Care-i treaba cu legile

November 1, 2017 //
0

Cica pe lumea asta sunt doua feluri de legi.

Cele care formalizeaza realitatea de pe teren.
Legea gravitatiei, de exemplu.
Sau Codul Penal. Societatile care respecta un cod penal bine pus la punct o duc mult mai bine decat cele ai caror membri isi fura caciulile intre ei.

Si legile care incearca sa adapteze realitatea la dorintele celor ce pot sa le emita. Nu are nici o importanta daca legile respective sunt adoptate democratic – legea anti-fumat, de exemplu, sau impuse de un autocrat – codul civil al lui Napoleon.

Legile

Tags , , ,
Categories alegerile pe care le facem, Ce tara lasam copiilor nostri?, cooperare, coruptie, identitate colectiva, Justitie, politica, respect mutual, Tara din care traim

History. Is it really dead?

October 31, 2017 //
0

Plato, without actually saying so, was planning to ‘kill’ it.
A society run by his king-priests would have been ‘perfect’. Hence in no need of improvement. Not exactly dead but how would you describe something that doesn’t change in time? Anything but alive, right? And since ‘no change’ means ‘no history’…

Four centuries later, Jesus Christ had warned us about the ‘Final Countdown‘. Last Judgement, sorry. But what difference does it make? Final… Last…

Fast forward to the XIXth century, when Karl Marx was breathing new life into Plato’s ideas.
“The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” (Karl Marx et al, Manifesto of the Communist Party),
Which very able and extremely wise communists were supposed to solve all past, present and future problems through a very simple measure. Abolition of private property and of the state needed to protect such property.
And since not everybody was yet ready to receive ‘the good news’, the communists were given a free hand to use revolutionary force in order to accomplish what they had to do.

To finally bring order to the World. To end history, that is.

Am I thick headed or the difference between Marx’s and Plato’s words is small enough to be insignificant?

“You have again forgotten, my friend, said I, that the law is not concerned with the special happines of any class in the state, but is trying to produce this condition in the city as a whole, harmonizing and adapting the citizens to one another by persuasion and compulsion, and requiring them to impart to one another any benefit which they are severally able to bestow upon the community, and that it itself creates such men in the state, not that it may allow each to take what course pleases him, but with a view to using them to the binding together of the commonwealth.” (Plato, Collected Dialogues, The Cave)

A short century later, another optimist announced that ‘now, after the communist gulag had finally imploded, liberal democracy – a system flexible enough to absorb/solve any input/problem – will take over the entire planet. And, of course, bring over “The End of History” “.

Three decades later things are going on, as if nothing had happened.

There are still plenty rulers who behave as if “L’etat c’est moi” was coined yesterday and, even more sadly, too many people who look up to them.

The end of history has been postponed. Indefinitely.

 

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories arrogance, Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, democracy, effective communication, man induced fragility, manipulation, Mutual Respect, politics, The kind of world we are building for our children

Climate change

October 30, 2017 //
0

We were discussing ‘worst possible scenarios’ on Facebook and somebody mentioned ‘climate change’.
I must add here that the exchange was ‘framed’ by ‘skin in the game‘, a concept used by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his rather don-quixotic quest for more responsible decision makers.

OK, the whole domain of climate change is riddled with epistemological holes.
Linear models are used to approximate processes we barely know anything about.
‘Starting points’ have been, again and again, been proven wrong.
I could go on for hours.

I’ll make a small parenthesis here and inform you that according to a fresh study things might be far worse than we’ve reckoned. This paper, published by Nature.com, suggests that Earth’s oceans used to be far cooler than we’ve previously thought they were.

In this context, one of the participants made the following remark:
“the burden (of proof) should fall on those calling for changes, for the rather obvious reason that we could suggest changes all day long. Only a few can be implemented.”

Hard to argue with that, right?

But which changes are we talking about here?

A change in our manner of interacting with Mother Nature?
Costly, indeed, financial wise, but nowadays technologically possible.

Or about the changes we’ve already – unwittingly, most of them, imposed upon our ‘spaceship’?

We’ve dramatically changed the ‘use of land’. Agriculture and transport – yes, roads and railways have a huge impact – have changed the very nature of what’s going on on a considerable portion of the Earth’s surface.
We’ve dramatically changed the composition of the atmosphere. And I’m not talking about CO2 yet. CFCs, pesticides, NOx and SOx gases, etc., etc….
And, last but not least, we’ve reversed a trend which had been going on for hundreds of millions of years. Photosynthesis used to transform atmospheric CO2 into organic matter, some of which has been steadily accumulated as coal and crude oil.

