July 25, 2015. Given that autonomous drones and self-driving cars are nearly upon us, self-flying and driving vehicles seem highly likely to become routine at last.

MY LATE FRIEND, THE WONDERFUL BOB FULTON, INVENTED THE FIRST FEDERALLY CERTIFIED FLYING CAR

IT WAS CALLED THE AIRPHIBIAN

Designed by Robert Edison Fulton, Jr., it was an aluminum-bodied car, built with independent suspension, aircraft-sized wheels, and a six-cylinder 165 hpengine. The fabric wings were easily attached to the fuselage, converting the car into a plane. Four prototypes were built.

In December 1950, the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) (later to become the FAA) certified one of the prototypes and gave it an 1A11 Aircraft Specification, N74104.^[1] Lou Achitoff, was the CAA test pilot.^[2]The N74154 is the aircraft that is today in the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.

The craft made its debut in November 1946 at Danbury, Connecticut, and they were built in Danbury by Robert Fulton, President; Franz Alverez, VP and Engineer; Ted Polhemus Mechanical and Electrical Master; Frazer Dougherty, Test Pilot; Wayne Dasher (Dash), top flight A&E Mechanic; Fred Underhill, Tool and Die Maker; Ross Stevens, Aeronautical Engineer and Structural Engineer.^[3] Financial concerns forced Fulton to sell to a company that never developed it.^[4]

TERRAFUGIA ARE FOLLOWING IN A FINE TRADITION

 

THIS THING, THE TF-X—A CAR WITH A DIFFERENCE—WILL BOTH DRIVE AND FLY AUTONOMOUSLY—AND YOU CAN HAVE ONE IN 8-12 YEARS. 

BOB WAS A LITTLE AHEAD OF HIS TIME.

The following is from www.gizmag.com – a site I peruse with great pleasure every day. It does wonders for my morale. It focuses on technology and the ingenuity of mankind. When we are not shooting ourselves in both feet, we can be remarkably creative.

Flying—after being broadly similar since WW II apart from the introduction of jets—looks like evolving dramatically over the next couple of decades.

Amongst other developments we are going to see:

• Electrically powered aircraft—both hybrid and solo (if we have a major battery breakthrough, which I think is likely).
• Airships again. Because they are slow, yet able to life a great deal, the focus is currently on cargo, but I think we may see airships carrying passengers as well. It’s such a cool way to fly.
• Drones. These are going to be ubiquitous—a prospect I regard with mixed feelings.
• Autonomous aircraft.
• Autonomous flying cars.
• Much faster autonomous helicopters. Here, I really mean vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL) because I’m far from sure they will look much like helicopters as we know them today. Currently, tilt-rotor technology looks to be in the lead but it is not the only contender.

Terrafugia says the aim of its vehicles is to provide "true door-to-door transportation." The TF-X is designed to seat up to four people and will have computer-controlled flight that that will allow the operator to simply input the desired destination before letting the vehicle take off (from a level clearing of at least 100 ft in diameter) and fly itself.

To enable flight, the TF-X design has fold-out wings with twin electric motor pods attached to the ends. The motors are powered by a 300 hp engine and can move from vertical to horizontal positions as required for taking off, cruising and landing. A ducted fan will provide thrust, and the vehicle will have a cruising speed of 200 mph (322 km/h), as well as a 500 mile (805 km) flight range.

As with taking off, the plan is for the TF-X to land autonomously, though says Terrafugia points out that the user will have the final say regarding whether it's safe to land. Once back on the ground, the car's wings will fold down in a matter of seconds to make it suitable for use as a road-going plug-in hybrid once again.

The one-tenth scale model will be tested at the Wright Brothers wind tunnel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where the Transition was also tested. The testing will help to measure the drag, lift and thrust forces of the new design. Simulations of hovering flight, transitioning to forward flight

and full forward flight will also be carried out.

Terrafugia says the TF-X will be another 8-12 years in development.

http://www.terrafugia.com/news/terrafugia-premiers-new-tf-x%E2%84%A2-outer-mold-line

---

July 24 2015. Not only is The American Dream more myth than substance—but the Way of Life it encompasses leaves a lot to be desired.

MOST AMERICANS DON’T KNOW WHAT IT’S LIKE IN OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS

AND THEY REALLY DO NEED TO—BECAUSE THE U.S. DOES NOT SHOW UP WELL IN COMPARISON

 

QUALITY OF LIFE

It is my impression that the contrast between the U.S. and other developed countries is becoming increasingly more marked (whatever the figures suggest). This doesn’t mean that I am ignoring the figures—but more that there are many near-impossible to measure intangibles where quality of life is concerned.

For instance, because U.S. healthcare costs are so high, and the social safety net is so inadequate, economic risk in America is greater—which makes for vastly more stressful lives. Life in the U.S. is just plain economically riskier.

It is also less attractive in all kinds of other ways from the pervasiveness of advertising, to the poor quality of food, to the relative lack of public transport.

Such deficiencies are many and widespread—and the knowledge that America is the richest country in the world (so such inadequacies are unnecessary) merely adds to the frustration.

Does this matter to a nation of ‘rugged individualists?’

Well, it mightn’t if Americans were as rugged and individualist as the myth portrays—but the reality is otherwise. In fact, there is every evidence that it matters a great deal—from surveys, to both legal and illegal drug consumption, to the fact that Americans live sicker and die more than two years sooner than the inhabitants of other developed nations.

Worry takes its toll. It corrodes the spirit and it kills the body. 

Other examples are the paucity of paid vacation time in the U.S., and management’s generally authoritarian attitude towards workers—and so on. True, researchers do attempt to quantify such things—and they do a fair job—but my general feeling is that not only are such matters hard to quantify, but that much is missed.

 

THE IMPACT OF CULTURE

Attitudes—and culture generally—are particularly hard to quantify with any precision, yet they have a profound impact. In fact, in many cases they matter more than metrics one can measure. If you have ever had a well-paid job, but worked under an unpleasant boss, you will know exactly what I mean. Money helps, but doesn’t compensate adequately.

Is ‘quality of life’ the essence of what matters?

Let me put it this way—I can’t come up with a better phrase that encompasses what I am referring to. Also, I am making a sterling effort not to limit myself to a financial comparison (no pun intended).

Here, I am reminded of a remark made by Colonel Doug Macgregor—whose book, WARRIOR’S RAGE, I worked on for a considerable time. He was making a critical comment on the U.S. Army—in the context of inadequate intelligence, as I recall—and said: “They only count what they can measure.”

