Thursday, April 14, 2011
Is the social contract still alive - Hobbes, Locke
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
Yes, the social contract still exists, barely, one would admit, after the events of last week, where it took until the 11th hour of the crucial day, Friday the 8th of April 2011, to avert the complete shutdown of the government of the United States of America.
Social contract or social compact is the most basic principle of morality that we hold ourselves responsible for, whether or not we recognize it as such. It is that unwritten voluntary agreement that we mankind subscribe to, to surrender some individual liberties to our chosen rulers, and to behave in a mutually agreeable manner that the existence of society requires. It is truly mutual, and involves accepting authority but holding those who govern us to certain moral principles. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and J.-J. Rousseau are the modern authors (o.k., 18th century) who proclaim these principles, as necessary, to take us out of the anarchistic state of nature, where “life is poor, rude, nasty and short” and to create a society. The American Declaration of Independence has been the weightiest implementation of the social contract impacting lives on this continent (try to recite “when in the course of human events…” to prove it to yourselves).
We are confronted with breaches of the social compact constantly: in a simplest form it may be a hurried co-tenant who closes the elevator door on you when you are only ten paces away, or most complex, when unarmed Libyans (Tunisians, Egyptians, Tibetans) protest against government oppression by marching into the gunfires of dictatorial rulers. The anarchistic tax protesters of the tea party willing to destroy government functions (“shut it down!” shouted Rep. Mike Pence, R., IN) fit someplace in between. If the anger observed in protesters on television is genuine, some of it borders on pathological. There is a lot of lying and blame-shifting, and and cover-your –butt doubletalk prevails, as in the case of Michele Bachman (R., MN 6th CD), who . in an interview, claims a desire for compromise , and screams denunciations of the opponents in gatherings of the faithful. Whether the 87 new Republican congressmen elected on tea party principles were swayed towards the last minute compromise by re-election concerns, or by the persuasiveness of the media remains uncertain, but the gains reported back to them by the House Speaker John A. Boehner – cutting the US budget by $38 billion rather than $30 billion may have been impressive, and the surrendered financing for Planned Parenthood’s birth control therapy became minimized even in the eyes of some anti-abortionists. Certainly the media did a lot in outlining such losses as furloughing 800,000 government employees, shot-cutting veteran benefits and funeral expenses, closing 395 national parks and sending home the vacationers, involving closing of tour contracts, motel reservations and tourist enterprises, a vulnerable industry producing jobs and foreign exchange income. The objective of creation of jobs in the face of the closings became ridiculous, even to some fanatics. Even after the compromise, House Speaker John A. Boehmer’s statement that “We sought to keep government spending down because it really will create a better environment for the job creators in our country” is hard to swallow, given that most savings will come from firings of government employees and teachers. One shudders to think what the price will be when in mid-May the raising of the national debt limit comes up - a necessity, so that we can pay out interest on our $14.2 trillion debt, and to avoid a catastrophic collapse of the world's economy. The GOP budget planer, Rep/ Paul Ryan (R., IN) wants to repay $5.5 trillion in 10 years, but will use $4 trillion to reduce business taxes and thus grow employment. He will repeal Obama Healthcare act, shrink or privatize Medicare, Medicaid and other mandatory, but boost military spending. Unless Mr. Obama counters, our social compact will collapse. In all these years of reduced taxes for the rich, few (e.g. T. Boone Pickens) offered evidence of domestic employment gains . The billionares invest in FaR East industry, helping the trade imbalamnce grow.
