The History of the World (Part Six)

Free Trade, Part One.

Our story thus far: After evolution or God or both coughed up H. sapiens (us), we spent myriad kyr (many thousands of years -- lookit me ma, I'm a wordsmith!) primarily preoccupied with killing each other, subsisting, and once in a great while, inventing something really cool.

Hunter-gatherers got tired of wandering around in search of three squares and invented agriculture (and beer). Once there was enough food and beer to go around towns became cities became civilizations and H. sapiens rose to the top of the food chain. The killing and subsisting continued, and, as mentioned, once in a great while someone invented something really cool.

Eventually, in the late seventeen hundreds, we hit a trifecta. The Industrial Revolution picked up steam, the USA was born, Adam Smith invented modern economics. Mr. Smith said that the best way for everyone to make a buck depended on three things -- the pursuit of self-interest, the division of labor, freedom of trade.

Now, this vastly oversimplified history of the world is about to get even worse.

That is, I'm deliberately giving short shrift to the first two and emphasizing the most important, freedom of/to trade. After all, the world in general, and the USA in particular, is somewhat preoccupied with the subject.

The pursuit of self-interest simply means that every Tom, Dick, and Jane has the right to figure out how they're gonna pay the cable bill without a king, or a master of any sort, assigning them a role to play in the economy or determining how and how much they'll be rewarded for their labors. A free man or woman should be compensated based on what service/product/talent they provide their fellow H. sapiens. A reasonably free market will easily determine the value of a good doctor, a good housekeeper, and everyone else.

When regulation is kept to a necessary minimum and the playing field is level, consumers will rule, consumers will win.

As to the division of labor, this can be summed up in two words, modern civilization. Do/make something you're good at and trade it for things you aren't good at doing/making. Simplify things dramatically via a reliable system of reward certificates (money). The result? The most prosperous era in the history of H. sapiens. Consumers rule, consumers win.

Which brings us to...

...Freedom to trade. If you’ve lost a good job because your job is now being done by someone in a foreign country, like Elbonia for example (H.T. Scott Adams) -crappy weather, chock full of primitive religious sects prone to killing each other, a corrupt government and/or any number of other possible combinations of factors that would keep you from vacationing there even if you had any damn money - odds are you might be a little cranky.  

I’m a little cranky because I lost a fairly decent job, a job that I thought would be my last, due to the effects of (ominous musical fanfare): The Great Recession. When this happened I was almost a thousand years old (in American years) and had all the wrong skills. I’ve been relegated to a crappy job, several part-time crappy jobs in fact, that required me to work eight days a week. Unfortunately, it wasn't because I was a greedy workaholic who couldn't ever be rich/secure/powerful/enough, it was because they didn't pay very well.

I had to work a lot of hours to get by; I literally limped my way, with a fractured hip, to a forced early retirement because I needed the diminished dough to get by before the rest of my damaged joints (rheumatoid arthritis) got any worse.

The reason I lost my job was because of/had nothing to do with free trade. I’m certain I could make a plausible argument linking the last recession (hopefully it was just a recession for you, for me, it was, ominous musical fanfare: The Great Recession) to free trade agreements. To bolster my case, I’m certain I could quote experts and statistics; I’m certain I could find some very official and complicated looking charts.

I’m equally certain I could make a plausible argument that proves free trade agreements had absolutely nothing to do with my personal experience of (ominous musical fanfare): The Great Recession. And I’m not even an economist.

[How to embarrass an economist. If they’re not rich (of course, most aren't), ask them why, considering what they do for a living. While they’re hemming and hawing you take your verbal kill shot. “And by the way, if economics is a science, why are you guys still arguing over what caused the Great Depression, you know, the one that hit about 75 years ago?”]

My point is that economics, which I find fascinating and worthy of study by the way, is a social science. This means cold hard facts are even harder to come by than they are in the hard sciences. We’re part of a global economy. Billions of people are pursuing their self-interest regardless of whether or not their government officially approves. This is human nature. This is reality.

[Insert relevant, ironic aside here. I live near a General Motors plant where the employees risk having their car trashed if it isn’t an official GM product. It was temporarily closed relatively recently because of an earthquake in Japan that disrupted the flow of components that GM manufactures or purchases -- in Japan. Ain’t that ironical?]

I lost my good job because of (ominous musical fanfare): The Great Recession. Economists will be arguing for generations as to what caused it as fervently as they argue about what caused The Great Depression.

More specifically, it might have happened because the company I worked for, that kept a huge Kmart warehouse clean, wasn’t competitive enough. And/or Kmart wasn’t competitive enough (hold your calls, I think we have a winner).

BIG BUT.

