Nick Pinkston

Secession?

As our country is moving into some darker days, a lot of people like myself have been thinking of ways to bring about substantive change - not the campaign platitude variety. We're seeing the federal government abusing the Constitution in ways that would have shocked our forefathers of just a hundred years ago. The size of the federal government is also becoming less and less sustainable with each bailout, entitlement, etc. Many people felt this, and that's why Obama was elected, but I think we'll get a rude awakening that we've basically changed nothing. We think our votes count, but really 49% (at least) of the electorate must equally accept the wide ranging rule of this man they didn't elect. What solutions do we have?

One of the founding principles of the United States was that the the Feds would only have some limited powers and all else was given to the states. Most states did likewise and gave power to the counties and so on. This is, of course, federalism. It worked great, and I contend that it still could if we gave it a chance. This allows us not only to shove off the burdens of government agency costs, but also we are more able to affect change to our actual condition. In the end, we need to reduce the federal government's powers so the 49% are not coerced into a completely different lifestyle than they'd like to live.

This idea, however, of less government is very unpopular with both flavors of Republicrats. How does one get votes without buying them with entitlement programs anymore? I've talked before about “Libertarian Marketing”, and I still think the concept has many holes. Another answer is secession. Yes, getting a state out of the Union.

This isn't as radical an idea as you may think. States challenge the federal government all the time. Think about the decriminalization of marijuana (where states ignore the DEA), the wide protests against the federal Real ID Act, or sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. These are plenty of legitimate state sponsored protests against federal law. The government doesn't have the authority to mandate that states enforce laws, look at the Federal Highway Act & National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The states that refuse to comply will have 10% of their federal highway money withheld from them, but nothing else.

Secession wouldn't come all at once. We've already started to protest certain laws, let's move to bills, or even whole US Code Titles. I'd love to see Title 26 ignored and listed on DumbLaws.com. They don't have enough federal agents to try to enforce all these laws. If state and local police don't cooperate, they're SOL. They can't roll tanks for public relations reasons, so it'd take the form of some type of trade embargoes I would think. Maybe not even that - why would the rest of the United States care? If New Hampshire or Vermont were to secede tomorrow, no one would notice.

There are a few things people argue against this concept, and some rebutals. Let's take a look:

1. Q: “If a state secedes, won't we have to deal with a whole different set of laws?”

   A: Yes, but every state already has it's own laws, that's why lawyers take the bar in each state. If they just protested what they didn't like, the system would be quite similar to what exists today.

2. Q: “If a state secedes, how will it survive without the Federal government?” or “If a state secedes, won't that be a burden to the rest of the other states?”

   A: Yes and no. If you look at this map of spending to taxation, you'll see some states like New Hampshire actually are subsidizing the rest of us, while others such as New Mexico are running on proverbial food stamps. The US will adjust to the lack of income, just as we don't “miss” non-existent states.

3. Q: “If a state secedes, they'll still have to pay for government programs like...”

   A: That's true. Many federal offices and programs will be brought into the state, but what is wrong with that? States usually have their own versions of the same offices. These are already duplicating many of the same tasks – talk about diseconomies of scale. I'd prefer local control and innovation that fits best with the local people. The Department of Education has only been around since Carter. We put a man on the moon before that.

4. Q: “Isn't a state too small to be a self-sufficient economy?”

   A: If you look at a list of national GDP's and one of state GDP's, you'll see some neat facts like how New Hampshire's GDP is more than Luxembourg's and California's is 40% larger than Russia's. I think they're doing just fine, so I don't see why a state economy couldn't function autonomously.

5. Q: “If a state secedes, won't their economy suffer?”

   A: In the case of a soft secession, by protesting federal laws, many companies would actually benefit by moving there. Once it stabilizes, companies would not have to pay the ridiculous taxes they currently do, and won't have to deal with the slow moving wheels of federal government bureaucracy.

6. Q: “If a state secedes, won't they be getting free military protection?”

   A: Yes, but Canada does already, and plenty of others around the world for that matter. The National Guard is another issue. I'm unsure of the effects on federal control, or even training of the Guard under hard and soft secessions.

These are a few things off the top of my head, but I'd love to get your feedback.

