter-tribal linkages and alliances, traditional preferences among many Afghani civilians and the fact that radical groups of Islam are a part of the present-day social milieu in Afghanistan. Economic development will not happen without security, but security will remain uncertain as long as Kabul is unable to manage the reality that political self-determination in Afghanistan has always (or at least for a very long time) been something that happens on a very localized level. Trying to supplant these traditional political structures gives local leaders something to fight for, so we must recognize that law develops as a combination of “what is” and “what ought to be”. Refusing to recognize the first of these phrases is a sure recipe for failure.
In short, manage reality wherever imposing the ideal “solution waiting to happen” is bound to fail.
___________________________________
Finally, a few short words of strategy in negotiating with terrorists in any case where a ransom is being considered at all: never, ever, consider a policy that directly or indirectly funnels money into terrorist hands. That’s nothing new (but points to an amazing absurdity in international drug laws).
However, I suggest that we should be prepared to give ground and carry out negotiations where militant groups are willing to specify their constituency, with the idea that engaging in public works for such a constituency acts as both an act of good faith and exposes the falsity of any claim to representing a constituency when a militant group is unwilling to engage in said style of negotiation.
Not always appropriate, but managing a conflict in such a manner may almost be consistent with the principle of viewing the world as a place that is full of “solutions waiting to happen.”
___________________________________
“Keynesian” policies that make public investments should be highly effective at restoring economic growth when the economy is running below “full employment.” Otherwise, such policies should have little or no effect, being marginally positive in the long run if the returns to public investment is greater than returns to the resources remaining for investment after consumption, and marginally negative in the long run if the crowding out effect results in generally lower rates of technical progress.
Given the general assumption that entrepreneurship and technical innovation is more likely in private markets (regardless of whether they receive public support), I conclude that “Keynesians” may generally be more right than wrong in hard times and more wrong than right in good times.
(quotation marks used because what is generally called “Keynesian” economics is barely true at all to the actual works of Keynes, and is used as a blanket term to describe all economic arguments that favour public spending, often referred to in conjunction with the 1970s crises to discredit such approaches)
___________________________________
Consumption taxes should, in sum, after counting for other effects, be marginally effective at stimulating investment, since savings (which are then invested, in some manner or another) become relatively more valuable in relation to consumption.
This realization makes me happy for several reasons:
a) I have long argued for a revenue-neutral increase in consumption taxes, in order to fund lower income taxes. I like this because lowering taxes on labour improves the relative value of returns to investments in productivity, while increasing consumption taxes similarly increases the relative returns to investments in productivity,
b) productivity growth is the only basis for long term growth, and such an approach both improves private returns to productivity growth and acts as a disincentive to excessive consumption, a cause of significant environmental damage as well as enormous long-term fiscal disequilibria for private and public consumers,
c) there no is question whatsoever that the savings rate must rise in the medium term in most Western economics, and such a policy can accomplish a) and b) while simultaneously providing governments with the financial resources to provide services and improving the savings rate,
d) I have an ideological preference for taxing consumption rather than income (presuming that transfers are tweaked accordingly, such that real income remains unchanged), since it offers greater freedom for consumers to decide whether to save or spend their income. An income tax offers no choice on the matter, whereas a consumption tax allows the consumer to make the choice between savings and consumption. This is consistent with the micro-economic principle that the greater the portion of income that consumers are left to allocate independently, the more they are able to maximize their satisfaction according to their preferences, yielding a net improvement in the social outcome and consumer satisfaction, and
e) Finally, I’m happy about this because such a policy was just announced in Quebec. I have long railed against Harper and friends for being knobs for using an increase in income taxes to pay for a decrease in consumption taxes (the GST), and have hoped that provinces would take this chance to undo this move, either as a tool to improve public finances (the case for Quebec) or to decrease income taxes.
___________________________________
I was shocked to receive a grade of 0% on an essay exam written about the cancellation of the re-enactment on the Plains of Abraham. (and rest assured, it's not going to stay that way).