And/or Kmart decided that outsourcing housekeeping wasn’t such a great idea after all and decided to have people on the payroll do it. Which may have been because it was a concession to the union to get a contract signed, or just make the working environment less toxic, because the rank and file never did get over the establishment of quotas. Or, maybe they decided to assign “second tier” workers to do housekeeping since they’re bitter about the fact they have to hit the same quotas the much better paid first tier rank and file, who agreed to a second tier to keep their own wages considerably higher than local labor market norms...

Or, maybe I lost my job because of a variable, or a combination of variables, known or unknown, led to life jumping out from behind a tree and kicking me in the crotch. Which is how life, and the economy, in spite of our best efforts to generate a desired outcome, often works.

To be continued...

Have an OK day.

P.S. If you're a Facebooker, and you enjoy my shtuff, could I trouble you to click on "Like" at the top of the page? This will (hopefully) help me to find some new readers, and retain existing ones, via your friendly neighborhood cranks Facebook page.

If you wish to react, leave a comment, share, etc. -- please scroll down. I'd love to get more reacts, and comments for that matter. Also, you can do your Amazon shopping by clicking on the banner down there, thus helping to ensure that me and mine are not rendered homeless (no pressure...).

Free content offer. Please feel free to share, borrow, or steal any of my weekly copyrighted columns and do with them what you will, 24 hrs. after initial publication. All I ask is that you post my URL, TheFlyoverlandCrank.com, and mention my name, Mark Mehlmauer. For details click on the Take My Posts... Please! tab. Price: Free and No Charge. TYSAM    

Dear (Eventual) Stickies & Great-Grandstickies

The Stickies, if you are unaware, is the name I use for my grandkids, as a group. They are no longer sticky, so I pre-apologize to any given one of them if, after reaching adulthood, they should decide they are dysfunctional H. sapiens and innocent victims of this, that, and the other and, that one of the this, that, or the others turn out to be the fact I hung the name "the Stickies" around their delicate little neck.

I'm cautiously optimistic, however. It's early days yet, but so far they all seem to be in pretty good shape considering they live in a freakishly large household that includes me.

And now, if you'll forgive me, gentlereaders -- this is an open letter to them, they who are one of the primary reasons I continue to crank out my weekly column in spite of the fact I've yet to come close to being able to quit my day job -- so I must move on.

[Oh, but before I forget (sorry), let me publicly state that I don't expect any given one of them, no matter how financially successful they may turn out to be, to take care of me in my impending dotage. I'm sure I'll be fine.]

Dear Stickies & Great-Grandstickies,
It's the week before the presidential election of 2016...

[Sorry, sorry. I forgot to mention that I'm not writing to the current Stickies, who are busy being reasonably well-adjusted kids and/or young adults. I'm writing to the eventual Stickies, that is, the future, grown up Stickies, and also to the next generation of Stickies, my great-grandstickies. I hope to live long enough to not only meet my great-grandstickies but also to have a (hopefully) positive influence on their lives. Obviously, the odds of that happening decrease with each passing year but at least they will have access to my feeble scribbles. 

See, the Stickies probably won't remember all that much about the current election. The oldest is a newly minted 16-year-old (happy birthday, dude!). My great-grandstickies will be learning about it in history class. So, it's occurred to me that I can provide both groups with a first person account of this and other things as I experience them in real time. This will provide them with my perspective, and not just what they vaguely remember or learn about in history class. Hopefully, they will find this interesting.

Both of my parents died relatively young, long before my extended callowyute stage ended. I would love to have access to their thoughts on the Great Depression, WW2, and myriad other things.]

Dear Stickies & Great-Grandstickies,
It's the week before the presidential election of 2016 -- The Donald (Trump) v. The Hilliam (a symbiotic amalgamation of Hillary and William (a.k.a. Slick Willie) Clinton.

I'm reasonably certain cautiously optimistic that the history books will report that one of the defining characteristics, perhaps the defining characteristic, of the contest is that both candidates, according to the polls (and this is one case where a sharply divided nation agrees that even the polls are correct), are disliked and distrusted by more people than folks who like and trust them. Trust me, this is an accurate assessment.

It's not uncommon for even a given supporter of either candidate to state something like, "Sure, she's a world-class liar and a least a little bit crooked but..., or, "Sure, he often comes across as being a little nuts and he's at least a little bit crooked" -- but, "she/he is even worse."

By the way, I changed reasonably certain to cautiously optimistic because if the Hilliam wins I'm sure they will continue to push the nation in a leftward direction. At the moment at least, the public school system, as well as the majority of colleges and universities, are both guided by a philosophy that ranges from solidly left-wing to extremely left-wing.

This philosophy is currently somewhat enamored with revisionist history and free speech limitations, justified by the pursuit of political correctness. This is for your own good, of course, to protect you and your fellow delicate flowers and snowflakes from the inevitable trauma that will arise once your realize that the real world doesn't hand out participation trophies. So, who knows what the history books may actually say about this particular election considering we're told history is written by the winners.