Transhumanist Muzing

I was, for some reason, thinking in the shower today about future brain enhancement implants (that could increase, knowledge, intelligence, and perhaps skills) and their effects on education. I wondered that if you can modify someone's knowledge, skills, etc. would there be a need for traditional school? If the purpose is just to train our kids to perform job tasks than I'm sure brain modifications should be able to make quick work of that. However, you'd probably run into similar effects that were seen when computers and the internet entered the mainstream - which was the schools adapting the assignments to take advantage of the wealth of information.

With, perceivably, the entire sum of human knowledge in the implant you'd never need to look anything up. However, you'd still need to know how to think, which is a huge problem today in school. Although, perhaps if skills are uploadable, the skills of reasoning would be possible as well. Maybe we can just kill this whole school thing, and just go to work? Some will say that the kids need to be enculturated within the grounds of the school. However, isn't this just a skill? The knowledge of social norms could even be updated by syncing everyone's thoughts of right or wrong once in a while – which I'm sure discerning is nearly possible today.

This brings A LOT of moral questions into view. For instance, even if culture-syncing isn't possible, wouldn't it be better for everyone if these young (yet fully skillful) kids got out into the real world as apprentices, and they could just get their enculturation in a more traditional way. If that's true, when would parents allow their kids to get the brain implant? They wouldn't be so “cute” anymore when they were debating the fine points of astrophysics. Maybe we could simulate this growth via the computer itself?

Their bodies would still be young though, and I'm sure at this time it would be possible to augment that as well – with similar reservations. All of this stuff strikes me as completely crazy in its effects on human society and to our general sensibilities. Many believe that technology is the “seventh kingdom of life”, and that humans are the “reproductive organs” of technology. Although, with the RepRap machine it doesn't seem like robot self-replication is really that far off. I'm sure I'll see it in my lifetime.

There are really only two outcomes of this. One, is that humans and machines will merge together as we start these modifications. The disadvantage of not having mods will be interest enough for people to get them. Two, is that machines evolve faster than we're able to (even with mods) and become the dominant creature on Earth (and by then at least our solar system). After this, they will either be benevolent toward their human makers, see us as a threat (which we may be) and destroy us, or they will accidentally destroy us just like we kill off endangered animal populations, and even lesser advanced tribes.

The distant future will be quite amazing, if not, quite frightening. If you're interested in these futurist ideas, or just the latest research on the horizon, I'd suggest checking out Ray Kurzweil's blog.

I'm interested to hear what you guys think about these concepts.

Open Source - the little engine that could. Numbers

I saw some numbers recently on open source software, and I figured I'd post them.

Operating Systems (can't believe Linux is that low - I think my friends are a skewed sample)

Web Browsers (Firefox & Chrome are up, Opera holding steady)

Server Software (check out the negative co-variance in Apache v. MS)

Soil: The enemy below...

I read this article the other day that talked about how current climate models need readjustment because of inaccuracies in soil CO2 emissions. This is a snippet of what the Cornell article describes:

“By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account.

The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact.”

Now, maybe my math is off, and correct me if I'm wrong, but: if soils have 10x the amount of CO2 and in reality they may be off by 20% under, doesn't that mean that perhaps 2x human CO2 levels are unaccounted for? Yea, I think that could be a little “inaccuracy”.

Also, what's the environmental impact of not letting forests burn? We currently try to save the environment and our houses from fire, but perhaps all that carbon sequestration is a good thing. Smokey The Bear meet Captain Planet – now try to bring pollution down to zero. Are CO2 emissions from the forest fire + CO2 capture loss from dead trees < or > the carbon black sequestration? Smokey? Captain? That might be a critical question. Maybe they should say: “Save the planet, burn the trees!”

I'm guess that tree trunks contain A LOT of carbon, but the leaves are only a few months worth. The fire is fueled mostly from organic matter on the surface and leaves right? The trunks don't really burn much, and a lot of the burning produces this carbon black. The leaves will probably grow back in a year or two.

I have no idea, but I've been skeptical of the global warming thing for a while. I'm always going back and forth between saying it's mostly man-made or its mostly some force nature we have no control over: the Sun, carbon black, etc. Although, unless you're Mr. Burns, you probably think it's probably a good precaution to still try to reduce the release of things like SOx, NOx, etc. from human production. We actually do have good data on that.

Any thoughts?