Well, as in war, counting only what you can measure in life is very far from enough.

 

CONTRASTING WORK CULTURES

The following piece by Chantal Panozzo from www.vox.com does an excellent job of contrasting the work culture of both Switzerland and America—and is worth much more serious consideration than it will probably get.

It adds to up to an indictment of both the current American Way of Life and the American Business Model—and should be what the 2016 elections are all about. But, of course, it won’t be. Instead, as normal, a couple of key issues will be nibbled at (to distract the masses), but the totality of the American tragedy—which is how I think of it—will be ignored.

But the article is worth reading and pondering.

 

MY OWN EXPERIENCES OF SWITZERLAND

I was particularly interested because I have spent some time in Switzerland—months rather than years—largely researching my first book, GAMES OF THE HANGMAN, made more than a few  Swiss friends, and was much impressed.

Switzerland works—and the Swiss are very far from boring.

Her article brought back many memories—including the fact that I once had the chance to marry a rather wonderful Swiss woman.

I passed on the opportunity—foolish fellow that I sometimes am.

But, it is all material.

 

U.S. PROBLEMS ARE PROFOUNDLY SERIOUS

I would like to make one final very serious point before you read the article. The U.S.’s current problems are not merely minor irritating issues—matters one can debate, but which should not really be considered as being of consequence.

Instead, not only are they of great significance to Americans themselves—and there are over 320 million of them/you—but they represent the accelerating decline of what has long been one of the major bastions of the free world.

Such a decline could well have devastating consequences—particularly as Europe is showing few signs of stepping up to the plate. That said, Europe’s apparent indecisiveness can be misleading. In it’s uniquely confusing style, it actually accomplishes a great deal.

But, perhaps the U.S. will get it’s act together, change its ways, and catch up?

Unfortunately, I see no real signs of this. Also, because Americans don’t know what it’s like the other side of the hill (I’m paraphrasing the Duke of Wellington here) they aren’t aware of the alternatives.

But, I don’t wish to be entirely negative. In ‘can-do’ mode (now rarely in evidence) the U.S. can do things very fast indeed.

NOTE. The following is only an extract. Best you read the full thing at http://www.vox.com/2015/7/21/8974435/switzerland-work-life-balance

Living in Switzerland ruined me for America and its lousy work culture

by Chantal Panozzo on July 21, 2015

 

1) I had work-life balance

The Swiss work hard, but they have a strong work-life balance. According to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the average Swiss worker earned the equivalent of $91,574 a year in 2013, while the average American worker earned only $55,708. But the real story is that the average American had to work 219 hours more per year for this lesser salary.

Which brings us to lunch. In Switzerland, you don't arrive to a meeting late, but you also don't leave for your lunch break a second past noon. If it's summer, jumping into the lake to swim with the swans is an acceptable way to spend your lunch hour. If you eat a sandwich at your desk, people will scold you. I learned this the hard way.

Lunchtime is sacred time in Switzerland. When I was on maternity leave, my husband came home for lunch to help me care for our daughter. This strengthened our marriage. Many families still reunite during weekdays over the lunch hour.

Weekends in Switzerland encourage leisure time, too. On Sundays, you can't even shop — most stores are closed. You are semi-required to hike in the Alps with your family. It's just what you do.

2) I had time and money

The Swiss have a culture of professional part-time work, and as a result, part-time jobs include every benefit of a full-time job, including vacation time and payment into two Swiss pension systems. Salaries for part-time work are set as a percentage of a professional full-time salary­ because unlike in the United States, part-time jobs are not viewed as necessarily unskilled jobs with their attendant lower pay.

During my Swiss career, I was employed by various companies from 25 percent to 100 percent. When I worked 60 percent, for example, I worked three days a week. A job that is 50 percent could mean the employee works five mornings a week or, as I once did, two and a half days a week. The freedom to choose the amount of work that was right for me at varying points of my life was wonderful and kept me engaged and happy.

When I took only 10 days for a trip to Spain, my colleagues chastised me for taking so little time off

3) I had the support of an amazing unemployment system

About three years into my Swiss life, I lost my job. And I discovered that in Switzerland, being on unemployment meant you received 70 to 80 percent of your prior salary for 18 months. The Swiss government also paid for me to take German classes, and when I wasn't looking for jobs, I could afford to write a book.

In the United States, on the other hand, unemployment benefits generally pay workers between 40 and 50 percent of their previous salary, and these benefits only last for six months on average. However, thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, some unemployed people now receive up to 99 weeks of benefits.

4) I witnessed what happens when countries impose wealth-based taxes

Compared with taxes in the United States, Swiss taxes are easy on the average worker. For example, a worker earning the average wage of $91,574 would pay only about 5 percent of that in Swiss federal income tax. Instead of taxing salaries at high percentages — a practice that puts most of the tax burden on the middle class, where most income comes from wages and not from capital gains — Switzerland immediately taxes dividends at a maximum of 35 percent and also has a wealth-based tax.

While the American tax system is supposed to be progressive — so the more you earn, the more taxes you pay — up to 39.6 percent tax for the highest income brackets, the superrich escape paying these kind of taxes because they aren't making most of their money in wages.

For example, in 2010, Mitt Romney, whose total income was $21.6 million, paid only $3 million in taxes, or a tax rate of about 14 percent, which is amazing when you consider this is the same tax rate American families earning wages from about $16,750 to $68,000 paid in 2010.

The Swiss taxation method leaves money in the pocket of the average worker — and allows them to save accordingly. The average adult in Switzerland has a net worth worth of $513,000 according to the 2013 Credit Suisse Wealth Report. Average net worth among adults in the US is half that.

While I witnessed the benefits of the Swiss tax system for the average person, I did not benefit from them due to my American citizenship. Instead, I paid both Swiss tax and American tax while living in Switzerland. Unfortunately, the US is one of the only nations in the world where tax is citizen-based instead of resident-based. (China, in a new push to enforce tax law for citizens working abroad, is one of the others, along with Eritrea.)

5) I had lots of paid vacation time and was never made to feel guilty about taking it

At my former American job, I received 10 days of paid vacation per year, and each of those days came with a sizable portion of guilt if actually used. But in Switzerland, my husband's company gave employees six weeks of vacation a year. Most of the Swiss companies I worked for gave four — the legal minimum is four. Moreover, everything shut down between Christmas and New Year's, giving most employees like me another guaranteed week off.