Of course, I realize that your estimable parents didn't raise you that way and did everything they could to shield you from the liberal industrial complex. I highly recommend keeping this knowledge under your hats as much as possible, particularly if by the time you're grups, these unfortunate trends continue. It will give you an edge many of your peers will not have access to, or even understand.

Anyway, this is supposed to be about the fact that the richest, most powerful, and (arguably, it's complicated) freest nation the world has ever seen (so far at least) is about to choose a new leader, and most of its citizens wish there was a viable alternative to choose from. There ain't, and that's a fact, regardless of what the history books (will) say.

The Hilliam have a long history of corruption and managing to just miss paying a price for it (again, so far at least) and if one of you should decide to make a study of their lives in search of definitive answers you will find yourself on safari in a dizzinformation jungle. It's a man-made jungle they designed, with no shortage of help from our current cultural clerisy, a clerisy that believes that the end justifies the memes.(1) 

The bottom line is that since Slick Willie and the little woman left the White House they have amassed a fortune, estimated to be at least a $100,000,000 (and change) -- by being popular after dinner speakers. This is all you need to know.

As for the Donald, he's an alleged billionaire that has a history of endlessly shifting political, cultural and ethical stances. He seems to be rich, we don't know how rich, he won't release his tax returns. I normally would care less how rich he actually is, or even if, as they say in Texas, he's all hat and no cattle.

BIG BUT.

He markets himself as a wildly successful self-made man who's willing to use his immense natural ability to solve all of America's problems. Millions of people believe him.

Now, I've no idea how rich, successful, or intelligent he actually is -- but I do know this. He makes P.T. Barnum look like a rank amateur. He knows that people lead with their hearts and use their brains to justify their behavior after the smoke clears. He knows how to use this knowledge to build a following and battle his enemies. He knows that The Gubmint has become too large and too powerful and that the baby boomers knocked over the melting pot and set the culture on fire.

He knows that even many people who can't bring themselves to vote for a vulgarian are thinking that maybe even he would be better than the Hilliam, who personify everything that's wrong with America. We've no idea what he might actually do, but, [forgive me gentlereaders, for indulging my inner vulgarian -- desperate times/desperate measures] perhaps we need someone to go to DC and fuck shit up.

So, there you have it my dear Stickies and great-grandstickies. We are supposed to choose between the Wicked Witch of the Northeast and the Wizzard of Oz. I hope for your sakes it all turned out OK. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


(1) The Clerisy

If you wish to react, leave a comment, share, etc. -- please scroll down. Also, you can do your Amazon shopping by clicking on the banner down there, thus helping to ensure that me and mine are not rendered homeless (no pressure...).

Free content offer. Please feel free to share, borrow, or steal any of my weekly copyrighted columns and do with them what you will, 24 hrs. after initial publication. All I ask is that you post my URL, TheFlyoverlandCrank.com, and mention my name, Mark Mehlmauer. For details click on the Take My Posts... Please! tab. Price: Free and No Charge. TYSAM

The History of the World (Part Five)

So, having managed to reach the year 1776 in spite of hundreds of thousands of years primarily devoted to killing each other while avoiding being killed by the somewhat bloodthirsty Mother Nature, two really cool things happened. The American experiment was launched (see parts three and four) and Mr. Smith published a book.

Adam Smith was, and is, a well-regarded absent minded professor type with a first rate mind. He gave up his day job, as a popular professor at Glasgow university in 1764, to tutor and travel with a young Scottish nobleman (road trip!). They spent a couple of years touring continental Europe and met several leading thinkers of the day (such as Benjamin Franklin) and Mr. Smith was given a life pension by the grateful nobleman that enabled him to spend the next ten years or so working on his magnum opus, “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.”

In other words, he set out to discover the best policies a given nation should pursue so that everyone could make a buck. The answer, as summed up by P.J. O’Rourke is, “Economic progress depends upon a trinity of individual prerogatives: pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, and freedom of trade.”

Warning: do not try and read The Wealth of Nations unless you enjoy the writing style of 18th-century century academics (I’m thinking this is a relatively small group of folks), and, you’re much smarter and more patient than I am (I’m thinking this is a relatively large group of folks). The commas and semicolons seemingly reproduce themselves as you try and decipher the text. Find a commentator or two that you trust to render Mr. Smith’s ideas into modern English.

In Mr. Smith’s defense, it ain’t easy to invent a field of study, particularly a field like modern economics. Also, I must warn any kneejerk anti-capitalists (a group that included me when I was a callowyute) that beating up on Mr. Smith because you think he was just another greed head will  make you look goofy as he’s well known for his belief that accumulating wealth and material goods won’t make you happy.