A Review of Obama's Economic Plan

The original text was accessed on Nov 18^th, 2008 and can be found in its current form here. Below is an item by item good / bad assessment of his economic plan. Each item has been taken directly from Obama's Change.gov website, however most has been paraphrased or shortened for the sake of brevity. At first, I thought I could review the whole thing, but it's too big for a blog post. I'd love to see some conversations start about specifics though – some could mandate posts or whole a series. Enjoy.

Overall, the plan is definitely a huge expansion of government. There are a few tax breaks that I like, but overall it looks like a step towards a command economy. All throughout, there are heavy corporate regulations, and easy handout & overarching protections for consumers. This, if actually implemented will definitely stunt the growth of our technology economy. All of the government investment, incubators, consulting, etc. initiatives will prove to be only good at distributing money to business that is overall unworthy - if my experience is of any evidence. A lot of protectionism is also at work – always billed at protecting consumer or working class, but actually will increase the costs of goods from abroad. The regulations will also allow big business to funnel money into their pockets by lobbyist action in even more facets of our government. I really don't think they can get all this passed, but be scared if they do.

1.) “Create Good Jobs in America”

Good:

Temporary raise expensing limit to $250k

Zero capital gains taxes on small business / startups

Bad:

Temporary tax credit to companies that add jobs in the USA.

Invest $25B to rebuild roads & schools

Provide $50B loan to auto industry to retool for new green technologies

2.) “Relief for Struggling Families”

Good:

Tax cut for 95% of American workers

Penalty free withdrawals from 401k's

Allow seniors to delay withdrawals from 401k's & IRA's

Bad:

Tax cut for 95% of American workers

Extend unemployment insurance & suspend taxes on them

Funds for high heating costs for this winter

3.) “Assistance for Homeowners”

Good:

(none)

Bad:

Allow Treasury, HUD & bankruptcy judges to modify terms of mortgages

Enact 90 day foreclosure moratorium

$25B to provide state relief, for the purpose of not raising property taxes

10% “universal” mortgage tax credit, for those who don't itemize taxes

4.) Response to the Financial Crisis

Good:

(none)

Bad:

Broad assurances for credit to banks: Fed actions, further deposit insurance, broader bank garauntees.

Broaden Treasury ability to buy up assets (mostly loans / some homes).

Setup funding backstop for state & municipal debt market.

Aid for small business from credit crisis via expansion of SBA Diaster Loan Program & eliminating fees.

5.) Trade

Good:

(none)

Bad:

“Spread good labor & environmental factors” and WTO penalties for dumping / subsidy industries

Amend NAFTA, so it “works for American workers”.

Extend current TAA programs to service workers and introduce new programs.

Penalize companies that move operations off shore to avoid taxes

Reward companies that support American job

6.) Manufacturing and Green Job

Good:

(none)

Bad:

Create “Advanced Manufacturing Fund” to invest in advanced manufacturing initiatives

Double the funding for the MEP, provides consulting services to manufacturing

$150B over ten years for green technologies, hopefully creating 5M jobs

Increase funding to work training programs

Create “Renewable Portfolio Standard” that requires 25% of power to be renewable by 2025

Create “Production Tax Credit” that encourages farmers to farm energy crops

7.) New Infrastructure Investment

Good:

(none)

Bad:

“Create national infrastructure investment bank”

8.) “Technology, Innovation, Creating Jobs”

Good:

(none)

Bad:

Double investment in fundamental research.

Create tax credit for R&D.

Reform Universal Service Fund to bring broadband to every community in the US.

9.) “Small Business”

Good:

Tax relief for small business & startups (as mentioned)

Bad:

Create national network of business incubators

10.) “Labor”

Good:

(none)

Bad:

“Freedom to Unionize” Employee Free Choice Act

Uphold current regulations of who is eligible to be in unions

Ban the replacement of striking workers

Raise the minimum wage

11.) “Mortgages, Home Ownership, Bankruptcy”

Good:

(none)

Not all Bad:

Mandate “HOME” score for all mortgages, allow the comparing of mortgages easier

Bad:

10% “universal” mortgage tax credit, for those who don't itemize taxes (as mentioned)

STOP FRAUD Act, harsher penalties for companies

Allow courts to change mortgage payments in bankruptcy cases (currently illegal)

12.) “Credit Cards and Lending”

Good:

(none)

Not so Bad:

Require lenders to provide simplified information on loan terms

Bad:

Create a credit card rating service (note: this already exists)

“Credit Card Bill of Rights”, expand regulations against what the CC companies can do / make contract

Initiate and interest rate cap set at 36% for credit cards & “pay day loans”

Encourage banks / other lenders to make small consumer loans

13.) Work Family Balance

Good:

(none)

Bad:

Expand the Family Medical Leave Act to most workers, requires leave during certain family events, etc.