People in Europe took vacation seriously. Once, when I only took 10 days for a trip to Spain, my colleagues chastised me for taking so little time off. I learned to take vacation chunks in two-week intervals. Well rested, I noticed that I felt more productive and creative when I returned to work. Recent American research confirms what I was feeling: Relaxing can make you more productive. So why don't Americans embrace vacation time?

6) I never had to own a car

I'm currently cringing at the idea of being required to buy a car. A Honda dealer here in Chicago recently quoted me $18,000 for a 2012 Accord, and that seems like a lot of money — especially when you still need to pay for insurance, gasoline, and repairs. The price is even more daunting for someone who isn't used to being required to pay for such a thing.

The freedom to choose the amount of work that was right for me kept me engaged and happy

Not owning a car is financially freeing — and it saves the environment, too. In Switzerland, 21 percent of households do not own a car, versus 9.2 percent in the US.

The Swiss train connects to the bus that connects to the cable car to get you on the slopes in the middle of nowhere at the scheduled second. From Zurich, I could also take a high-speed train to Paris in three and a half hours. Now I can barely get from the western suburbs to the north side of Chicago in that amount of time — let alone have the option to do it carless. This means I'm turning down jobs instead of taking them. This isn't good for the American economy or for me.

And let's be clear: Living in a city suburb is no excuse for having bad transit options. I lived exactly the same distance from Zurich that I now live from Chicago (15 miles) but shared none of the public transport frustrations.

7) I had excellent health care when I gave birth — and then enjoyed a fully paid 14-week maternity leave

When I gave birth in Switzerland, I was encouraged to stay five days in the hospital. So I did. The $3,000 bill for the birth and hospital stay was paid in full by my Swiss insurance. As was the required midwife, who came to my apartment for five days after I came home from the hospital to check on both my health and my baby's.

Had I been in the US for my delivery, the cost would have been much higher — and the quality of care arguably lower. The average price for a vaginal birth in the US is $30,000 and includes an average of less than a two-day hospital stay.

Swiss law also mandates a 14-week maternity leave at a minimum of 80 percent pay. I was lucky enough to receive 100 percent pay. Compare that with the US, where new mothers aren't guaranteed any paid time off after giving birth. In Switzerland, it's also common to choose how much work to return to after having a child. Since my Swiss job at the time had been full time, I chose to return at 60 percent.

Other American friends in Switzerland who gave birth also chose to return to their careers part time: My engineering manager friend chose 70 percent, and my lawyer friend chose 80 percent. We had great careers, we had balance, and we also had a Swiss government that paid a monthly child stipend whether we needed it or not. For Americans like me, Swiss Reality was privilege.

Finally, finally, after almost a decade abroad, my husband and I decided we needed to go home to see what home felt like, or if the United States even felt like home anymore. So we put our Swiss residence permits on hold for two years and went back to Chicago.

While I enjoy being close to family again, returning to the United States made me realize who I've become: someone who can't believe companies aren't required to pay into a pension fund beyond Social Security. Someone who is offended that most women in America don't have the maternity benefits she had.

And someone who is mad that she must own a car for lack of efficient public transportation. Someone who, because of all of this, is still debating where she ultimately wants to call home.

Chantal Panozzo is the author of Swiss Life: 30 Things I Wish I'd Known. She has written about Switzerland and expat life for the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

---

July 23 2015. Workers are people! Who knew?

IF THE PAY OF MOST AMERICANS IS IN DECLINE IN REAL TERMS

WHERE IS DEMAND GOING TO COME FROM IN THE FUTURE? DOES THIS MATTER?

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE?

"There is something wonderful in seeing a wrong-headed majority assailed by truth." John Kenneth Galbraith

MY OPENING REMARKS

I regularly harp on the fact the American Business Model (ABM) is deeply flawed, corrupt, and rigged to favor the rich. Doubtless, it has its good points as well—but, as matters stand, the bad outweighs the good. 

The following points further illustrate the U.S.’s economic decline—even as the U.S. media—by and large—tout American economic success by world standards.

Growth in GDP (Gross Domestic Product)—even if measured and reported accurately (an assumption one would be wise not to make) is a truly inadequate, and misleading, way of measuring economic wellbeing. Beyond that, economic wellbeing should not be confused with quality of life.

Mind you, the U.S. is not doing too well in GDP either—and productivity, since the Great Recession, has been just plain lousy (not a surprise to this writer).

The ABM seems fixated on driving down U.S. worker pay—and is being remarkably successful at the task. Something most Americans don’t seem to realize is that it (the ABM) has been at it since the 70s. From the end of WW II until then, pay, productivity gains, and corporate profits were (more or less) shared fairly. Then came the corporate counter-attack, and both pay, and trade unions, came under systematic onslaught. Predictably, corporate power won—and continues to win. Then more recently, the Great Recession—caused by the Financial Sector—provided a perfect opportunity to tilt the playing field even further in favor of capital as opposed to labor.

It wasn’t a hard fight. The unions have been near obliterated in the private sector so workers have almost no bargaining power. Despite the aspiration of $15 an hour, the Minimum Wage, in real terms, remains at a historic low. Further, even where $15 has been mandated, it is being phased in rather more slowly than is needed.

But… actions have consequences—and capital’s victory over labor is not necessarily a good thing, even for capital. Particularly if a business is dependent on the home market, a firm’s workers are also its customers. If such workers have less money, they are likely to spend less on the firm’s products. By cutting labor costs, the firm has inadvertently cut its own sales and profits—and de-motivated its workers, thus harming productivity. Unhappy workers don’t work as well.

Read articles like those below every day—and a pretty clear pattern emerges. ABM policies are flawed—and they are having a directly negative impact on the U.S. Economy. In particular, management’s obsession with cutting labor costs—which have led to the closure of tens of thousands of U.S. manufacturing plants and the exporting of jobs to countries like China—have led to an inevitable, but disastrous, impact on U.S. demand. The country’s manufacturing base, while still containing pockets of world-class manufacturing expertise, has been largely hollowed out. Thousands of communities, which depended heavily on the payrolls and taxes from local plants, are struggling.

It hovers between hard and impossible to increase your sales and profits when your customers have declining purchasing power. The only way you can do it is by being exceptional in some way—which, generally speaking, requires a firm’s workers to be exceptional too. That is unlikely to happen unless the firm’s workers are well treated—which includes paying them adequately.

This is well demonstrated by the Costco experience. Costco pay well and thrive in a viciously competitive market sector, while Sam’s Club, it’s leading direct competitor (owned by Wal-Mart), which pays badly, languishes. Whereas it is certainly true that a business needs to watch its costs like a hawk, what really counts is cost effectiveness or productivity—not pure labor costs alone.