The earliest expression of adherence to the social contract was probably that of Socrates (400-300 BCE) who questioned all men in their conclusions, letting his disciple Plato record the dialogues. Accused of destroying young men’s morality, Socrates was sentenced to death by an Athenian jury of 500, and chose to drink hemlock rather than be jailed or escape abroad, because he had chosen to live in Athens, and had to adhere to Athens law, as expressed by a randomly but popularly chosen jury. Humanity in general has mostly expressed its adherence to the social compact by revolution. Another philosopher, Hugo Grotius in 1625 explained that was war is justified, to defend individual rights, if an enemy interfered with them. Interfering may be punished, even if this meant to deny a monarch’s God-given rights. Even earlier, Fr. Francisco Suarez (1546-1617 of the Salamanca school) theorized against the natural law of divine rights of absolute monarchy. Much of the early social compact reasoning is related to the Golden Rule of Christianity, or Sermon of the Mount (“do unto others as you would others do unto you….), which has precedents in nearly all early moral or religious forms: starting with the Code of Hammurabi, the Sumerian dicta, Judaism (Hillel, most famously), Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and other Eastern forms.
Wally Dobelis thanks the NYTimes, internet sources and the sages at Baruch and NYU 50-plus years ago, who taught us to trust the social contract.
Yes, the social contract still exists, barely, one would admit, after the events of last week, where it took until the 11th hour of the crucial day, Friday the 8th of April 2011, to avert the complete shutdown of the government of the United States of America.
Social contract or social compact is the most basic principle of morality that we hold ourselves responsible for, whether or not we recognize it as such. It is that unwritten voluntary agreement that we mankind subscribe to, to surrender some individual liberties to our chosen rulers, and to behave in a mutually agreeable manner that the existence of society requires. It is truly mutual, and involves accepting authority but holding those who govern us to certain moral principles. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and J.-J. Rousseau are the modern authors (o.k., 18th century) who proclaim these principles, as necessary, to take us out of the anarchistic state of nature, where “life is poor, rude, nasty and short” and to create a society. The American Declaration of Independence has been the weightiest implementation of the social contract impacting lives on this continent (try to recite “when in the course of human events…” to prove it to yourselves).
We are confronted with breaches of the social compact constantly: in a simplest form it may be a hurried co-tenant who closes the elevator door on you when you are only ten paces away, or most complex, when unarmed Libyans (Tunisians, Egyptians, Tibetans) protest against government oppression by marching into the gunfires of dictatorial rulers. The anarchistic tax protesters of the tea party willing to destroy government functions (“shut it down!” shouted Rep. Mike Pence, R., IN) fit someplace in between. If the anger observed in protesters on television is genuine, some of it borders on pathological. There is a lot of lying and blame-shifting, and and cover-your –butt doubletalk prevails, as in the case of Michele Bachman (R., MN 6th CD), who . in an interview, claims a desire for compromise , and screams denunciations of the opponents in gatherings of the faithful. Whether the 87 new Republican congressmen elected on tea party principles were swayed towards the last minute compromise by re-election concerns, or by the persuasiveness of the media remains uncertain, but the gains reported back to them by the House Speaker John A. Boehner – cutting the US budget by $38 billion rather than $30 billion may have been impressive, and the surrendered financing for Planned Parenthood’s birth control therapy became minimized even in the eyes of some anti-abortionists. Certainly the media did a lot in outlining such losses as furloughing 800,000 government employees, shot-cutting veteran benefits and funeral expenses, closing 395 national parks and sending home the vacationers, involving closing of tour contracts, motel reservations and tourist enterprises, a vulnerable industry producing jobs and foreign exchange income. The objective of creation of jobs in the face of the closings became ridiculous, even to some fanatics. Even after the compromise, House Speaker John A. Boehmer’s statement that “We sought to keep government spending down because it really will create a better environment for the job creators in our country” is hard to swallow, given that most savings will come from firings of government employees and teachers. One shudders to think what the price will be when in mid-May the raising of the national debt limit comes up - a necessity, so that we can pay out interest on our $14.2 trillion debt, and to avoid a catastrophic collapse of the world's economy. The GOP budget planer, Rep/ Paul Ryan (R., IN) wants to repay $5.5 trillion in 10 years, but will use $4 trillion to reduce business taxes and thus grow employment. He will repeal Obama Healthcare act, shrink or privatize Medicare, Medicaid and other mandatory, but boost military spending. Unless Mr. Obama counters, our social compact will collapse. In all these years of reduced taxes for the rich, few (e.g. T. Boone Pickens) offered evidence of domestic employment gains . The billionares invest in FaR East industry, helping the trade imbalamnce grow.