Start $1.5B to fund state paid leave programs

Double funding for federal after school programs

50% tax credit for low-income child care

Expand powers of Employment Opportunity Commission

Encourage flextime initiatives in the government and all other sectors

Life as DoubleThink

A few years ago, I would only read non-fiction because I thought, “why would I want to read about something that never happened?” In the past two years, however, I've found that the best fiction may be able to explain reality far better than the best history – albeit with just as much bias.

I just started reading A Tale of Two Cities by Dickens, and I came across this quote:

“If you knew what a conflict goes on in the business mind, when the business mind is divided between good-natured impulse and business appearances, you would be amused.” - Mr Carton

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I was with some friends the other day discussing the usual politics and current events, and one of them asked why The Economist, a widely respected magazine on international finance and policy, held views that were quite Keynesian and pro-monetarist when most economists are of the neoclassical school. As I began to form a response, I wandered down the path of this question of holding two positions at once.

My answer was something akin to The Economist taking into account their audience of very pragmatic business and policy guys who want to be told know what will happen not what should happen. Therefore, since the world powers are currently leaning Keynesian, with a slight bent towards neo-liberal, they will spin their answers to suit the tides. This happens all the time, and for a more in depth approach I would consult the book Manufacturing Consent to see how and why this occurs.

For my purposes though, one only needs to see that it does happen. It's not only publications, though. The human mind in general is very capable of holding two contradictory positions. This concept was also covered quite well in Orwell's 1984. As Winston explained:

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them [is double think] ...Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."

I myself, and indeed all of us, are capable of this as well. As I said to my friends that day, “when I make decisions for who I support for public office I'm myself, but when I make decisions for my company I have to think like The Economist. On the one hand, I wonder (as my libertarian self) if the country's financial state of affairs will come crumbling down because Keynesian monetary policy is incorrect. At the same time, as head of my company, I have to think about what I would bet my money on, and that is the USA weathering the crisis and rebounding in a year or two. I guess the difference is that, while the Austrian business cycle accurately predicted that the economy would falter, the Keynesian policies being pursued are not completely ill advised to achieve short term financial stability – at least as it benefits the internationalists' interests.

To segway, let's look at a quote that I try to live by:

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony." - Gandhi

This idea is to combine the realities of your actions (in my case my company) with that of my beliefs (libertarianism, open-mindedness, etc.). I think that my startup actually allows me to do just that. I come in every day excited because of the great things this movement is achieving and will achieve.

However, there are still times when I must walk a narrow path between the two - often with a foot on each side. I'm not sure this is curable. It seems to me that only the absence of decisions would lead to real consistency, and that is not an option.

Thoughts?

Konichiwa, Socialism.

I was e-mailing with my friend Kim last week, who is currently over in Japan, and she was telling me about some of her experiences. I heard that Japan has a lot of socialistic tendencies, but what she wrote back was amazing. Just when I start to think the human experience is really not that varied... Japan steps up to disprove my musings. Below is the exact text that she sent me. Enjoy.

Critiques on the socialist problems -- how much time do you have? haha. let me think about this not cynically for a minute. well... the first thing that stands out is the ginormous waste of funds with their employment system. they being in full employment and life long employment here. while this is better than what it used to be (apparently in the 80s and 90s full employment was even MORE ridiculous), you can witness evidence of unneeded jobs everrrywhere. for example in schools and offices. there is a position titled "tea lady".

 

the tea lady is everywhere. typically a younger woman, recent graduate of college, but with no real skills. the general idea is for this hardworking young woman to serve tea and sweets to her co-workers throughout the day. she will typically have a Full Time job. so what does she do while she is not serving you tea? rearranging papers, preparing lunches for the staff, maaybe making copies, maaybe answering phones, and definitely a lot of "sitting pretty".

 

the second example that is ubiquitous is in construction. first of all, when speaking about construction another point must be brought up first. construction in japan is constant and everywhere. even when roads are not in need of urgent pavement. anecdotally, i drive down the same main roads everyday. every single day. the roads here are spotless. not a pothole or crack in site many times. well potholes - definitely never seen. one day returning home from work, the same road i took at 8am in the morning, by 4pm had a full construction crew digging up about 1km of road and were almost finished with their re-paving already.