This is illustrated on a continental scale by Europe. Here you have country after country paying its workers better than the U.S., yet out-competing it internationally. The contrast in overall economic performances is truly striking. American managements believe in  confrontation, authoritarianism, few worker rights and low pay. European firms practice cooperation, consultation, support extensive worker rights, and pay well. The outcome? European firms out-compete the U.S. hands down. In fact, where international trade is concerned, the U.S. hasn’t had a positive trade balance for decades.

I have been aware of this overall situation since 2004 (when I started researching the U.S. economy seriously) so I don’t really understand why it is taking so long for Americans to wake up. This is serious, folks!

• The U.S. Economy is largely (about 70 %) driven by domestic consumer demand. This is a significantly higher percentage than that of other countries—and I would argue is excessive to the point of being a distortion (but that is a subject for another day). 
• Domestic purchasing power comes from domestic wages, salaries, pensions, dividends, and other sources of income. But, the vast bulk comes from the wages and salaries of average Americans.
• The earnings of most Americans are in decline—in real terms—after inflation is factored in.
• Squeezing pay—fairly obviously—also squeezes demand. So where, exactly, is growth going to come from? The rich—a tiny minority of the population as a whole—need to spend only so much to satisfy their needs (no matter how egregious), and thereafter tend to plow their money into the stock market, tax free investments like bonds, supposedly safe investments like land and property, and keep a high degree of liquidity. That doesn’t do a lot for overall consumption. GDP growth, the Holy Grail of American economic thinking, requires the population as a whole to row in.
• But do we need economic growth? That’s a whole separate subject (and an interesting one) but, if we are to cope, either we need a bigger cake, or to slice the existing one differently (a prospect that terrifies the rich). Here, as matters stand, it is also worth mentioning that we are not managing our affairs adequately with the economic resources we have. Not only can’t we balance the budget, but we are under-investing in such vital areas as infrastructure (the shortfall is in trillions of dollars). So, given our existing (screwy) priorities—which include excessive expenditure on the military and all matters to do with National Security , we certainly do need growth. Of course, if we changed our priorities, we might well find that we could live better on less (a downright heretical un-American thought).

But, back to the insanity at hand.

THE AUTO INDUSTRY & PAY

thefiscaltimes.com · by Beth Braverman

The recently released 2015 American-Made Index from Cars.com, which ranks cars with at least 75 percent domestic content, has just seven cars on it. That’s down from 29 cars five years ago.

Wages for autoworkers generally are on the decline. Employees at motor vehicle manufacturing plants earned a median $24.83 per hour in 2013, down 21 percent in the past decade, and employees at parts manufacturers earned an average $15.83, down 13.73 percent over 10 years, according to a November report by the National Employment Law Project.

 

PAUL RUGMAN EXTRACT

Many economists used to think of the labor market as being pretty much like the market for anything else, with the prices of different kinds of labor — that is, wage rates — fully determined by supply and demand. So if wages for many workers have stagnated or declined, it must be because demand for their services is falling.

In particular, the conventional wisdom attributed rising inequality to technological change, which was raising the demand for highly educated workers while devaluing blue-collar work. And there was nothing much policy could do to change the trend, other than aiding low-wage workers via subsidies like the earned-income tax credit.

You still see commentators who haven’t kept up invoking this story as if it were obviously true. But the case for “skill-biased technological change” as the main driver of wage stagnation has largely fallen apart. Most notably, high levels of education have offered no guarantee of rising incomes — for example, wages of recent college graduates, adjusted for inflation, have been flat for 15 years.

Meanwhile, our understanding of wage determination has been transformed by an intellectual revolution — that’s not too strong a word — brought on by a series of remarkable studies of what happens when governments change the minimum wage.

More than two decades ago the economists David Card and Alan Krueger realized that when an individual state raises its minimum wage rate, it in effect performs an experiment on the labor market. Better still, it’s an experiment that offers a natural control group: neighboring states that don’t raise their minimum wages. Mr. Card and Mr. Krueger applied their insight by looking at what happened to the fast-food sector — which is where the effects of the minimum wage should be most pronounced — after New Jersey hiked its minimum wage but Pennsylvania did not.

Until the Card-Krueger study, most economists, myself included, assumed that raising the minimum wage would have a clear negative effect on employment. But they found, if anything, a positive effect. Their result has since been confirmed using data from many episodes. There’s just no evidence that raising the minimum wage costs jobs, at least when the starting point is as low as it is in modern America.

How can this be? There are several answers, but the most important is probably that the market for labor isn’t like the market for, say, wheat, because workers are people. And because they’re people, there are important benefits, even to the employer, from paying them more: better morale, lower turnover, increased productivity. These benefits largely offset the direct effect of higher labor costs, so that raising the minimum wage needn’t cost jobs after all.

The direct takeaway from this intellectual revolution is, of course, that we should raise minimum wages. But there are broader implications, too: Once you take what we’ve learned from minimum-wage studies seriously, you realize that they’re not relevant just to the lowest-paid workers.

For employers always face a trade-off between low-wage and higher-wage strategies — between, say, the traditional Walmart model of paying as little as possible and accepting high turnover and low morale, and the Costco model of higher pay and benefits leading to a more stable work force. And there’s every reason to believe that public policy can, in a variety of ways — including making it easier for workers to organize — encourage more firms to choose the good-wage strategy.

---

June 22 2015 The answers are out there—if we only care to look—and ignore ideology. Given modern technology, it is entirely understandable that other nations are catching up (they can leapfrog) but it is a sad and unnecessary thing that the U.S. is declining in absolute terms. I’m very fond of this Great Nation—and my many friends in it—and I find it personally distressing. But, how do you wake a friend—who won’t respond?

JAMES KWAK KEEPS ON COMING UP WITH INTERESTING THINGS—INCLUDING DIGGING OUT HAYEK’S VIEW OF A GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME

AND HAYEK IS LARGELY SEEN AS A RIGHT WING ECONOMIST

Ideology really is a menace—and pervasive into the bargain.  Virtually regardless of the issue, it blocks intelligent people weighing the evidence—and coming up with a solution. Dogma defeats data. 

I certainly don’t believe that all problems are solvable. Wicked problems (what a lovely term) certainly do exist—the Middle East being a case in point right now—but I do believe that a great many are—and fairly easily at that—particularly where economic issues are concerned.