So, about which changes should we worry first?

Or, in SITG terms, whose skin should bear the brunt of change?

Ours or our children’s?

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories Bounded rationality, Choices we make, cooperation, evolution, Frames of mind, limited rationality, man induced fragility, Mutual Respect, Politically induced fragility, The kind of world we are building for our children

Free from obsession.

October 28, 2017 //
0

“Between 1970 and 2010, the number of administrators in health care grew more than 3000%, while the number of physicians grew about 200%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. During that same 40 years, U.S. health-care spending rose 2300%. Doctors’ fees account for only 8 cents of the health care dollar. Where do you think the other 92 cents are going?”  (Marni Jameson Carey, Focus on Health Coverage Misses the Point, Forbes.com, Oct 24, 2017)

A few years ago I was arguing that profit was overrated.
It seems that Forbes, a magazine which cannot be accused of any socialist tendencies, has reached a somewhat similar conclusion.

Even more interesting is the solution proposed by Forbes to the health care problem.

A return to the free market!

Free from what? Who says the American health care market is not free?
Well, click on the quote above and see what Forbes has to say about this…

But what happened? How did we get here?

Well, the free market described by Adam Smith was an environment where people used to fulfill their needs by selling their wares.
The butcher sold meat and bought everything else he needed, the brewer sold beer and bought everything else he needed, the baker… and so on!
OK, there  was a certain kind of competition which kept the things in check. The butchers competed against other butchers, the brewers…
And because of this competition, all traders – those who wanted to survive, anyway – streamlined their operations and became more and more efficient. Hence profitable.

I mentioned the link between the survival of a commercial enterprise and its ability to generate profit.
Apparently, it doesn’t make much sense to elaborate on this. Bear with me, please.

The whole point of the free market is the division of labor. Besides its freedom, of course.
Each of us does what he knows better and then we trade our respective wares. This way all of us fare better than if each of us would have had to produce everything each of us needs to survive.
In this scenario, competition – between ‘bakers’, for example – is actually a tool which makes it so that the market, as a whole, doesn’t waste resources. When the less efficient bakers are ‘encouraged’ to find something else to do, the entire market is better off. And so on.
In this sense, profit is only one indicator – and a very good one – of how able to survive is a certain commercial venture. But not the only goal of the entrepreneur who started/runs the enterprise. What he wants is to make an as good as possible living by doing what he knows best, in close collaboration with the other participants to the free market.

Adam Smith had written his books some two and a half centuries ago.
And the free market had served us well, for a while.
Just look at what we’ve accomplished in these two and a half centuries.

But, just as Forbes points out, things are no longer going in the right direction.

Why?

Simply because the market is no longer free!

Not only because some of the participants have become ‘heavy’ enough to crush all competition. This is only the lesser part of the problem.
The really big one, and so well hidden that it’s almost invisible, is that too many of us have become obsessed with the same thing. Money!

Life-of-modern-people

Profit has become THE absolute goal of everything we do. Too many of those who participate in the free market no longer want to collaborate with the others but simply want to get rich. By any (legal) means.

Some say this is a good thing.
They invoke Adam Smith’s words as a justification for their beliefs.

I beg to differ.

The simple existence of our current obsession has profoundly altered the very nature of the market. Which is no longer free.

Because WE are no longer free. When too many of us are obsessively concentrated on the same thing, they will necessarily disregard all other options. And the rest have no other option but to follow.

This is not freedom!

Mesmerized people can not be described, by outside observers, as being free.
Regardless of how they consider themselves.

 

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories Bounded rationality, Choices we make, cooperation, Economy, Frames of mind, freedom, man induced fragility, Money as goal, Psychology, The kind of world we are building for our children

Language.

October 24, 2017 //
0

Language is the tool we use when we consciously transmit, receive or glean information.

While the ‘transmitting&receiving’ part is rather simple, ‘consciously and ‘glean’ might need some explaining.

You’ve all heard about ‘body language’.

Actors use it consciously to convey emotion and sometimes even meaning while profilers use it to glean information unconsciously distributed by their marks.