In general, I find that the people I meet in Quebec are quite respectful of various cultures, more so than I had supposed given the legal status of non-French rights in Quebec, as well as the media attention given to a handful of attempted xenophobic measures in certain municipalities. However, this is the first time that I have submitted something that was critical of the potential dark sides of Quebec nationalism (except for this article , which has been read by not a soul, to my knowledge). As such, I am left to conclude, for now, that I have been correct to express my concern in many-a-conversation over the years that Quebec nationalism risks becoming a negative vent for frustrations rather than a channel whereby the history and culture of this region can become a meaningful source of pride and identity.
My parody of an informative essay, which itself played with words and events surrounding this contentious re-enactment, was designed to be inflammatory on the one hand, but largely as an exploration of how the challenge of maintaining an strong, unique and independent culture in Quebec such that the act of celebration can itself become an effective cultural ambassador for the Quebecois.
___________________________________
An interesting example of journalistic manipulation on Radio-Canada I heard this morning: the first announcement of a $100 million dollar federal project to repair tourist destinations in Quebec City is immediately followed by a complaint that they didn’t even spend more money on some other project, then, an immediate a rapid switch, with barely the pause of a breath in between to… Four soldiers killed in Afghanistan, eight injured, including plenty of mentions of war and suffering.
The following program is about a francophone author from Manitoba, Gabriella Roy, who is presented as perhaps the best Canadian writer ever. Fine. Dandy. Second mention of $100 million of federal funding coming to Quebec City, immediately followed by complaints that they didn’t even provide more funding for some other projects, then, with a half a second pause … 15 year-old child killed in scooter accident. Awful, terrible. Suffering. War… goes on.
Already, after the first ploy, the immediate image that came to mind as they mentioned the project for the second time was the four dead soldiers that were tied to the project in the first announcement. I am readily susceptible to association by suggestion, but am typically being well aware of it when it happens.
I support journalistic freedom as a bedrock principle or a free society, but it seems to me that some of the producers and/or announcers at Radio-Canada in Quebec City are abusing their privilege of access to a large audience promote bad sentiment towards anything to do with any federal project or politician. This is something I had already noticed with the morning announcer (who is my alarm in the morning), who cuts off anyone who is on the verge of saying something that has positive connotations for anything federal, and then goes on to mock the argument or comment that was about to be said.
That would all be fine and dandy on a private network, but the notion of announcers, paid with federal money, using their access to manipulate an audience against all things federal, just rings wrong to me. In the interests of national unity, it is certainly not a smart idea to cut funding for the programs, but perhaps some directives of more objective reporting and commentary would be nice.
I suggest the following approach for the “journalist” to imbue their bias into today’s announcement: $100 million for repairs of tourism destinations in Quebec. The announcer, if he were up to date with local opinion surveys, could then accomplish his goal by alluding to the fact that these reconstructions will take place not far from the proposed site of the Plains of Abraham, leaving listeners to colour the story with their own preconceptions. However, the way that this was brazenly carried out this morning was certainly in breach of journalistic ethics, in the way that it overtly manipulated listeners’ mental associations with this sizeable public investment in tourist facilities in Quebec City.
___________________________________
I have long preferred to think of “problems” as “solutions waiting to happen.” However, there are numerous cases where this outlook is naïve, with complete solutions being unlikely or impossible. As such, I am generally a proponent of managing many kinds of problems rather than supposing that we can eradicate them.
The first application of this concept resulted from readings on the strategies to deal with criminality over the ages. One theme seems to be separating the deviants from society and the other is the idea that criminals can be rehabilitated, or at least forced to conform to social norms. In the absence of any convincing evidence that severity of punishment is an effective deterrent for most crimes (possibly because most offenders think they will get away with it), and ignoring the proclivity towards punishment as an animalistic reaction of vengeance rather than any sort of genuine solution towards deviant behaviour, I am left with segregation and rehabilitation as the dichotomous approaches. In the end, I reject this dichotomy in preference of managing deviance rather than abolishing or healing deviants.