 

i can't tell how much my mind was blown. i was like "WHAAAAT the heeeeelll are they doing? this road was perfect!" not only were they digging up a road that didn't need dug up, there were approximately ... 25-30 guys working on it. this includes 2 men sweeping the road with brooms, 4 men holding flags (2 men wave flags at either end to wave on traffic - much like the men holding signs back home that say "stop" "slow", but then the other two men stand in the MIDDLE, while you are already driving past the hieght of the construction, urging you to keep moving forward. -- an necessary job for sure). then the remainder of the crew were guiding the 2-3 big roller machines on where to pave, a few men were packing down the pavement with shovels before the machine rolled over that patch, i'm guessing to make the job easier on the machine?. 

 

airports are another big spot of public service bloatedness. well, actually, any public service place really. supermarkets, department stores, train stations... its everywhere. people whose job it is, literally to bow at you. its so disturbing that everyone is ok with this waste of energy. that these people are OK that their entire livelihood is a joke.

 

then i come to the biggest farce of them all. the idea of "Japanese efficiency". I will give them the fact that trains are always on time. but aside from this, i cannot imagine where this idea came from. if there is a problem with something, it will take at least LEAST 2-3 people to answer. one answer is never enough. someone WILL be consulted.

 

anecdoteally, i have about 100 of these experiences. some easy examples are the post office: i moved, therefore my address changed. if you are not home for a package delivery, they will leave you a post card notifying you of their attempt to deliver. take that post card to the post before 5 pm and you are golden. only thing is, its all in japanese. and sometimes i'm busy or haven't left school soon enough to make it to the post office. i was especially busy when i was moving. i went to the post about 3 days after the delivery attempt notification and just simply wanted to know, was the package at this place or at my other old post office. 35 minutes later... and i believe TWO manager consultations, i was informed i would be called "soon" when they figure out the answer.

 

at the furniture outlet i bought some new stuff at was another example. keep in mind, my japanese is pretty good. i might be hard to understand and to convey a point, but i can understand most of what is being said to me. when it came time to pay, they asked me if i have a Katayama points card. i said no. but then i made the mistake of asking, what do you get if you open a points card? (i was spending like 200$ so i thought maybe it might be worth it). keep in mind, all this has been in japanese so far. but as soon as he had to explain to me the benefits, 15 minutes and a manager later, i am told, in WRITING (they pulled out some note pads and showed me): "100￥= 1pt."  "500pts = 500￥give you" so, if you spend 500$, you'll get a 5$ coupon. but, 15 Minutes! 15 minutes! seriosuly!

 

i haven't even mentioned the mindset of "looking busy is more important than finishing/producing anything." just look at the tea ladies shuffling things around the office. people will sometimes stand at their desk as if they are about to step away, rifling through papers and computer screens, just to sit down. they aren't going anywhere - but they look like they are running out of time to get there. there is the bank tellers who count your money no less than 3 times. there is the bowing airport stewardess who every 5 minutes or so adjusts and re-adjust her bow/name tag/pens in pocket/etc. people are always busy - but they aren't doing anything!

 

this becomes a big problem when i don't understand something and need to interrupt all these busy people to ask them to read something to me or explain something to me. because then, its not just one person you are interrupting, its at least two - because rememeber every consultation must also have consultation of its own.

 

I really appreciate a lot of the American practices i'm so used to these days. even if one of those practices happens to be "efficiency". sometimes i feel like i'm going crazy here. sometimes i feel like i sit and stare at these worker bees all day long. they are perfectly content that i am on google chat all day. that i openly write letters to my grandma at my desk on pretty obvious stationary that has nothing to do with classes. that i read my book at my desk. as long as i'm at my desk and busy, in whatever sense that might be, i have already won.

Libertarian Marketing

Concept

I was sitting down with my friend James the other say, and we were talking about how libertarian ideas could be brought back into vogue. Small government isn't sexy anymore, handouts are the order of the day. Even the Republicans aren't for it in actions – only words. Are our ideas dead? No, what we need is a better way to sell small government. Freedom and saving people money isn't going to do it anymore. James suggested that we sell the movement by appealing to people's desire for strong communities.