The earliest expression of adherence to the social contract was probably that of Socrates (400-300 BCE) who questioned all men in their conclusions, letting his disciple Plato record the dialogues. Accused of destroying young men’s morality, Socrates was sentenced to death by an Athenian jury of 500, and chose to drink hemlock rather than be jailed or escape abroad, because he had chosen to live in Athens, and had to adhere to Athens law, as expressed by a randomly but popularly chosen jury. Humanity in general has mostly expressed its adherence to the social compact by revolution. Another philosopher, Hugo Grotius in 1625 explained that was war is justified, to defend individual rights, if an enemy interfered with them. Interfering may be punished, even if this meant to deny a monarch’s God-given rights. Even earlier, Fr. Francisco Suarez (1546-1617 of the Salamanca school) theorized against the natural law of divine rights of absolute monarchy. Much of the early social compact reasoning is related to the Golden Rule of Christianity, or Sermon of the Mount (“do unto others as you would others do unto you….), which has precedents in nearly all early moral or religious forms: starting with the Code of Hammurabi, the Sumerian dicta, Judaism (Hillel, most famously), Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and other Eastern forms.
Wally Dobelis thanks the NYTimes, internet sources and the sages at Baruch and NYU 50-plus years ago, who taught us to trust the social contract.
Labels: Grotius, Hillel, Hobbes, Locke, Mike Pence, Montesquieu, Paul Ryan, Rousseau, social compact, social contract, Socrates
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
WikiLeaks and budget leaks change the world
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
The results of WikiLeaks have reached this household directly: an Israeli friend called to complain about the Obama administration being friends of Iran, and not helping Israel. Bush was good, he gave; Obama makes demands; he is a Moslem. How des she know it? Simple, read the WikiLeaks. Obviously, there are interpretations at work that work against US, and hypocrisy abounds around them. This anarchist, Julian Assange, made sure of maximum spread by sending copies of the 250,000 documents to The Guardian in London (who copied NYTimes), Der Spiegel in Germany and Al Jazeera in the Middle East. Their condensations were copied and reinterpreted by newspapers of every persuasion in the world. The documents contain diplomatic chatter, not significant decisions, and cannot be compared to the Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers, or Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson's "16 words" disclosures. Nevertheless they compromise our friends, disclose our despair and destroy our standing and the credibility of US. Stealing and pushing this information on the world is destructive to peace and treasonous to all efforts to work out the world's disasters. I have no qualms with the government reading my e- mail and monitoring my foreign correspondence and phone calls, searching me at airports, accessing my personal information, when that helps to prevent suicidal terrorist attacks against my family, my country and my world. I have nothing to hide from people who protect me and my planet. On the contrary, I harbor much anger towards those who want to destroy my country's effort towards peace in the world, and I am sure that in their hearts many Liberals and middle-of-the roaders feel the same. If that's not acceptable to ACLU and other protectors of the 1st Amendment, please recognize that we are facing destruction of the world, with world shattering weapons in the hands of people who think that Armageddon and advancing the Final Days is within their purview. What motivates this capricious Julian Assange and his US Army private to destroy the credibility of this country and its allies, and sow anger towards US among desperate people here and abroad? Have they considered the ultimate results, or are they driven by other motives? Who is paying for this effort, are the political enemies of US government at work? We really have to move, temporarily, beyond civil liberties and other privacy issues, to protect our families, our country, and the planet; it is within our purview and in our social contract. The stakes have grown exponentially. If that sounds trite, maybe you consider how the potentials of total destruction within our generations have escalated beyond belief.