Before inventing modern economics, his thing was exploring morality and ethics, figuring out how we should treat each other, how we could all get along. He wrote a book entitled The Theory of Moral Sentiments that is still highly regarded. Incidentally, both it and The Wealth of Nations were best sellers in their day and almost immediately literally changed the world.  

He just wanted to figure out what the optimal system was for a free people to attain whatever level of economic security they thought was necessary and appropriate to keep the wolf from the door. He warned the world about crony capitalism. Although he was financially quite successful, he quietly and discreetly gave away most of his money and lived simply. I highly recommend P.J. O’Rourke’s, “On The Wealth of Nations.” Mr. O’Rourke is not an economist, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but that’s a whole different essay. He is, however, very smart, very funny, and lives in the real world.

“Economic progress depends upon a trinity of individual prerogatives: pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, and freedom of trade,” says O’Rourke, stating the fundamentals of Smith’s thought.  That’s it? That’s all it takes for a country to be prosperous?  Everdamnbody? Yup. Well, more or less. The rule of law is also essential component if you think that it’s important that everdamnbody should have to play by the same rules and bullies should be spanked.  

Disclaimer: I’m an unrepentant wild-eyed free marketeer, a UWFM, here, have a bumper sticker. I don’t care for the word capitalist because of the tendency of well-meaning, progressives, socialists and communists to frequently use it as an epithet. Also, I describe myself as a sorta/kinda or bleeding heart libertarian, primarily because I’m all for a rationally designed safety net and many libertarians think that’s wrong-headed or impossible.

Aside: Communism, in spite of its adherents claim that it would work if ever done properly, is an obvious dead end, often literally. Socialism is a great idea, all we have to do is change human nature first and lock up all the screwballs like me that are obsessed with personal freedom. Progressivism and/or democratic socialism, or how to have your cake and eat it tooism, is the current flavor of the month for the utopianists of the world. Many people want the benefits of a free market combined with a big, juicy welfare state with millions of rules and millions of unionized bureaucrats, but someone else, preferably the evil rich, should pay the high taxes needed to fund  the necessities of life, such as Obamaphones for example. More on the resulting mess later.

Back to Adam Smith. Smith’s work contradicted a widely held belief of his time, mercantilism. This is the belief that a nation’s wealth is determined by how much gold, silver, cash, ginormous televisions etc. it can accumulate, after all,  there’s only so much wealth to go around. Therefore, you should export for the cash and block, or at least penalize, imports. This view of the world, that currently is enjoying a comeback, leads otherwise clear thinking people to believe in the Boarding House Pie Fallacy.  

Say you're living in a boarding house. It’s dinner time and Mrs. McGillicuddy is serving up her famous apple pie for dessert. Since there’s only so much pie to go around, and fat Frank is at the table, it behooves everyone to employ a strategery that will ensure an equitable portion of pie. Mr. Smith’s insight (not to be confused with Mrs. Smith's pies), and he’s not alone, was that boarding house wisdom has limited applicability. There’s an easier and more effective way to get what you want that has the added benefit of not having to impose high tariffs (which begat high prices) and over-regulate anyone -- the pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, and freedom of trade. Skilfully employed these three ensure that everyone can have their own pie. To be continued...

Have an OK Day.

©2016 Mark Mehlmauer 

Gentlereaders, my Tuesday and Thursday mini-posts are about to disappear, at least for the time being. It looks like I'm going to need to have a new knee installed and before I do I'm going to be meeting all sorts of medical specialists. Turns out that if you're a man who is technically over 50 you're supposed to have various medical shtuff done on a regular basis. Who knew?

Having not seen a doctor since the late 80s (for a CDL physical... it's complicated) I'm running a bit behind and have all sorts of i dotting and t crossing to do (tests and appointments) before I can get myself a shiny new knee. 

So -- to make things easier, not miss any mini-post postings, and most importantly, to make sure I don't miss publishing my beloved (by me anyway) weekly column (dude, it's what I do!) -- mini-posts are outta here.   

The Pussy Bow Incident

I've been at this for awhile now, this blogging thing. I've been cranking out weekly columns for well over a year and now I'm playing around with a mini-post concept. While I'm not a great writer, I think I'm decent. Not the same old same old anyway. I'm aware that 90% of wannabe writers will never be published by someone other than themselves. I'm aware that 90% of published writers will never quit their day job. I'm aware that I picked those percentages out of the air, so don't go a-googling in search of veracity. They're covered under the terms of my creative license.

That said, although I realize that making enough money from my work to impact the lives of me and the Stickies, of ever being more than a hobbyist, is highly unlikely, I still dream about getting lucky, and I keep trying.

However, I've just been rudely reminded that if my judgment was better, if I picked the right topics to write about, and when, if I were more culturally aware, I might be wildly successful by now. See, I thought writing about the pussy bow incident, but I passed, and now the world has moved on.