If Obama doesn't turn out be the kind of “change” people were looking for, it would leave the libertarian & paleoconservative part of the Republican party with a good opening. The tag line would go something like this: The federal government moves too slowly, and with too general of intentions to really address peoples' problems at home. Instead, why not give the power, and the purse, to the states themselves? In the states, why not give the power to the counties? ...and so on. The whole marketing point would be strong communities with a government that you could bring change quickly and with maximum relevance to you at home.

Possible Problems

There are some definite adoption issues with this movement. Firstly, getting “regular” people to move on something, and change behavior, is quite difficult. The media is currently setup to bias toward the country as a whole - not the locality. Many people, including myself, usually watch national news as opposed to the local KDKA. However, there's still a large (though shrinking) segment that reads local newspapers, and there is also the emerging (and expanding) group of readers of online news and blogs. Local TV broadcasts through IPTV might also become relevant in a few years.

I would think by definition that local media would be supportive of local movements – after all, it's their local market that gives them any advantage to the national media. Perhaps this would go along with covering the activities of this local movement in a favorable light. Who doesn't like to see cool things happening in their neighborhood?

Another issue would be arguments of “fairness”. Many counties, and boroughs, are a far poorer the surrounding areas. Pittsburgh proper is far poorer compared to Upper St. Clair and Fox Chapel. Unfortunately, people usually are agreeable to this Robin Hood mentality. Check out the Obama voting by district in our own Allegheny County: here. I'm not sure there is positive upside to this though - like with the media. Perhaps the state would step in – which would still be better than the Feds.

I saw this article about how the states have in total $48 billion in budget deficits, and they were acting like that was a bad thing. We can see here that the total federal deficit is $455 billion – nearly ten times the total of all the states combined! Further, they said the states had to made budget cuts and use their currency reserves in order to make up the difference. What an amazing concept, cutting sending and pulling money out of savings – so pedestrian! I wish the Feds acted like the states, but they don't have the clout. Accountability at the state level is much higher as well. In PA, “remember the pay raise” was a rallying cry that ousted many big time incumbents.

Another issue relates to arguments that are based on economies of scale - healthcare, education, etc. I know that the Obama plan for healthcare assumes that having the US as the buyer will decrease costs because of this effect. However, the obvious problems that arise are: agency costs of government that actually counteract the benefits, old fashion corruption / favoritism to those with power, in ability to address local issues – among others.

A problem that comes up with issues like abortion is that, if Pennsylvania makes it legal and West Virginia doesn't, everyone will just drive to PA to receive service – outsourcing the “problem”. It is also relevant to immigration, outsourcing, etc. I think this goes to the core of why people like these types of laws, and that's that people want others to conform to themselves for personal validation. A possible marketing reframing of this issue would be that people could actually feel like their voice matters on a host of other local issues. Maybe this empowerment would overcome the validation sensation.

These are just three types of issues that need to be accounted for in a properly marketed libertarian / federalist movement. I'd like to know what you guys think are some more types. Also, it would be good to see a summary of position points & defenses that appeal to the community marketing technique. Then we could get another post going – maybe even some guest posts. I'm anxious to get some feedback.

Financial Crisis = Berlin Wall Moment?

Joseph Stiglitz said recently that this financial crisis is the Berlin Wall moment for "market fundamentalism". I think this is pretty inflammatory language from someone so repudiated as a balanced thinker - though obviously partisan. After the Berlin Wall, everyone knew the jig was up and Soviet-style communism soon ended. There weren't really multiple moments. Financial crises, on the other hand, are so common that there is a concept called "the business cycle" that deems this effect inevitable – nearly all economists accept this as gospel in one form or another.

I'm wondering: Why did Stiglitz pick this crisis, not the Great Depression, or any other fall of a majority market economy, as the defining "Berlin Wall" moment? After the Depression, capitalism was written off by FDR et alum, but returned strongly after WWII with less regulations, and it strongly contributed to the United States becoming the economic superpower it is today. So, perhaps if he was making predictions in 1929, he would've said the same. This comment is nothing more than saber rattling by the Keynesians.