This led to a months long project to evaluate GPS monitoring bracelets for non-dangerous offenders as a way to save money, improve inmates freedom and privacy (which could hardly be more impaired than it is in a prison), improves a societies productive potential, reduces the damaging effects that some criminality may have on children due to a ‘lost’ parent, and as a way to deter many types of crimes (just think, would you rather spend a month behind bars or three being tracked with a GPS bracelet.
This is only a minor technical modification of the conditional sentence, but one that makes conditional sentences rather than prison term practical for a greater number of cases. The costs and benefits, however, are hard to pin down, and it may be a politically difficult program to implement. Ironically, my laptop was stolen before I completed the project. Since then, I have never gone more than a few days without making a backup copy of all my work.
In any case, I only mention this project because it is where I came across the general notion that, given an enormous variety of behaviours among humans and differing views of what is acceptable, we should look to “manage deviants, rather than suppose that we can eradicate deviance.”
The main logic that drives this conclusion is that it is easier to influence (or even control) deviant or risky behaviours if they are in the open than if they are driven underground, outside public view. Of course, there are concerns on the outside limits that such a program could be abused to Orwellian proportions, which makes me hesitant to endorse GPS monitoring of criminal offenders on a large scale.
The logic that I came across is hardly original (although it was to me at the time). The most I can say is that it repackages common intuition from risk-management in enterprise and in finance into a language that may make it seem more applicable to other social or security problems.
A handful stand out to me, the last two of which are the main reason I jotted this down…
Given: we cannot eliminate risk in international financial systems, so we should look to regulatory systems that manage levels of systemic risk rather than trying to eliminate it.
Given: the production and consumption of drugs will not be eliminated any time soon, as evidenced by the near-total failure of incredibly expensive and draconian war on drugs, as well as thousands of years of experimentation with drugs across nearly all societies over history. Therefore, we should manage or regulate the production and consumption of drugs, bringing this social issue within the scope of public influence rather than driving it into the black market where the public has little or no influence.
Given: the risk of terrorism cannot even be eliminated entirely therefore we should look to manage the problem by reducing incentives for terrorism. This probably means taking measures to enhance education and economic opportunities among the populace in regions that tend to export terrorists. It also sensibly points to the need for some domestic security measures (roughly in proportion to the risk), but the impossibility of completely eradicating the risk implies that we rapidly reach a point where it is not worth it to allow our government to usurp ever more control and surveillance over the citizenry.
Given: the nascent Afghan state will not be a replica of American, British, German or Swiss democracy. Therefore, resolving the insurgency implies that any central authority in Afghanistan will have to manage the realities of shifting inter-tribal linkages and alliances, traditional preferences among many Afghani civilians and the fact that radical groups of Islam are a part of the present-day social milieu in Afghanistan. Economic development will not happen without security, but security will remain uncertain as long as Kabul is unable to manage the reality that political self-determination in Afghanistan has always (or at least for a very long time) been something that happens on a very localized level. Trying to supplant these traditional political structures gives local leaders something to fight for, so we must recognize that law develops as a combination of “what is” and “what ought to be”. Refusing to recognize the first of these phrases is a sure recipe for failure.
In short, manage reality wherever imposing the ideal “solution waiting to happen” is bound to fail.
___________________________________
Finally, a few short words of strategy in negotiating with terrorists in any case where a ransom is being considered at all: never, ever, consider a policy that directly or indirectly funnels money into terrorist hands. That’s nothing new (but points to an amazing absurdity in international drug laws).
However, I suggest that we should be prepared to give ground and carry out negotiations where militant groups are willing to specify their constituency, with the idea that engaging in public works for such a constituency acts as both an act of good faith and exposes the falsity of any claim to representing a constituency when a militant group is unwilling to engage in said style of negotiation.
Not always appropriate, but managing a conflict in such a manner may almost be consistent with the principle of viewing the world as a place that is full of “solutions waiting to happen.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