In case you missed it, Melania Trump wore a shirt/blouse/top (?) decorated with what amounts to a huge floppy bow tie to the second presidential debate that I now know is called a pussy bow. My exhaustive research reveals that it was considered cool at one time to tie bows around the necks of cats. This phenomenon was the inspiration for the unfortunately named shirt/blouse/top (?) known as a pussy    bow. I was unable to discover if the obvious loss of dignity to any felines thus abused in this manner was noted or recorded.

At some point, some-one, started hanging them around the necks of women and they've been going in and out of style ever since. I confess, that although I've successfully managed to achieve the age of 39 on 24 successive occasions, I was completely unaware of any of this until recently.

And then -- Melania Trump showed up for the second presidential cat fight debate wearing a fuchsia (I had to look that up too) pussy bow shirt/blouse/top (?) and this kicked off a kerfuffle, that I thought  was goofy. The kerfuffle in question, generated a brief (thankfully) burst of tweets, comments, articles, postings, etc. Was she subtly supporting the Donald? or was it a passive-aggressive condemnation of his "locker room talk"?

Which is why -- I saw an opportunity to make fun of the whole goofy incident. But I passed and it faded away quickly. I refer to the fuss about the unfortunately named shirt/blouse/top (?), not the fuss about the Donald's choice of words, which the Hilliam will make sure never goes away -- but I was wrong.

See, a few days after the second debate, Maureen Dowd, a...

Oh, wait! before I forget (this will just take a sec'), since the Donald claims that the Hilliam is the tip of the spear of a vast conspiracy by the media, The Gubmint in general, the FBI and the Justice Department in particular (and other conspirators to be named later) and not just the result of a fame and money loving, agendicized, infotainment manufacturing media monster and formerly (more or less)  respected and independent, The Gubmint, agencies that have been politicized by King (I've got a phone and I've got a pen) Barry  -- deep breath -- am I the only one that thinks this is a vast left-wing conspiracy that was set into motion by the Hilliam when they unearthed the vast right-wing conspiracy that had placed Monica Lewinsky in the White House in order to trick Slick Willie into using her as a humidor?

[Insert sound of the loudest gym teacher's whistle you've ever heard, here.

Wait just a minute Sparky! Sez Dana, my imaginary gentlereader, grinning from ear to ear. While Marie-Louise (my muse) and I both love the paragraph long sentence (ML, a woman of few words, is smiling, nodding, and scratching my back), is this train going anywhere or have you taken the wrong spur?]

Oh, sorry -- yes, definitely. OK, so, Maureen Dowd (or MoDo), in case you don't know, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist who writes a weekly column for The New York Times. Remind you of anyone? Except for the facts that she writes for the NYT, leans decidedly to the left, knows The Donald personally, hangs with the elites of Manhattan and D.C. and won a Pulitzer for writing about the Hilliam a thousand years ago when they became world famous child abusers -- we're very much alike.

See, she doesn't care much for the Donald or the Hilliam either, and her writing style is not the same old same old, for which she's often criticized by important people, as I hope to someday be.

And, whereas, I ignored the Pussy Bow Incident, she wrote an entire (sort of) column (1) about it in addition to her weekly one. I say sort of because it was chock full of mindless tweet quotes -- rather like something you'd find in a USA Today online article. I normally enjoy reading her stuff but I find myself turning, more and more, into an anti- tweeter. In fact, I'm thinking about starting a movement to oppose the pervasive spread of this cultural malignancy. I'm formulating a plan to...

Insert sound of the loudest gym teacher's whistle you've ever heard, here.

Sorry. Well, there you have it. A clear explanation as to why MoDo is a well connected, Pulitzer Prize-winning, Manhattan dwelling, New York Times supported writer and I'm a blogger limping along in Flyoverland.

I was feeling sort of depressed about my situation, but then I read an article (2) in USA Today online the day after the most recent debate that explained why the Hilliam wore white that night that included the line, "It's also been suggested that suffragettes wore white because its connotations of virginal purity helped shield them from the accusations of sexual immorality that were often hurled at them from the movement's opponents." The Hilliam and virginal purity mentioned in the same article.

I'm still grinnin', you can't make this shtuff up folks!

And then I stumbled on an article (3) from The Hill that was written the day before the last debate that reported that Madonna, who apparently has been reduced to being an opening act, pledged to perform oral sex on men if they vote for The Hilliam.

I'm feeling much better now, and I do believe I shall remain in Flyoverland.

Have an OK day.

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016

(1) MoDoCo(lumn) 
(2) USA Today
(3) Madonna

      

The History of the World, Vol. 4

The invention of the USA: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  

Or...