Which brings me to the next fear, of economic destruction. The United States, in terms of productivity towards balance of trade, is somewhere near Portugal's level. We can only pay for 59% for what we import, leaving use with $836B trade deficit. .Portugal is at 62%, and the commercial EU world does not accept it. While 60 years ago Portugal and Spain were the countries to buy textiles and tiles from and outsource work to, because the cost was 1/4 that of Germany's, their social benefits systems have rolled up, and so have labor costs. Southern Europeans have acquired democracy, TV sets, homes, health benefits, Social Security, early retirement, and unemployment protection. As an EU economist states, you cannot base economic recovery on tourism, real estate and finance. The world allows the US to function without calling in its chips because we have the largest, monster economy, a GDP of $14T plus, about the same as those of the export countries Japan, China, Germany and Russia combined, also because we have the world's standard currency and largest reserves. But someone, some day, may have to call in some chips, and it can snowball, although it is in the interests of our creditors to keep the status quo. Our government debts are 84% of GDP, equal to or a bit above those of France, Canada and the Euro area, and well below Japan, Italy and the smaller debtor nations (all figures used are 2009 or 2008).
The costs that American middle class will have to assume to try balance the budget and improve the trade balance are formidable. The president has signed on, with the appointment of the bipartisan Alan K. Simpson/Erskine B. Bowles fiscal commission, which has concrete plans to cut expenses, starting with marginal income increment-based reductions in benefits and increases in prices for Social Security and Medicare, including an upped benefit start age, and tax deduction elimination for mortgage interest, real estate taxes, donations, various tax loopholes (try inventorying them from Alternate Minimum Tax form 6251), and more. The first increases mailed out November 24, marginal Medicare Plan B premium increases, for singles starting at $85K and couples at $170K income, are 40 percent, rising to 230 percent at incomes of more than $214K and $428K respectively. If these percentages relate to future Social Security premium rises, Young America is in for hardships.. All this , once more, prompts asking why the incomes above $1m ought not to be taxed higher. I ask this of conservatives in particular, to consider the events that have changed (below), or should have changed, their free enterprise and free trade theories.
Since the repeal of FDR's Glass-Steagall act of 1933, a law that defined the functions of retail banks, investment banks, stock brokers and insurance as not combinable, these entities have turned full service, all functions in one office. A bank (any kind since the robber-baron investment banks now have registered, to obtain protection of FDIC ) now can underwrite a bond, get it rated, offer it wholesale or retail, collect commissions, provide phony insurance (remember AIG and swaps?). The REIT crashes of 1970s-'80s did not prevent an act to deregulate savings banks in 1980, and particularly the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999, approved in the Republican Senate and overwhelmingly accepted by bipartisan support in the House. It freed the banks from the responsibilities of managing risks, and not speculating with depositor funds. The Federal Reserve had to spend over $3,000B to bail out the big banks (including UBS, a foreigner) to keep the credit availability open, else payrolls would have stopped all over the world and the entire financial structure of this multinational world economy would have collapsed. Unfortunately, the big banks just served the credit market as barely as possible, and speculated their way back to being bigger than ever. Recovered businesses kept $1T profits abroad, waiting for a tax amnesty. US Treasury did not play its control role wisely, not forcing the banks to help recover the middle tier of business. They should not have accepted quick repayments but retained their ownership and controls positions.
What's my beef? Well, banks and business have destroyed the US position as manufacturer by outsourcing production to cheap markets (remember maquiladoras?) . Free trade agreements like NAFTA lost US jobs - not that the social entitlement structure has not helped, by skyrocketing labor costs. The business world is not keeping its social contract with our country. Maybe we are more entitled to benefits than the Portuguese, by being more inventive - Ford and the automobile, Rockefeller and oil, Silicon Valley and electronics, and cotton gin and air conditioner in between - but the Ricardo theory, that colonialists can always stay ahead of low cost producing colonies by being technologically ahead, has failed. Manufacturing has become mobile and the former exploitees have brain power and sometimes have moved ahead of the West. Conservative non-traditionalist Patrick Buchanan has long been screaming for tariff barriers to protect American jobs, despite the economists' insistence that Smoot-Hawley like barriers are counterproductive.
Can the natural resource poor West recover? The Germans manage, with hard work and the Ruhr iron, but can we? Will we tighten the belts and accept a lower standard of living? Not easily. the older of the 15M unemployed will drag on, with unemployment benefits , not willing to step down and retrain for the 5M vacancies going begging. I know two college grad kids now retraining, one dropped by finance and learning to be math teacher, the other learning IT; a number of others are turning entrepreneurial, working off the 500m member worldwide social networks. As for the banks, can they be turned around to finance real estate and native manufacture recoveries?. The best among bankers, Jamie Dimond of JPMorganChase who in 2008 refused to be Secretary of Treasury,, insists that they can, but he too had to do tough foreclosures. And what happened to the president’s commission, with Bill Gates, to develop new salable manufacture lines? Did they decide that the American worker is too expensive, and slink away?
Positive thinking is getting harder, but let’s keep it up.
The results of WikiLeaks have reached this household directly: an Israeli friend called to complain about the Obama administration being friends of Iran, and not helping Israel. Bush was good, he gave; Obama makes demands; he is a Moslem. How des she know it? Simple, read the WikiLeaks. Obviously, there are interpretations at work that work against US, and hypocrisy abounds around them. This anarchist, Julian Assange, made sure of maximum spread by sending copies of the 250,000 documents to The Guardian in London (who copied NYTimes), Der Spiegel in Germany and Al Jazeera in the Middle East. Their condensations were copied and reinterpreted by newspapers of every persuasion in the world. The documents contain diplomatic chatter, not significant decisions, and cannot be compared to the Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers, or Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson's "16 words" disclosures. Nevertheless they compromise our friends, disclose our despair and destroy our standing and the credibility of US. Stealing and pushing this information on the world is destructive to peace and treasonous to all efforts to work out the world's disasters. I have no qualms with the government reading my e- mail and monitoring my foreign correspondence and phone calls, searching me at airports, accessing my personal information, when that helps to prevent suicidal terrorist attacks against my family, my country and my world. I have nothing to hide from people who protect me and my planet. On the contrary, I harbor much anger towards those who want to destroy my country's effort towards peace in the world, and I am sure that in their hearts many Liberals and middle-of-the roaders feel the same. If that's not acceptable to ACLU and other protectors of the 1st Amendment, please recognize that we are facing destruction of the world, with world shattering weapons in the hands of people who think that Armageddon and advancing the Final Days is within their purview. What motivates this capricious Julian Assange and his US Army private to destroy the credibility of this country and its allies, and sow anger towards US among desperate people here and abroad? Have they considered the ultimate results, or are they driven by other motives? Who is paying for this effort, are the political enemies of US government at work? We really have to move, temporarily, beyond civil liberties and other privacy issues, to protect our families, our country, and the planet; it is within our purview and in our social contract. The stakes have grown exponentially. If that sounds trite, maybe you consider how the potentials of total destruction within our generations have escalated beyond belief.
Which brings me to the next fear, of economic destruction. The United States, in terms of productivity towards balance of trade, is somewhere near Portugal's level. We can only pay for 59% for what we import, leaving use with $836B trade deficit. .Portugal is at 62%, and the commercial EU world does not accept it. While 60 years ago Portugal and Spain were the countries to buy textiles and tiles from and outsource work to, because the cost was 1/4 that of Germany's, their social benefits systems have rolled up, and so have labor costs. Southern Europeans have acquired democracy, TV sets, homes, health benefits, Social Security, early retirement, and unemployment protection. As an EU economist states, you cannot base economic recovery on tourism, real estate and finance. The world allows the US to function without calling in its chips because we have the largest, monster economy, a GDP of $14T plus, about the same as those of the export countries Japan, China, Germany and Russia combined, also because we have the world's standard currency and largest reserves. But someone, some day, may have to call in some chips, and it can snowball, although it is in the interests of our creditors to keep the status quo. Our government debts are 84% of GDP, equal to or a bit above those of France, Canada and the Euro area, and well below Japan, Italy and the smaller debtor nations (all figures used are 2009 or 2008).