Artists use specific ‘modes of expression’ – language, actually – to convey emotion/subliminal meaning to sometimes unsuspecting audiences.

Skillful ‘communicators’ have learned how to chisel a message – using most common words, printed or spoken – to obtain ‘maximum impact’.

By now I’m sure you’ve already gleaned what I meant by “‘consciously’ and ‘glean'”.
Contrary to popular belief, only one half of those ‘immersed’ in communication need to be conscious of what is going on in order for language to be in use.

Actors can influence their audience without the audience being privy to acting tools.
All of us freely distribute a lot of information about ourselves – through walking, eating, manner of speaking, etc., etc. – which can be ‘deciphered’ with ease by those knowledgeable in this trade.
All of us are inundated by all kinds of advertisement – commercial, political, religious, you name it – but very few of us are aware of the full picture which is being played for us.

In a sense, those of us who can sense anything are like any device connected to the internet.

‘If it’s connected, it can be hacked‘.

But nothing’s as bad as it seems.
Devices can be plugged off or fire-walled while we can stop watching crap.
And, of course, we can put our brains to work, in earnest, before buying into anything which is hurled towards us.

Tags , , , , , , ,
Categories Bounded rationality, Choices we make, collective identity, cooperation, corruption, effective communication, manipulation, Mutual Respect, Psychology, The kind of world we are building for our children, Transparency

Optimizare fiscala.

October 20, 2017 //
0
‘Optimizare fiscala’ este o caciula foarte mare.
Sub ea poate fi ascuns orice.
Bineinteles ca toti oamenii normali la cap isi planifica afacerile in asa fel incat sa obtina cat mai mult profit.
Diferentele apar din metodele folosite pentru a obtine acest profit. Unele dintre aceste metode sunt atat legale cat si morale, altele legale dar amorale sau chiar atat ilegale cat si imorale.
Practica sugereaza, cat se poate de puternic, ca pietele sunt cu atat mai fragile cu cat accepta mai multa imoralitate.
Ne e mult mai usor sa intelegem cat de periculoasa e acceptarea ilegalitatii – tuturor ne e frica de talhari.
Ne e mult mai greu sa intelegem ca ‘hotii’ care se folosesc de imoralitate in loc de violenta sunt mult mai periculosi decat talharii. Tocmai pentru ca nu ne e frica de ei. Ni se pare ca suntem suficient de smecheri incat sa ne pazim singuri de excroci iar chestia asta ne da un fel de mana libera sa incercam sa-i pacalim noi pe altii.
Nu facem altceva decat sa ne furam singuri caciula. Aia optimizata fiscal.
Tags , , ,
Categories alegerile pe care le facem, aroganta, cadre mentale, Ce tara lasam copiilor nostri?, comunicare efectiva, cooperare, coruptie, identitate colectiva, Incredere, Justitie sociala, Manipulare, rationalitate limitata, respect mutual, Tara din care traim

Me neither.

October 19, 2017 //
0

The current “Me too” campaign – long overdue, should be an eye opener.

Pointing out the perpetrators is a good start and we have a long way to go.

If we want to significantly reduce sexual harassment we need to examine ourselves, men and women, in a mirror.

How many times, as men and women, have we heard other men bragging about their sexual exploits, and said nothing?
How many times have we learned about other men using their rank/position to sexually impose themselves upon women, our colleagues, and did nothing?

And these were the easy ones…

Who raised and educated the present generation of sexual predators? Their mothers and fathers? Their teachers and neighbors? Who had put together the ‘sex sells’ culture which currently permeates everything?
How many women had voted for the ‘American Pussy Grabber’, despite the fact that he had proudly bragged about the whole thing? Why so many women, including ‘his’ wife, agreed that receiving oral sex in the Oval Office was something completely different from ‘having sex with that woman’?
How many women, including actresses, have used their charms to snare their bosses/business partners? And got away with it?
Why is it that in most countries the legislation which punishes the ‘working girls’ does not incriminate their clients?

Tags ,
Categories collective identity, cooperation, corruption, effective communication, Frames of mind, gender roles, Mutual Respect, politically correct, The kind of world we are building for our children

Cum e cu ‘contractul social’.