The natural state of man, excuse me, the natural state of male and female H. sapiens, is that though we’re all unique in how we look, how smart we are, and what innate talents we have, nobody is born automatically better than anyone else. We are entitled to live as long as biology and fate permit, we’re free to pursue our own path and discover what it is that will keep getting us out of bed in the morning until we can’t (or won’t) get out of bed in the morning. I maintain that this is obvious (self-evident) to any more or less well-adjusted kid on the playground. I also maintain that this is obvious to any emotionally healthy, clear thinking grownup. I maintain that any well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) king, cleric, or bully (even politically correct bullies) that maintains otherwise is delusional and needs to be dealt with appropriately.

Obvious?

Yup. Well, sorta/kinda. It’s obvious to those of us that have grown up fortunate enough to take the concept for granted. The, um, traditional way was the way of the alpha male. A method of social organization still in vogue in more than a few places. We’re hard-wired to function that way and when the excrement hits the air conditioning we’re often rudely reminded of that fact.    

We have two choices. The traditional way -- the way of the alpha male, the way of the bully, the way of the king, the way of the high priest -- or the way of the (at least superficially) rational person. Rational people employ reason. Wikipedia: “Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions and beliefs based on new or existing information.”  

And yes, I used the word superficially. Rationality is a buggy, crash-prone app still in beta testing. For the dead white males that invented the USA, fortunately for us, reason was a thing, a very big thing. We got lucky. They were the 1% of their day, but back in their particular day, something that came to be called the Age of Enlightenment was rockin’ the world. A new meme was going around.

If you decided that the traditional way of doing things only worked well for a very small group of people and you could rewrite the rules, using reason, to set up a new system that benefited everyone equally (at least in theory), what would you do?

What they did, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, was set up the USA. The wailing and gnashing continued, and continues, as it should in a democracy. Fortunately, the new system includes built-in mechanisms to fix and/or change what the people decide needs fixed and/or changed. It ain’t easy to change, and it shouldn’t be, considering how thin the veneer of rationality is.            

Emotionally healthy, clear thinking grownups realize they’re not the only kid on the playground and that just enough rules are necessary to ensure everyone has fun but has to share the equipment and that bullies are not allowed. This is called government and it requires that a few conditions be met in order that the people remain as free as realistically possible. First, we the governed, get to decide what the rules are. Second, the rules should be as few in number as possible so that individuals remain as free as possible.Third, great care must be taken to avoid the potentially huge, honking, downside of democracy, the tyranny of the majority.

If a majority of the kids on the playground get together to ban little Timmy from the premises just because of his unfortunate tendency to pick his nose, even  though he’s not breaking any rules, a grownup (the rule of law) must step in to protect not only Timmy’s right to be there but also make sure he isn’t bullied. This is the why and what of the U.S. constitution. It’s called the American experiment because no one else in history had managed to pull off anything quite like it and many thought we wouldn’t either. Some still don’t, and there’s no guarantee that it will ultimately end well.

Now, just because we’re lucky enough to have been born into the species that sits at the top of the food chain, in the most prosperous nation the world has seen (so far at least) we still live in a dangerous, hostile world that guarantees nothing but our eventual death. It’s up to us to come up with food, clothing, and shelter and defend ourselves from those that want to kill us for fun and/or profit.

I once heard a nurse that was the head of some organization or another declaring with passion and conviction that, “Healthcare is a right!” in a radio interview.

No, it’s not.

Life, freedom, and the pursuit of whatever it is that keeps us getting out of bed are the fundamental rights everyone obviously should get. But even these natural, fundamental rights are a reality, not just a potential reality, only for those fortunate enough to be born into a culture that acknowledges and defends them. You may have noticed there’s no shortage of thugs that look at things a bit differently. Everything else that you think you’re entitled to depends on what you and/or your fellow citizens are prepared to work your bums off for. If you don’t believe this, try performing the following experiment.

Have yourself stranded on a desert island without a crew from a reality television show. Raise your fist to the sky and DEMAND! food, clothing, shelter (and healthcare), then wait and see what happens. Oh, and make sure you don’t let your situational awareness chops get rusty while you’re waiting because mother nature is notoriously oblivious to our rights. Like any good mom, if she has a favorite, she’s keeping it to herself, and, she doesn’t seem to lose any sleep when her kids eat each other to stay alive.

Oh, and please note that you don’t even have to ask nicely for life (however temporary), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Self-evidently, unless Gilligan and company show up and turn out to be evil, drug-addled crazies (which would explain a lot), you’re about as free as you can be within the physical limitations of life on Earth. And unless one or more  of the zany castaways has brought a trunk full of meth, you could stay as free as possible (all things considered) simply by agreeing respect each others unalienable rights. Next, on to the original Mr. Smith.

Have an OK day.

©2016 Mark Mehlmauer


If you wish to like, react, leave a comment, share, etc. -- please scroll down.