If we look at what a financial crisis is, it's really just the downgrading of prices to actual levels of value. What causes high values? Almost always easy credit is somewhat to blame. As I've been researching for the upcoming “Economic History of the US” blog series, I'm seeing most of the crises as a direct result of some outward force that causes money to be “cheap”. Often, it's government, but also there are problems of groupthink in the private sector. This causes bubbles without the credit influence, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many industries are currently based upon assets that were acquired by “fire sale”. I believe I mentioned the fiber optic networks, some communications satellite networks, etc. that were bought after the first or second failed company tried to monetize them. Some investors got screwed, but others found buried treasure. This is one reason why there is no broadband shortage because of the sheer amount of overcapacity generated in the dotcom bubble.

The Stig(litz) should stick to the hunt for a possible way the government can realistically defeat information asymmetries and lay off the generalizations that don't further the public good.

The Teleporter Thought Experiment

I came up with this experiment a few months ago (it's probably not new), but it continues to blow the minds of those I tell it to. Basically, I'm wondering what the conscience is, where is it stored and how we can keep it alive. There are also several unusual corollaries that come from this premise.

Disclaimer: if you don't want your mind to be blown – click here. For everyone else – here it goes:

Imagine you're on a trip from Pittsburgh to Santiago, Chile to avoid the awful Pittsburgh winter, but you're dreading the 13 hour flight. Before the trip, you learn about a novel method of travel: teleportation! All you do is step into a machine, you are induced to fall asleep and presto you wake up in Chile. Sounds awesome, but would you do it? Say that everyone who ever tried it appeared completely unharmed and retained all functions of their body, both physical & mental.

Before you answer, let's start with how this form of teleportation works: a machine somehow takes a scan of your body to the atomic level so that it will know the exact position of every atom, cell, fiber, etc. However, in doing so it disassembles you down to atoms – or perhaps mere energy itself. Another machine at the destination then takes this data (just the data, not the atoms or energy you were made of) and builds your body in exact duplicate.

The question is: do you actually get to Chile? Let's assume that there is nothing like a soul or any form of transcendent entity which isn't counted in the atoms you're made of. Under this assumption, if you jump into a 3000 degree blast furnace you will vaporize and most certainly be dead with no chance of return. The disassembly process of the teleporter is actually the same thing as the furnace, and hence I must contend that you would never reach Chile. Instead, an exact replica with your body, all your thoughts, memories, emotions, etc. wake up in Chile, all the while you're “real” conscience is actually dead in Pittsburgh - turned into vapor.

Is there a way to tell if this is true? For you, the traveler, yes. If you wake up in Chile, your conscience has changed place, and you can enjoy the weather and perhaps the fact that a soul could exist. For others, no. They could never trust your word because you may actually be the exact replica with a different (yet indistinguishable) conscience who “remembers” going into the machine. The memories of entry would be saved in the brain before your were disassembled, so they'd be in both of you.

Corollary One

So how could you prevent this? Maybe it's possible to temporarily divorce the conscience from the brain. Think of this: At some point in the not-so-distant future, computers will be attached to our brain to give us enhanced abilities like ability to speak every language or perhaps access the sum of human knowledge i.e. the internet. Eventually, our brain & conscience would come to rely on these devices with superior memory and superior processing power for tasks that currently take place in the brain. Say that the sensation of using the language module was the same or better as if you actually had learned all those languages.

At some point perhaps your conscience would grow to be more defined in the computer modules than in the gray matter world. What would happen if you disconnected the two? Would there be conscience only on the computer or the brain – or maybe both? If both partial consciences, or two identical ones?

If you could fully load your conscience on the computer, could you just go over the internet to Chile? If so, could you visit two places with two separate bodies? This can go on ad infinitum.

Corollary Two

When does the conscience die? I'm guessing when the echoes of brain activity cease their symphony of thought. Maybe though, there are degrees of death. Maybe the frontal lobe dying ends normal complex thoughts, and the “reptilian” brain carries on. Does the frontal lobe have its own degrees of death? If so, can you recover from a low degree of frontal lobe activity? If so, will it really still be your conscience?

This train of thought is meant to preface this question: If you're put into suspended animation, such as with this procedure, your cells' metabolisms slow down. If it slows enough, does this low amount of brain activity cease your conscience? In other words, is their a threshold of brain activity for a conscience? What if your first conscience goes away, but when you're taken out of this suspended animation? Does a new conscience emerge when you “reboot” the body? It would have to be a similar case to the teleporter. 

Could this effect be happening with any of the current anesthetics on the market? Too much gas, and consciousness ceases? Now I'm glad I never got my wisdom teeth out