October 19, 2017 //
0
Conceptul asta, de contract mai mult sau mai putin implicit intre membrii unei comunitati/societati, pleaca de la premiza – prea putin mentionata – ca marea majoritate a celor in cauza au aceiasi ‘tinta’.
Ca singura lor neintelegere se refera la traseu si nu la destinatie.
Chiar si democratiile, pentru a ramane autentice, au nevoie de aceiasi situatie.
Nu poti supune votului democratic mai mult decat ruta traseului – adica modalitatea prin care dorintele populatiei sa fie indeplinite. ‘Destinatia’ trebuie sa fie cunoscuta dinainte.
Conceptul in sine a aparut simultan in Anglia si in Franta, undeva prin secolul XVIII. Chiar daca unele variante incercau mai degraba sa justifice rolul monarhiei/conducatorului (Hobbes) iar altele sa puna in evidenta drepturile cetatenilor (Locke si J.J. Rouseau) toate plecau de la premiza ca rationalitatea partilor care interactioneaza in societate le impune acestora sa se uneasca si sa delege puterea executiva catre guvern.
Daca e sa judecam dupa efecte, totul a decurs cat se poate de bine.
Tarile unde a aparut ideea, impreuna cu cele care au adoptat-o si au pus-o in aplicare in mod onest, sunt cele mai dezvoltate din lume iar populatiile lor se bucura de cel mai inalt standard de viata din istoria umanitatii.
Si totusi.
Se pare ca unora li s-a urcat succesul la cap.
Prima chestie care a inceput sa ‘dispara in ceata’ a fost ‘unitatea’. Acum este in plina erodare chiar increderea in procesul de guvernare, in timp ce respectul fata de guverne/guvernanti a devenit o vorba goala.
Peste procesul de erodare, devenit deja istoric, se suprapune in prezent ‘lupta’ dintre generatii.
Iar discutia nu mai este despre ‘traseu’ ci despre ‘unde vrem sa ajungem’.
Daca pana nu demult tinerii voiau ‘mai repede’ iar batranii ‘stai asa ca nu e graba’, in prezent generatiile vor cu totul si cu totul alte chestii.
Jumatate din generatia ‘matura’ e multumita cu starea actuala si vrea sa o conserve – fara sa fie prea tare interesata de consecintele pastrarii ei, iar jumatatea cealalta moare de foame si sta cu mana intinsa la generatia tanara.
Care nici ea nu e mai breaza. Jumatate dintre ei nu stiu ce vor sa faca cu vietile lor – dar pretind sa traiasca mai bine decat cei de dinainte, iar jumatatea cealalta e atat de suparata pe predecesori incat chiar i-ar lasa sa moara de foame.
Pai cum sa mai negociezi traseul autobuzului daca pasagerii vor sa ajunga in locuri diametral opuse?
Iar daca soferul mai si fura din benzina, in timp ce o parte din pasageri se fac ca nu vad…. sau chiar il ajuta…
Mai tineti minte ca cei care imaginat conceptul de contract social si-au bazat intreaga constructia pe rationalitatea umana?
Tags , , , , ,
Categories alegerile pe care le facem, Ce tara lasam copiilor nostri?, cooperare, coruptie, democratie reprezentativa, Justitie, rationalitate limitata, Respect Mutual., Tara din care traim

Nice

October 13, 2017 //
0

Everything any (most?!?) of us cares about is:
‘What each of us gets, and when.’
Emphasis on ‘each of us’.

All of us?

 

Categories Choices we make, Trust

”Ediție explozivă„

October 12, 2017 //
0

Cineva, probabil taică-miu, a uitat televizorul deschis în sufragerie.
Când am trecut pe acolo, am observat chestia de mai sus, cu majuscule, defilând pe ‘burtieră’.
Am schimbat imediat postul!
Televizorul, fără să fie chiar nou, merge perfect.
Ce rost are să risc?
Dacă, prin excepție, de data asta chiar au dreptate?
El ce vină are?

Și de ce ar trebui să mătur eu cioburile?
Doar pentru că unii au crezut că, de data asta, ‘Or să se țină de cuvânt! Uite ce program bun au!’?!?

Tags ,
Categories alegerile pe care le facem, aroganta, autoritarism, Ce tara lasam copiilor nostri?, Hazard moral, identitate colectiva, Incredere, Justitie sociala, Libertate, Manipulare, Nu prostiti poporul cu televizorul!, politica, psihologie, rationalitate limitata, respect reciproc, Tara din care traim
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »