Refeudalization 2 06/23/2006 12:11:11 pm by Dan Krohn

	No sooner do I post my first comment on refeudalization, than supporting data comes from a somewhat unexpected source. The latest issue of "The Economist" features a cover story entitled "Inequality and the American Dream", which basically warns of the same concerns which my refeudalization entries address - albeit from a more relaxed shorter term view. The article cites a study by Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Thomas Piketty of Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris showing the increasing share of aggregate income going to the very wealthy. They compare 1980 to 2004. During that period the top one percent saw its share of aggregate income double from 8% to 16%. More tellingly, the top tenth of 1% saw their share more than triple from 2% in 1980 to 7% in 2004. And to emphasize how the playing field has been tilted to the very, very rich, the top one-hundredth of the top 1% saw its share of aggregate income more than quadruple from 0.65% in 1980 to 2.87% in 2004. The article goes on to comment that the pressure from lost income share has been felt not so much at the lower classes as in the middle class. However, studies indicate that the "American Dream" of starting out with little and becoming fabulously successful is still believed by so many Americans that great tolerance exists for increasing the wealth of the wealthy. The article closes wondering at what point the patience will run out. The goal of this blog is to get people thinking and talking of such issues. As stated in other entries, it would be foolish to punish the successful to the extent that they no longer have incentive to succeed. This author is no communist or fan of managed economies. But at the same time, policies must be in place to support rather than undercut the American dream which has been the source of stability for the United States throughout its history.

	[comments?]

Ruling a Democracy 06/22/2006 11:33:28 pm by Dan Krohn

	This morning on the way to work, I heard a most interesting news story on the radio. It seems that about two years ago two of our soldiers were killed in Iraq. Nothing very strange about that. However, in these two instances, the soldiers were assigned as trainers to the new Iraqi security forces; and they were killed by the very Iraqi security forces they were training. It seems that a price had been put on the heads of just about any American soldier, and some of our “friends” there were tempted. Alternatively, perhaps there was no monetary reward, but simply several Iraqis who hate Americans (or at least Americans being in Iraq). However, the most startling aspect of this story is that it came out two years after the event. The history of this Iraq war is filled with lack of information and misinformation being provided the American public. And this behavior has been so pervasive as to be clearly intentional. All of which leads to the question posed in this entry on political philosophy. In a democracy, the people are presumably supposed to study the affairs of the day, express themselves to their elected leaders, and vote intelligently for the leaders and various propositions. Yet how can this be done if important information is routinely withheld, and false information routinely provided? Just for starters we have the fact that this was a war to remove a direct threat to the United States by a rogue state which had manufactured an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. That proposition has been exposed as blatantly false. Then it was strongly implied, if not stated outright, that Saddam Hussein and Iraq supported Al Qaida - the clearly nasty outfit responsible for the World Trade Towers’ destruction. Whoops! It seems that there is no evidence of this at all; to the contrary, Saddam would brook no military activities in his country which he did not control. Then our leaders decided that we Americans were just too soft-hearted to see that our soldiers were actually dying in a war, the result of which would be citizen pressure to stop fighting. So, in a land that values freedom of the press, a law was passed that no one could take a photograph of a dead soldier being returned to the States. Our president and his assistants have made it clear that our goal is to train the security forces of the new Iraqi government so that they can adequately maintain the stability of their country, after which, we get out. This being the critical test of when the U.S. can leave, continuing reports of improvements in the new security forces are mandatory. So this story of failure in the new Iraqi security forces could not see light of day. Our leaders cannot possibly admit that anything goes wrong. To a very large extent, that state of affairs is the direct result of the short-sightedness of the American people. As will be developed in a future entry, the American population seems to have no patience whatsoever for the actual operation of its government by mere mortals, who as such will sometimes err. There is no allowing anyone to learn from mistakes or change course when the chosen course has been proven incorrect. Any leader who shifts a position is denounced as a flip-flopper - utterly incapable of governing. So elected officials, who want to remain elected officials, are required to stay the course, right or wrong, and if errors are made - hide them. Cover them up! Sometimes one gets what one asks for. So here we have a bad news day. The very people who are learning from us to manage their own security, their ability to do so marking the day we can depart, are willing to kill us. Now this might have been such an isolated fluke incident as to deserve no attention. On the other hand, a government of, by and for the people should let the people know when things are not going well. American government should not operate in such secrecy. This is not a news story of secret troop movements or battle plans, the sort of thing which all agree must not be divulged. Rather this story is direct evidence that our activities are not working as well as we’d like. But if we are going to jump to conclusions about the conduct of a war over what might be an isolated incident, one can hardly blame the leadership for staying mum about this nasty bit of news. Yet ... what if our government has been keeping the lid on not two soldiers being killed by the Iraqis they are training, but fifty or a thousand? Unfortunately, the steady stream of misleading information combined with lack of information (some would say cover-ups) can only make us suspicious. Ultimately, the question comes down to defining the role of the very small, wealthy, elite, highly trained and educated group of people who actually run this country. Let’s face it, our founding fathers were a rather elite class of men; and to a large extent they expected this country to be ruled by a small elite group like themselves. Certainly the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution took democracy to a level unknown in their times. Yet, in many ways they were not far removed from the concepts of monarchy and nobility which dominated their day. Indeed there are writings by the founding fathers themselves clearly stating that the common man (forget woman) was incapable of making national policy decisions of any kind. The political behavior of most U.S. citizens does nothing to contradict the necessity of a ruling elite class. At least one study has demonstrated that the average American after finishing schooling completely reads only one nonfiction book during the rest of his life. How can such people analyze policy? Most Americans, to the extent they follow news, get it all in quickie television sound bites which play to the lowest common denominator. Many totally abdicate their responsibilities as citizens in a democracy, claiming that they do not watch or read news because it is too depressing. Many more get all their fuel from mindless talk radio. How many of us consciously listen to and read matter authored by people with whom we disagree? And how many read any foreign press to get other points of view? Lastly, the rather pitiful percentage of citizens actually voting in elections is rather conclusive evidence that American citizens have willingly given up their role in government. Where there is such a gap, there are always people who love power to willingly fill it. And that is what we have created. Since it takes large sums of money to run today’s television campaigns and support lobbyists who know where to butter which toast, we have an elite wealthy class running the nation. Not surprising, to a large extent it has always been thus. Yet, two things are needed for this system to survive in any healthy condition. One, the elite ruling class must have a sense of noblesse oblige. That is, they must appreciate the fact that with their wealth and position comes a responsibility to care about the vast lazy ignorant majority. For most of our history, there has been just enough noblesse oblige to make this country work. Two, the average citizen must care enough to do a better job of voting the bums out when they have shown themselves unworthy of leadership. I fear that the U.S. is currently failing at both. Stay tuned.

	[comments?]

Refeudalization I 06/23/2006 09:20:02 am by Dan Krohn

	One theme that this blog will return to from time to time is my concern over what I call refeudalization in the United States. By this I mean that economic system referred to as the feudal system. That economy of the middle ages and for a considerable time thereafter was dominated by a very small elite landowning upper class with a large servant class supporting them (including farmers). The feudal system was also noted by its lack of a substantial middle class though some merchants existed reasonably well. With the coming of the enlightenment and even more so the industrial age, the feudal system largely died off in Europe. A middle class arose and Europe enjoyed the best economic times of its existence (though perhaps the landed aristocracy did not see it that way). In America, there never was a feudal system established to any great extent (though one might argue that the plantations of the old South were close). Now, unfortunately, the U.S. is moving towards refeudalization - that is, the establishment of an elite wealthy class, a large lower class, and the elimination of the middle class that has been the strength of America since its beginnings. The evidence of increasing wealth concentration: the trend in the United States towards having a very small very wealthy group and the pushing down of the middle classes into the lower levels is apparent and well established. This blog will not dwell on the raw data which has been adequately developed elsewhere. Rather the policies and factors involved will be discussed from time to time. This is not a pleasant topic, and it is to be expected that many will disagree. Refeudalization will not happen instantly; this will take years. But the process has been set in motion, and current U.S. policies are designed to hasten it occurrence. In this writer’s view, one of the great continuing strengths of the United States during the last century has been the willingness of the leaders of the upper class to sacrifice somewhat for the good of the nation as a whole. This has been reflected in tax policies and other legislation and regulation. Historically, this is an unusual phenomenon, overwhelmingly people do what they perceive is best for themselves during their own lifetime with little thought as to others. However, this willingness of the upper income levels to tax themselves has proven to be in their enlightened self-interest in that the result was a largely booming economy with the vibrant middle class upon which all successful economies depend. However, tax and other federal economic policies began a momentous change just after the bicentennial of this country. The direction of that change continues today at an accelerating pace. Unfortunately, such policies are often too complicated for most Americans to grasp, and frankly, most Americans make little effort. In order for a democracy, a government of, by and for the people, to survive, the people must perform their role. That means reading material with which we both agree and disagree. It means engaging in serious discussions with our neighbors. This is simply not happening with sufficient frequency and ubiquity for the health of this country. This blog will attempt to somewhat simplify understanding some of the economic forces at work. And this blog is certainly intended to spark polite debate. Less anyone think otherwise, I love the United States - that’s why I care enough to make this effort. Loving one’s country critically requires involvement, and many who claim to love this country are too lazy or selfish to do their share. Stay tuned for more on refeudalization and the decline of the U.S.

	[comments?]

Predator Legislation 06/01/2006 11:00:31 am by Dan Krohn

	Everyone is opposed to adult sexual predators abusing children. That’s given. Dealing with the problem is a greater challenge. Apparently some of those in Congress believe there should be a law against it (there are already many laws against it, but hey, it always looks good to support another one). This time the focus is, also again, the Internet. A plethora of online communities have sprung up on the Web. These communities vary tremendously in scope, size and direction – and being on the Internet they are often international. Therein lies the rub. So Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Kirk, with a host of cosponsors have brought forth the “Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006". Apparently, the criminal sex predators have discovered online communities as a ripe source for getting to know kids anonymously aided by the faceless nature of the medium. Mind you often this is not truly faceless, since the community members often post their photos, but a criminal could post any photo and it need not be his/her own. A reading of the popular press indicates that the biggest of the online communities appealing to the young is MySpace. That site has been very successful in becoming the place for teenagers (and many others) to virtually exist. So the new legislation is aimed at MySpace and any other Internet based locale which permits online communication. The legislation would require that all such community oriented sites put into effect procedures designed to keep young children out. Now I think it will be just about impossible for anyone in Congress to vote against this one. How could anyone vote for child abuse? But this legislation is a futile effort and a dangerous idea. Futile, because we have figured out that the Internet is international with easy access. So while enforcement can be done domestically, it will be impossible to take out all the servers which may exist internationally. And it will also be impossible to shut down all the online communities, because they can be hosted anywhere and because people love them. These online communities provide access to kids because the kids along with many healthy adults really want them. They provide a great way to socialize without the awkwardness which comes with personal introductions, and no one has to drive anywhere. They will not go away until something technologically better comes along. Perhaps every legislature should read the current best seller “The World Is Flat” by Thomas Friedman. It’s such a well written thought provoking book, that actually everyone - certainly in the U.S. - should read it. Hey there Congress, we are living in a globalized world and a big part of that globalization is the Internet. Political leaders need to realize what that online creature is and deal with it in a sensible way. Today the Internet has become a part of everyone’s life just as the telephone did before it. So bad guys will use the Internet just as they have used telephones to further their disgusting schemes. Trying to shut down telephones is a futile idea, and no one is proposing that we require telecoms to institute technical procedures to prevent predators from talking to children - are they? Let’s see. We already seem to have the federal government obtaining close to all phone records of U.S. citizens as part of its “war on terror”. Many are bothered by this, but no one has really stepped up with a strong legislative push to get the Bush administration to step down. Now if the war on terror is important, it is certainly at least as important to protect our children from sex predators. So with our thorough telephone spy system already in place, why not install automated listeners which, it will be claimed, do not invade privacy or listen to conversations except to highlight for further investigation those conversations where someone mentions secret key words like: sex, breast, skin, hug, etc. Who could vote against it? We’ll be protecting our children from horrible crimes, Congress will have already indicated by passing the pending legislation that this is the peoples’ policy on the matter. And we will all have to clean up our language. (Conversations like those seen on “Sex and the City” will be limited to television and movies.) Anyone want to bet this won’t happen within the next five years? Anyone comfortable setting odds?

	[comments?]

Iran - today's thoughts 06/06/2006 03:29:01 pm by Dan Krohn

	Foreign policy is not a zone that I want to visit often; however, I find myself utterly bewildered by the current state of affairs between the United States and Iran. So perhaps by writing my mind will clarify. To have any handle on this situation, we must try to understand just where Iran is coming from. (We need to try to understand where the U.S. is coming from, too, as there is a burden upon us to vote intelligently.) Before continuing, I owe it to the reader to state my bias in this regard. I don’t like extreme orthodox theocracies. They scare me. People who kill in the name of God are very dangerous and tend to continue to kill on a regular basis. I don’t like countries which support terrorist organizations. From where I sit, it appears that Iran is all of this. First a rundown of what appears to be relatively clear. Iran is developing a nuclear capability. Iran claims it is for civilian power generation only; the U.S. maintains the Iranian goal is to obtain a nuclear arsenal. Iran has been announcing various stages in the development of its nuclear capability. Russia has stated a willingness to assist Iran in supplying it with nuclear fuel and disposing of Iran’s nuclear waste, which Iran seems to have rejected. Some European nations have negotiated with Iran, apparently with little success. The U.S. refuses to talk to Iran directly. Iran has made aggressive comments concerning Israel, an ally of the U.S. and the only truly functioning democracy in the area. In terms of recent history, the U.S. is not kindly disposed towards Iran because the revolution which resulted in the conservative Islamic government which rules Iran today displaced the Shah of Iran who was a strong U.S. ally. Also, the current government of Iran does not match American expectations in terms of justice - such as respecting other religions and the role and rights of women. And shortly after that revolution Iran held captive a substantial number of Americans for an extended period. Some Iranians no doubt retain hostile feelings towards the U.S. in light of the Shah’s rather strong-armed dictatorship and the belief that U.S. sponsored/assisted regime change put the Shah into power in the first place. Now in all fairness, one can see why the Iranian government would want nuclear weapons. First, that government is hostile to Israel and there seems to be a large consensus that Israel has nuclear weapons and the delivery capability. That alone is probably enough to justify a nuclear effort to an Iranian. However, recent U.S. history can be interpreted to encourage Iranian nuclear capability. The U.S. has shown itself quite ready to invade countries and overthrow their governments; it’s hard to argue that Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq did not happen (without regard to whether those actions were correct or not). And Iran might have noticed that the U.S. has not used force against North Korea, which has shown that it has nuclear capability. An Iranian government could view nuclear capability as a necessary deterrent to U.S. aggression. So where are we now? The United States is openly lobbying the UN Security Council to take strong actions against Iran to force it to abandon its nuclear efforts. By all reports, Russia and China (which depend somewhat on Iranian oil) are balking. So the president of Iran does something which has not happened in a very long time; he sends a letter to the president of the U.S. suggesting that they could talk and resolve their troubles. The U.S. position, as of this writing, is that it will not dignify that letter with a response and will not negotiate directly with the government of Iran. Now China and Russian can continue to balk on the grounds that Iran has opened the door with an invitation to negotiate - and the U.S. has refused a diplomatic effort. I don’t know if the Iranian president’s letter was sincere or not - nor do I know its contents. The U.S. government has not as of this writing released the contents of the letter. Now what does the U.S. want? It could be any number of things. Clearly the U.S. does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons capability. Reasons for that position could include: concern for Israel, fear of extreme orthodox theocracies which are willing to kill people, and fear that Iran would supply nuclear weapons to terrorists. Other reasons have been suggested, such as U.S. concern that Iran will attempt to establish another extreme orthodox theocracy in Iraq. And some people believe that it’s all oil, and the U.S. leadership is planning to invade Iran at some point to ensure greater supplies of crude. (Iran might fear this.) Whatever is going on in the minds of the various leaders, Iran has the upper hand in the battle for world opinion at the moment. There are many in the world who have come to view the United States as a bully. Refusing to negotiate with Iran only serves to confirm that view. By sending the letter inviting diplomacy, Iran has given strength to those who would oppose any joinder with a U.S. led military assault against the nuclear facilities. And within the United States many will worry about the military being stretched too thin and/or the cost of another military effort. This is not a situation that gives me comfort. This game is being played for very high stakes, and could have long lasting consequences. For the moment, Iran is playing its cards with greater finesse.

	[comments?]