Economists are lousy at forecasting—because there are so many variables, humans are so flaky, and they like to try and forecast with unrealistic precision—but that doesn’t mean they don’t know a great deal about how different economic systems work. However, they tend to fail to make best use of the data available because—once again—of ideology.

Sadly, if you want to make a living as an economist, you are best off behaving in a partisan manner (whatever you may think privately). All too many research institutes and think-tanks—which are supposed to come up with innovative solutions stemming from the strengths of their multi-disciplinary structures—have largely become propaganda fronts for lobbyists.

Damnably frustrating to see all that talent go to waste. There are some very bright people in these organizations—but they know which side their bread is buttered. Careerism strikes again. It is not confined to the military.

My underlying point here is that if you judge solely by the performance of various economies—linked closely to the economic wellbeing of the populations concerned—we already know what systems work best, and, in many cases, what policies are effective. And, where we don’t know with precision, we know enough to experiment. Conveniently, the state system could allow the U.S. to experiment extensively,  in a fairly controlled manner—and we could learn an extraordinary amount from such activities.

In fact, we already have a considerable amount of invaluable economic data based upon sustained practical experience. Much of it has been analyzed by academics so that it is in clear and usable form. But do we act on such evidence? Largely, we do not—particularly in the U.S.  On the one hand we have this treasure-trove of information—yet, by and large, if the issue is remotely touched by ideological beliefs, we disregard it.

America suffers badly, both from conflicting ideologies, and NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. That’s a killer combination which can flatten fact-based logic in a heartbeat—and does. We truly cannot handle the truth—a devastating indictment of our national psyche.

What I like about the truly great economists—virtually all of them, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Keynes, Stiglitz, and Krugman (for example)—is that their prognostications are refreshingly nuanced, and they are, by and large, evidence-driven.

But the ideologues strip out the subtleties, and so we fail to realize that the great economists agree much more than is generally understood. There is much common ground there.

But, you have to read what these people actually wrote to know that. Not many people do that—particularly the kind of journalists who are supposed to ferret out such truths. Some of these economists are hard to read. That makes James Kwak, quoted below,  whom I admire greatly, an exception. The man is not afraid of work (and has a great sense of humor).

Economics is not a science—as many like to pretend—but it is a powerful and immensely useful discipline, which, for ideological reasons, we largely fail to employ and exploit to best advantage.

What matters is what works. Correction—what should matter is what works.

Typically, you find out what works through trial and error—better known as experimentation. You can do it yourself—or you can learn from others. Either way, there is no real substitute to real-world experimentation.

Personally, I have no idea whether a Guaranteed Minimum Income would work or not—I suspect it might—but I would like to see it tried.

What is absolutely clear is that fostering a large and growing underclass—as the U.S. is doing right now—cannot, by definition, lead to the prosperity of the population as a whole. Combine that with a Middle Class which is being squeezed out of existence, and one might be mildly concerned about where growth in domestic demand is going to come from in the future (which is a practical rather than ideological consideration). 

Given that realization, it would seem not unreasonable to try something different.

Who knows! It might work.

Friedrich Hayek Supported a Guaranteed Minimum Income

Not only that, he assumed it would exist

“We shall again take for granted the availability of a system of public relief which provides a uniform minimum for all instances of proved need, so that no member of the community need be in want of food or shelter.”

That’s from The Constitution of Liberty, “definitive edition,” p. 424. Yes, it comes as part of Hayek’s argument against mandatory state unemployment insurance. But it reflects a fundamental understanding that no one should go without food or shelter, and that it is the duty of the government to ensure this minimum level of existence. “The necessity of some such arrangement in an industrial society is unquestioned,” he wrote (p. 405).

The standard that Hayek simply assumed would exist goes beyond merely keeping poor people alive. In a wealthy society, he thought it inevitable that it would become “the recognized duty of the public to provide for the extreme needs of old age, unemployment, sickness, etc.” (p. 406). On this basis, he even endorsed the idea of compulsory insurance, such as the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

I’m not claiming that Hayek would have supported Obamacare — he almost certainly would have favored less government involvement than the system of state-level exchanges. But on the questions of welfare and government intervention in insurance markets, he was to the left of the entire Republican Party today.

---

James Kwak is an associate professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, a co-author of 13 Bankers and White House Burning, and a founder of Guidewire Software. Find more at Twitter, Medium, The Baseline Scenario, The Atlantic, or jameskwak.net.

---

July 24 2015. Something depressing this way has gone—and it is the income—in real terms–of most Americans. Check the figures. You guys have been getting nowhere—or sliding downwards—since the early 70s. And, mostly, you have neither noticed nor reacted.

AMERICAN DECLINE HAS BEEN GOING ON SO LONG IT IS BECOMING INSTITUTIONALIZED.

WHY DO AMERICANS ACCEPT THIS? THESE ARE SINGULARLY DEPRESSING FIGURES

I HAVE A SUSPICION THAT THEY UNDERSTATE THE CASE

The facts don’t exactly pour in because the main media—which is mostly in feel-good mode—doesn’t seem to like covering them. They clearly believe that the American public can’t handle the truth—or that covering it will cost advertising dollars. Or—to cut to the chase, that the truth does not suit the owners’ agenda.

Whichever way, the American public is kept singularly ill-informed.

It’s not an accident. It’s policy.

Wrong policy.

If there is ever an autopsy carried out on the great experiment that is/was the United States of America, I cannot but speculate about the verdict.

“Death through ignorance, inertia, and distraction,” would appeal highly likely.

It would be a sound verdict.

The following is from the NYT. Same depressing picture—just phrased differently.

A new research paper in the latest issue of Monthly Labor Review by the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms and amplifies our point.

The new paper takes a detailed look at compensation from 2007 to 2014. The main findings:

• For the bottom 80 percent of civilian workers, real hourly compensation fell or stagnated over the period.
• The median worker’s wages fell by 4 percent over the period, while compensation fell by nearly 2 percent.
• For lower income workers, compensation fell by more than wages; from the median to the 80^th percentile, wages fell faster than compensation. Either way, the result is lost economic ground for the vast majority of Americans amid widening inequality.

Even among the top 20 percent of workers, only those at the highest reaches of the income scale show consistently healthy gains in wages and compensation.

The researchers also found that for most workers there was no way to escape poor wage growth. In 19 out of 20 occupations in the study, the compensation of typical workers fell, flattened or barely grew from 2007 to 2014; only one category – management – had notable gains in median compensation over the period. For higher-paid workers at the 90th percentile of the pay scale, only three occupations had notable compensation gains – management, computer and mathematical jobs, and business and financial operations.