         

Cognitive Bias

Not long ago I wrote a column about the work of Dr. Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist, that included a link to a video interview (1). The subject of the column, and the interview, was Mr. Haidt's take on why Depublicans and Republicrats, conservatives and liberals, sheesh, everyone, have become so polarized.

It's occurred to me that I didn't make mention of one of Mr. Haidt's observations that I find to be not only true but also particularly important. It conveniently confirms my position that the Information Age has a huge, honking downside, its alter ego so to speak, the Dizzinformation Age, that was the subject of another fairly recent column. So, that must mean I was right, right?

(GRIN)

Cognitive bias is a widely documented and accepted phenomenon by psychologists that simply refers to the fact that when we take in information we're more likely to process it subjectively than objectively. This is what I've dubbed gut first, brain later (GFBL). Most of the time we're not the highly rational creatures we imagine ourselves to be and that we tend to react to information, at least at first, in a biased way. We may or may not change our minds when/if we step back and at least try to decide what's what, objectively speaking.

Scholarly studies aside, this seems like common sense to me. For example, I don't know about you but I know that I have a strong tendency to form opinions about others within moments of meeting them that I can't justify rationally. I quickly label and classify them in spite of the fact that I resent it when I'm aware of someone else doing the same thing to me. And, of course, in spite of the fact that I'm um, occasionally wrong when I do it. It would seem that first impressions are indeed as important as often claimed.

I take solace from the fact that this sort of thing makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. I, your dilettante about town, know that science explains our innate biases as a survival mechanism. When wandering around the jungle, hunting and gathering lunch, you and the gang have a better chance of not being hunted and gathered by someone or something else if you're wired to react quickly to the snap of a twig rather than to stop and call a committee meeting to discuss its ramifications.

Mr. Haidt points out that the internet is the most effective tool for the promotion of cognitive bias ever invented.

For example, if I google the question, "Do bigfeet exist?' I will be supplied (after being asked if I meant to say bigfoot, so many things to fix once I'm king...) in short order with the answer. Yes, definitely, and no, definitely not. Take your pick.


Now -- keep in mind the power of cognitive bias due to its long history as a successful survival strategery.

Also --  keep in mind that it's been scientifically demonstrated why it's so difficult to change someone's mind, which requires an entire column or for you to go a-googling. (I refuse to go into it any further just now as I hold this is self-evident to anyone that interacts with anyone, that is, everyone.)

Also -- you've no doubt noticed there's no point in arguing with a conspiratorially-minded person (except for fun) because they will shrug off your alleged facts as being just the bonkercockie THEY want you to believe.

Which is why --  I maintain most people will click on the links that look like they will supply the answer that they wanted in the first place.

Furthermore -- if they don't find what they were hoping to find in the first place, they will keep clicking till they do, or, give up in disgust and try to forget about it. Not you and me of course, but most people.


Haidt points out that the internet, our Information Machine (can I get a shout out for Mr. Peabody and the WABAC machine?), makes it possible to "prove" anything. In spite of the fact we have access to vastly more information (and here's more, and here's some more...) than at any time in human history, more info can, but doesn't necessarily, solve a given problem/question/argument. In fact, it can make things worse via bias confirmation. We can easily find what we want to find (and here's some more.)

Walk with me, talk with me. Let's take a brief detour down Digression Ave., we'll be back in just a sec'.


The phrase, "90% of world's data generated over last two years", or something like it, can be found all over the internet. Consistent with my stated mission, to provide enlightened infotainment, I went a-googling to try and discover the source of this information about information. According to sciencedaily.com ("Your source for the latest research news") this factoid can be attributed to a research/development entity called SINTEF (.no) -- "Applied Research, Technology and Innovation" -- as of 5.22.13.

At this point, I could've kept going and tried to discover yet more information about how fast information is accumulating but -- I have a life, I'm a dilettante, and I'm certain (as I'm sure you are) that I would find no shortage of contradictory information about information.

However, ya' gotta love the irony. I went looking for information about a commonly used alleged factoid about information and discovered that the two-year window schtick that I keep running into was posited three years ago. So for all we know, two years may now be two months, or two days. If I went  looking for more up to date statistics they would probably be out of date, and disputed, before I finished writing this column.


And we're back! What have we learned, Dorothies?

Relatively easy access to the Information Machine has and will continue to change the world at light speed in wonderful/awful ways. But, some things will never change. We need to cultivate an open mind, we need to commit to at least trying to find out what the truth actually is, not just what we would like it to be. We need to find the fine line between compromise and selling out/walking out. This is an attitude which would also give us more families with both a mom and a dad on site but that's not what this column is about so I won't bring it up.

Have an OK day.