The costs that American middle class will have to assume to try balance the budget and improve the trade balance are formidable. The president has signed on, with the appointment of the bipartisan Alan K. Simpson/Erskine B. Bowles fiscal commission, which has concrete plans to cut expenses, starting with marginal income increment-based reductions in benefits and increases in prices for Social Security and Medicare, including an upped benefit start age, and tax deduction elimination for mortgage interest, real estate taxes, donations, various tax loopholes (try inventorying them from Alternate Minimum Tax form 6251), and more. The first increases mailed out November 24, marginal Medicare Plan B premium increases, for singles starting at $85K and couples at $170K income, are 40 percent, rising to 230 percent at incomes of more than $214K and $428K respectively. If these percentages relate to future Social Security premium rises, Young America is in for hardships.. All this , once more, prompts asking why the incomes above $1m ought not to be taxed higher. I ask this of conservatives in particular, to consider the events that have changed (below), or should have changed, their free enterprise and free trade theories.
Since the repeal of FDR's Glass-Steagall act of 1933, a law that defined the functions of retail banks, investment banks, stock brokers and insurance as not combinable, these entities have turned full service, all functions in one office. A bank (any kind since the robber-baron investment banks now have registered, to obtain protection of FDIC ) now can underwrite a bond, get it rated, offer it wholesale or retail, collect commissions, provide phony insurance (remember AIG and swaps?). The REIT crashes of 1970s-'80s did not prevent an act to deregulate savings banks in 1980, and particularly the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act of 1999, approved in the Republican Senate and overwhelmingly accepted by bipartisan support in the House. It freed the banks from the responsibilities of managing risks, and not speculating with depositor funds. The Federal Reserve had to spend over $3,000B to bail out the big banks (including UBS, a foreigner) to keep the credit availability open, else payrolls would have stopped all over the world and the entire financial structure of this multinational world economy would have collapsed. Unfortunately, the big banks just served the credit market as barely as possible, and speculated their way back to being bigger than ever. Recovered businesses kept $1T profits abroad, waiting for a tax amnesty. US Treasury did not play its control role wisely, not forcing the banks to help recover the middle tier of business. They should not have accepted quick repayments but retained their ownership and controls positions.
What's my beef? Well, banks and business have destroyed the US position as manufacturer by outsourcing production to cheap markets (remember maquiladoras?) . Free trade agreements like NAFTA lost US jobs - not that the social entitlement structure has not helped, by skyrocketing labor costs. The business world is not keeping its social contract with our country. Maybe we are more entitled to benefits than the Portuguese, by being more inventive - Ford and the automobile, Rockefeller and oil, Silicon Valley and electronics, and cotton gin and air conditioner in between - but the Ricardo theory, that colonialists can always stay ahead of low cost producing colonies by being technologically ahead, has failed. Manufacturing has become mobile and the former exploitees have brain power and sometimes have moved ahead of the West. Conservative non-traditionalist Patrick Buchanan has long been screaming for tariff barriers to protect American jobs, despite the economists' insistence that Smoot-Hawley like barriers are counterproductive.
Can the natural resource poor West recover? The Germans manage, with hard work and the Ruhr iron, but can we? Will we tighten the belts and accept a lower standard of living? Not easily. the older of the 15M unemployed will drag on, with unemployment benefits , not willing to step down and retrain for the 5M vacancies going begging. I know two college grad kids now retraining, one dropped by finance and learning to be math teacher, the other learning IT; a number of others are turning entrepreneurial, working off the 500m member worldwide social networks. As for the banks, can they be turned around to finance real estate and native manufacture recoveries?. The best among bankers, Jamie Dimond of JPMorganChase who in 2008 refused to be Secretary of Treasury,, insists that they can, but he too had to do tough foreclosures. And what happened to the president’s commission, with Bill Gates, to develop new salable manufacture lines? Did they decide that the American worker is too expensive, and slink away?
Positive thinking is getting harder, but let’s keep it up.
Labels: Alan Simpson, Armageddon, Glass Steagall, Gramm Leach Bliley, Jamie Dimond, Julian Assange, Last Days, NAFTA, Patrick Buchanan, Smoot Hawley, social contract, treason, Wikileaks