---

June 21 2015. Writers have a tendency to be obsessive about their routines (which strikes some people as weird—though not other writers). We’re actually a surprisingly disciplined bunch and our routines are fundamental to our productivity.

IT’S SOMETHING OF A PARADOX, BUT ONE OF THE OPEN SECRETS OF WRITING REGULARLY, AND CREATIVELY, IS THAT DULL-AS-DITCHWATER PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR—ROUTINE

THE IDEA IS TO BE ROUTINELY SPONTANEOUS (WHICH SOUNDS WEIRD)

More than a few people have the idea that they cannot really write to best advantage unless they are in the right mood. 

Between you, me, and the all-knowing gatepost, that is not the way it works.

Though it is entirely true that some days one tends to produce rather better work than on others—we humans being variable creatures for a whole host of different reasons—the underlying idea, if you are a professional writer, is to be able to write to the highest possible standard which you, the writer, are capable of—regardless of your mood.

The trick is not to wait for the mood in order to be able to write—but to train your mind so that that the very act of writing creates its own mood.

Hold that thought. It’s key.

If that sounds like magic, that is exactly what it is (even if you don’t believe in magic).

But can you train your mind?

Absolutely—and to a greater extent than most of us realize. In fact, we do it all the time when learning new things. One’s mind might seem confused, chaotic, and, apparently un-biddable (trust me—I know) but the reality is that even the most recalcitrant mind can be trained to be orderly, disciplined, and productive—in some areas. Whether one can tame one’s mind to behave across the board is another matter entirely. But, right now I’m not concerned with such a lofty goal. I’m focusing on writing.

You train your mind to write in a number of crucial ways.

• READING. By reading a very great deal so that you not only learn how others do it, but you absorb these lessons subconsciously so that they become innate. Here, you want to read widely and well—throughout your life. And read outside your preferences and prejudices. The goal is not merely to learn, but be challenged. Go forth and explore. The world of the printed word is truly wondrous—and without end. It is rich in every way that matters—and either free, or very inexpensive to access.
• OBSERVING. By learning to notice and describe your  surroundings and circumstances as you go about the daily business of living. Life obligingly provides the raw material for writing—but that material only becomes usable when you can transform it into written form. Fortunately, you can do that without actually having to write physically. You just observe and then describe what you see to yourself—and, over time, you will get better and better at it. Practice may not make perfect, but, with luck—and your particular perspective—it will end up being entertaining. All of that is a long way of saying that you need to learn to observe and record. I tend to think of it as ‘writing in my mind.’ But don’t move your lips or write out-loud, or people in white coats will come and lock you up.
• THINKING. By thinking a great deal. Many of us seem to get through life—to considerable effect, it is only fair to say—by doing little more than focusing on our immediate needs and reacting to our circumstances. It is hard to knock such an approach—but it won’t serve you well if you are a writer. Writing is all about transforming thought into words—so it helps greatly if you have some original thoughts to transform in the first place. So activate your brain, and keep it active in every way possible. That requires effort, experience, intellectual curiosity, human interaction, a keen eye, a receptive and retentive ear—and a great deal of hard work. Writing is hard work personified—and can be totally exhausting—but  we writers keep going, not because we are a bunch of masochists (though sometimes I wonder) but because, once a writer gets the hang of things, all that slog becomes enjoyable hard work—and then, over time, gets better still. Enjoyable work isn’t work—as the term is generally understood. It remains hard, but it is something you want to do.
• WALKING. You don’t have to walk to write—but it helps greatly. Firstly, your brain works better if you are physically fit—so it is a really good idea to exercise regularly. For all I know exercising in a gym may make you fitter faster—but I always recommend walking because not only is it a fairly effortless way to exercise, but you notice so much more when you walk (and everything you observe and ponder is raw material). In fact, I have made it a policy, where all my books are concerned, to walk the relevant terrain as much as possible. That doesn’t mean I don’t drive, helicopter, fly conventionally, hitch a lift in a tank, travel by rail, observe from a monorail, climb into a saddle, or otherwise get around—but more that once I’m at my chosen location, I primarily like to explore it on foot. All I can say is that it works wonders—and that many of my best experiences and insights have come from being foot-mobile rather than driving. These experiences have included finding a hanging body, getting shot at, being attacked by a group of Arabs armed with knives, sitting on a snake, having guns pointed at me in an unfriendly way, acquiring a girlfriend by walking into Swiss Interpol unheralded—and other happenings of the kind no good thriller-writer should be without.  So hear my call—and walk while you can. Others will carry you soon enough.
• WRITING. In the final analysis, you learn to write by writing—more than is easy—every day (even if you can’t). The idea here is to so train your muscle memory that the mere sight of a writing implement—typically a keyboard these days—evokes a desire to write. Clearly, it is best to write something which has a modicum of value, but, if you are so desperate you can’t think of anything to write about, then write out your shopping-list, or copy something from a book. True, that may seem a little crazy, but the point is that what you are initially trying to do is to just get used to the physical act of writing—so that it almost becomes a reflex (and eventually a pleasurable one). Sheer boredom will then make you depart from your shopping-list—there is only so much sensual satisfaction to be gained from writing ‘asparagus’ a hundred times—so before long you’ll be into erotic fantasy—and, after a year, you may be ready to tackle the sequel to War & Peace. But, no matter how daunted you may feel at first—as you stare desperately at a blank screen—you should know that the good news is that writing provokes writing, so, if you persevere, the process will get easier—and you will get better (eventually). Allocate a decade or two to this warm-up period. I never said it was either quick or easy.  

One of the most confusing things about writing is that having stressed the value of gaining a wide variety of experiences—and otherwise being inspired to see the world with fresh eyes—we writers, certainly when actually physically writing, tend to prefer to be slaves to routine. We don’t want any new and fascinating experiences for that period. We shut down and focus all our energies on turning thought into words.

You would think that variety and routine would not go together—and they don’t (but they do).

Essentially, I tend to allocate substantial periods of time to do weird and wonderful things during which I gather raw material, balanced out by periods during which I focus on the actual writing itself—and when I like to follow a decidedly rigid routine.

You might think mixing the two might work—if only to relieve the pressure of writing intently day after day, week after week, month after month—but that is decidedly not my preference.