© 2016 Mark Mehlmauer

(1) Jonathan Haidt Explains Our Contentious Culture

The History of the World (Part Three)

In our last episode, we covered the history of the world from the invention of agriculture to the year 1776. In 1776 the world caught a major break.

In Great Britain's North American colonies a bunch of folks got together and invented the United States of America. In Scotland, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, invented modern economics, and taught the world how free markets would eventually lead to the need for a weight loss industry. These two events occurred while the industrial revolution was picking up steam.  A trifecta!  

Sound of screeching tires in a panic stop. I must here throw in a few paragraphs from the Reality Checks, Caveats & Premises department before proceeding. First, the three events mentioned in the previous paragraph didn’t happen by magic. The Greeks dabbled in democracy, the Romans ran a republic (sorta/kinda), the English managed to make a Magna Carta, etc. Mr. Smith wasn’t the first person to consider how economies worked and we had obviously been producing and selling stuff to each other for thousands of years before the industrial revolution came along and we got really, really good at it. But the trifecta served to usher in the modern world and made it possible for so many of us to become the spoiled, whiny, overfed ingrates of the first world and inspire the lean and downtrodden third world to aspire to someday have their own obesity epidemics.   

Second, in my semi-humble opinion, the American experiment can be defined by quoting the most important passage of the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If you accept that statement as a fundamental given (whether or not you believe in a creator), perhaps the most fundamental of givens… Well, If you don’t accept that statement, I fear it’s time for us to go our separate ways, you can have the dog but I’m keeping most of the DVDs.

And third, (still here?) I freely acknowledge that the next sentence in the declaration could have been, “Assuming, of course, that you are caucasian and male.” That was undeniably the way America worked at the time and it was undeniably flawed. However, it was the local version of how much of the world worked at the time, a version of reality that lives on in not a few places. Sexism and racism are unfortunately not rare phenomena. However, I maintain that some dramatic progress has been made in the last 250 years or so, particularly when compared to however many gazillions of years it was considered normal for a given caveman to club a cutie down at the waterhole to keep his cave clean while he and the boys raided other tribes for booty and slaves.

When my mom and dad got together, roughly 75 years ago (chronologically speaking a drop in the bucket), they believed that a man’s job was to bring home the bacon and a woman’s job was to be a domestic engineer. Period. In light of the way many folks look at things today, including me, they were wrong. I’m inclined to not only forgive them, but to also say thanks. They weren’t evil, and incidentally, they were part of the generation that survived the Great Depression and won World War Two. While they were busy saving the world they didn’t know that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow would be an era of unprecedented prosperity for the USA, the one that lasted from just after WW2 to the late 1970s. Things started getting weird after that, which I’ll get into later.

Finally, let us acknowledge the elephant skulking in the corner of the room. Homo sapiens will be Homo sapiens. While I’m profoundly grateful for the dumb luck of being a product of, and living in, a country that’s a product of Western civilization, I’m slightly smarter than I look. My gratitude is based on two things. Although I think Western civilization in general, and the USA in particular, is the best we’ve done so far, both are as flawed and imperfect as the H. sapiens that somehow came up with them. Therefore a -- We’re number one! We’re number one! -- overheated sports fan attitude can be as tacky as wearing socks with sandals. Let us be quietly smug. The coolest kid doesn’t have to tell people he’s cool, that’s part of his, um, coolness.  Also, an economic implosion here, an epidemic there, a bus-sized meteorite over there and the Dark Ages Digest will experience a sudden, dramatic increase in circulation.

Have an OK day.

[Dana, perpetually grumpy imaginary gentlereader, speaks. Wait just a minute, Sparky! yer gonna stop there? Posit that 1776 marked some sort of global game changer, then insert a "caveat" (whatever the hell that is) and then leave off? Marie-Louise (my drop dead gorgeous muse, who has finally returned from Quebec) is looking at me dubiously.]

Well, I'm running low on words. Think of it as a cliffhanger. Cliffhangers are cool, right?

[No, they're not, they're annoying. Who do you think you are, James (short, breathless chapters ending often as not with a cliffhanger) Patterson?]

Well, he is a best-selling author, and a gazillionaire.

[This ain't no suspense novel! It's a weekly column...

... With mini-posts on Tuesday and Thursday now, don't forget!

[Bonkercockie! exclaims Marie-Louise with a French accent (Bon-care-cok-E!). I'm going back to Quebec! She storms out of the room. Dana and I stare at each other in stunned silence -- for half a second.

Now look what you've done! Now look what you've done! Yikes! simultaneous exclamations. We're degenerating into a second-rate sitcom. I gotta go. Marie! I'm sorry! Come back, baby!]

© 2016 Mark Mehlmauer 

If you access my column via my website, you can like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down. Mobile, email, and borrowed content gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop, tablet, and desktop at theflyoverlandcrank.com.