Once my research is done, I like to focus without deviation until a draft is finished. If I could take a pill at the end of every writing day—and then wake up next day refreshed (without the interruptions of normal life) that would be my preference during such times. The pressure to remain in the writing zone is near overwhelming. To step outside it is painful.  Reality is grossly over-rated.

Somehow, routine seems to help the intense focus required to write at one’s very best. In fact ‘help’ may understate the case.

The truth is that I find a routine essential when it comes to actually writing—and I know many other writers feel exactly the same way. It is our bastion against distraction. Within its confines, we feel safe, focused, intellectually energized, and resolute. The work will be done—no matter what!

It’s an extraordinarily intense feeling. Within the context of our writing routines, we are driven individuals. We have a profound sense of purpose and, in essence, our work is its own reward (and it is hard to imagine a better one).

I tend to think of writing as ‘joyous’ which somehow doesn’t quite go with the relentless seriousness of the process, yet certainly does convey my inner feelings. For instance, I find it near impossible to be depressed for any length of time when I’m writing.

Within short minutes of my fingers touching the keyboard, I’m feeling as good as it gets—and I tend to stay that way for as long as I’m working—and to retain the high for a considerable time afterwards. Actually, the feeling is less that of a high than that of the kind of inner peace that comes from accomplishment. Writing is immensely satisfying just in itself. Fame and fortune are fine things—and, of course we would like them—but the process of writing is the real reward.

Different writers have different routines—and I doubt that any one of them is right (except for the individual concerned. In short, I don’t think there is a best writing routine. What counts is what works for you.

ROUTINE. My routine revolves around.

• A LONG WORKING DAY. Regular to long working hours. I think nothing of working 12 hours or more a day though I don’t spend all of that time doing creative writing. I also do ongoing research, have correspondence to handle—and so on.
• SOLITUDE. I’m not anti-social, but can survive without much human contact, if I am writing, for weeks, or months, if necessary. In short, I am fairly self-contained and self-reliant, but like nothing more than dinner with friends.
• PEACE & QUIET. Reasonable quiet. I’m not fanatic about this and can handle background traffic noise and so on. However, I prefer to avoid intrusive noise.
• NO DISTRACTIONS OR INTERRUPTIONS. Here I include domestic chores, visitors, phone calls or texts—anything which breaks focus. Society, which clearly thinks mankind hasn’t enough to do, likes to fill our time with obligations. Such time-sinks are rarely compatible with writing. A writer’s primary obligation is to write. That is his, or her, purpose in life.
• NO FOOD OR ALCOHOL UNTIL WRITING DONE. No food or alcohol until I have finished writing. Occasionally, I’ll have a bowl of soup or scrambled-eggs on toast for lunch, but mostly I don’t have anything—and don’t miss it too much while I’m actually writing. That said, such restraint is not easy. 
• LOTS OF TEA. I drink tea with milk, Irish style, and Stevia (I avoid sugar like the plague) and find that assuages my hunger and keeps me hydrated. I regard cups as entirely inadequate and only use mugs. Sometimes, I switch to green tea, which I like, but it doesn’t have the comfort factor of conventional tea. 
• FREQUENT MOBILITY. Moving around every 20 minutes or so. The one great physical disadvantage of writing is that it is sedentary—which is innately unhealthy. I’m planning to get some kind of an exercise machine. Writing and exercise go together.
• WALKING. Walking for about two miles every day—normally in the evening..
• SURROUNDINGS & TOOLS. Having the surroundings and tools I need to do the job.
• A CONSISTENT OUTPUT OF ABOUT  2,000 WORDS A DAY. This means that, theoretically, I can write a full draft of a fairly big thriller in four months, or so—or, arguably, two such books a year. It doesn’t quite work out that way because life gets in the way, a book typically goes through multiple drafts, and I tend to take my time re-writing. 2,000 words a day doesn’t sound a lot but it adds up to about three-quarters of a million words a year—scarcely a trivial quantity. 

SURROUNDINGS & LIGHTING. Here, I like to be in a room, alone, with sufficiently thick walls, a door, and windows, to ameliorate external noise. That means I rather like solid doors and double-glazed windows—but I’m not that fussy.

I also don’t need a room with a view. Some writers crave that—and I probably wouldn’t turn down such an option if offered, but mostly I’m quite content with my desk or table facing a blank wall. The reason is that my mind supplies all the view I need. In fact, the real thing can be a distraction.

Since my eyesight is very far from perfect, lighting is very important to me and I devote considerable attention to getting it right. Typically, I like as much daylight as possible during the day—while avoiding glare. That isn’t always as easy as it seems—especially as not everyone (non-writers in particular) understands such subtleties.

Natural lighting apart, I find I get on best with simple desk-lamps with white shades as opposed to lamps that direct their energy to a small area. This has to do with my eyes preferring to avoid too much contrast. But, I try not to be too fanatic about this and just go with the flow in other people’s houses.

TOOLS.

• FLAT SURFACES. I am completely obsessed with flat surfaces and sometimes think that my writing life has been dominated by the search for these.

By ‘flat surfaces,’ I mean table or desk spaces to write on—together with shelf-space for my files and books. Such surfaces are rarer than you would think in this world of ours, and, where other people’s houses are concerned, those that are readily available—and kindly offered—are normally in the form of either the dining-room or kitchen tables—both of which tend to be in high demand for other uses, and are rarely in distraction-free zones.

The world, from this biased writer’s point of view, seems to be alarmingly short of tables—so I find myself subconsciously scanning for flat surfaces at every conceivable opportunity. 

I am reminded of that period of temporary insanity, shortly after I installed a wood-burning stove in my cottage in Ireland—when I couldn’t find burnable wood anywhere (though there were tree plantations all over the place). During that phase, every time I saw wood anywhere—regardless of what it was or who owned it—I  would mentally convert it into wood-stove length logs. Doors, cricket-bats, fine-furniture, beds, blanket-chests, and chairs—all were chopped, stacked, and burned in my imagination.

As it happens, I solved my problem in the classic Irish way in the end—by meeting a man in a pub who knew a man who could provide neatly chopped wood in exchange for modest money—providing I didn’t ask where the wood came from. The network that is the Irish pub system predates the internet—and is at least as efficient in its own idiosyncratic way.

As it happens, I wrote my first book on my deceased father-in-law’s sturdy kitchen table with an extra flat surface being provided by an unfinished coffin lid. This was in my thatched cottage in Ireland—where space was decidedly limited—and both served well.

You don’t, of course, need a great deal of space to actually write on if you are using a computer alone—or even a quill pen—but my writing routine involves rather more complexity than that, and consequently demands considerable flat real estate at a workable height. Recently, I had occasion to operate my computer while sitting on a conventional dining chair with the computer propped up on my bed—and God alone knows what damage I did to my limbs. The expression ‘workable height’ needs to be taken seriously.

My writing gear includes computers, a second monitor, a laser printer, two different kinds of label printer, a USB hub, two desk lamps, pen pots, a stapler, a two-hole punch, books, reference materials, ring-binders, innumerable files—and a radio.

Where would the world be without the BBC—or NPR in the U.S.! I don’t play the radio while I am working—focus means just that—but it is my companion and invaluable information source at other times 

Some writers get great satisfaction from working from an antique desk, or owning some table of particular significance or value. I felt much that way at one stage in my life. Now, I am entirely focused on the utility of my furniture and nothing more. As far as I am concerned, a folding plastic table is fine with me. What matters is not the table, but what I do on it—which is to write. I have become somewhat minimalist in relation to physical possessions as I have aged. Functionality is all. I haven’t lost my aesthetic sense—but I favor stuff that works.

• CHAIR. If you spend as much time as I do sitting in a chair, then the comfort of that chair becomes decidedly important. For most of my writing life, I have enjoyed the ease of reasonably comfortable swivel chairs, but more recently—since I have not been at home—I have been making do with upright, straight-backed dining chairs. My bruised bottom apart—these things are lamentably short on padding—I have survived much better than I would have expected. Does this mean I don’t need a swivel chair? I don’t really know as yet—but I have come to the view that how you sit (your posture) is really important. It is also clear that even if we writers are discouraged from using long words—in the interests of clarity—we are wise if we know something about ergonomics

ERGONOMICS. 1. : an applied science concerned with designing and arranging things people use so that the people and things interact most efficiently and safely —called also biotechnology, human engineering, human factors.

• LAPTOP COMPUTERS x 2 + MONITOR. I like to work with a laptop and a second monitor. Typically I keep my reference material on the second monitor—which is to my left—and write on the laptop. I value screen space and am giving serious consideration to adding a third screen.
• LASER PRINTER. I like to print for a number of reasons. It is gratifying to see my own work printed out—there is something tangible to read and hold. I find it easier to spot errors on a printed page. I use the printed version of an article as a reminder—and so on. And I like to work with paper. It has played a major role in my life and I deeply appreciate its utility, flexibility, touch, and texture. For all that, I’m trying to wean myself off printing nearly as much as I used to. I have too many files for paper versions to be practical any more—they take up a considerable amount of space, are slow and expensive to maintain, and are costly to transport. Accordingly, I am trying to show restraint. I rather like the idea of the gear I need for writing being light and compact enough for me to travel with it just about anywhere. I haven’t got there yet, but that is where I am heading.

Have tools—will travel. There are few things better than travel to broaden the mind and inspire creativity. It is virtually guaranteed to drag a writer out of his comfort zone—and it is not in the nature of writers to be comfortable.

CONCLUSION.

I would like to be able to write that decades of experience have now meant that my writing routine has been polished to consistent perfection—but nothing would be further from the truth.

True, I do naturally start writing with ease—and find it relatively effortless to focus—but, such fundamentals apart, I still find my writing routine is evolving with no end in sight. The villains here are my intellectual curiosity, my drive to do better, and the ever evolving world of computers and software.

Perfection remains an impossible dream—but we seek it nonetheless. It is our nature.

---

 

 

July 20 2015. Financialization strikes again. There is a hole in the funding of U.S. pensions—a rather large one. Think in terms of trillions of dollars. But, that is just one financial problem in a long list of structural defects in what is generally called The American Business Model.

FINANCIALIZATION IS NOT GETTING THE ATTENTION IT DESERVES

WHY NOT? IT INFLUENCES VIRTUALLY EVERY FACET OF OUR ECONOMIC WELLBEING—NEGATIVELY IN ALL TOO MANY CASES

Financialization is a catch-all word which essentially means an excessive financial sector which, in a myriad of ways, is able to so game the economy as to extract money from it—without, by and large, contributing any real value (or what most of us would consider to be value).

It functions as a something of a cross between a technically legal protection racket, and a system of excessive taxation. Either way, it largely extracts rather than constructs. It is predatory in style and execution. It lacks a moral core.

Research shows that when financialization gets too dominant a grip on the economy, it actively hinders growth. In fact, all in all, it is a seriously bad thing—which gets remarkably little attention. As with death, bad weather, and government taxation, we just sort-of accept it.

We really shouldn’t. It is not inevitable. In fact, there is a great deal we could do about it if we were so minded. We don’t for several reasons—all of which are capable of being rendered invalid. We have a solvable situation here.

• Most of don’t know enough about it to be concerned.
• The financial sector has more than enough money to block any drastic reforms, and generally to bend Congress to its will.
• The same ultra-rich people that largely control the financial sector (and other major corporations) control the media—so the U.S. public is not informed as to the sheer scale of the problem.

Here are just a small selection of the downsides of financialization as it currently (and recently) influences the U.S. economy.

• THE GREAT RECESSION. The 2008 Great Recession—which was caused by the FS (Financial Sector)—did more damage to the U.S. and global economies than any other financial event since the Great Depression of 1929. The resultant legislation has only partially remedied the legal deficiencies that led to this disaster. It, or something like it, is almost certain to happen again. As far as many people are concerned, the full effects of the 2008 recession are not yet over.
• THE CORRUPTION OF THE U.S POLITICAL SYSTEM. Research has shown that elected representatives do not listen to those who elect them. but only to those who fund them. In effect, representative democracy has now been replaced by plutocracy—government by the rich for their own advantage.
• PENSIONS & RETIREMENT. The high fees charged by the FS (Financial Sector) have led to significantly smaller pensions for many.
• A PERVASIVE CLIMATE OF DEBT. People tend to forget that debt wasn’t always as pervasive as it is today. The economy is now so structured that it is virtually impossible for most Americans to function without getting heavily into debt. Educational debt alone now stands at $1.5 trillion—a truly intolerable burden for Millennials.

Another way to consider all this is to start from scratch and consider whether an effective financial structure could be set up which would out-perform the existing one without its disadvantages.

Not only can it be done, but other countries are doing just that.

The U.S. is putting up with its current level of financialization—and its consequences—for no good reason.

It is making a small group of the ultra-rich even richer. The earnings of most Americans, once inflation is accurately factored in, are in decline.

 

---