Heroes

 

I Need A Hero

I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night
He's gotta be strong and he's gotta be fast
And he's gotta be fresh from the fight.

What does it say about you if you need a hero?

We have been telling stories about heroes from the time of Greek myths, to today’s Marvel and DC Universe movies.  What does it say about you, if you believe in heroes?  In a previous blog post, I described a framework for human behavior, https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2020/06/a-framework-for-human-behavior.html.  One of the attributes in this framework is whether someone favors User Optimal or System Optimal solutions.  Heroes by definition must believe in System Optimal solutions.  They clearly don’t seek a solution that is best for themselves, but seek the solution that is best for others. 

Superman could use his powers to be the wealthiest individual, but he chooses instead to save others. Batman is a billionaire but chooses to pursue justice, rather than his own pleasure.  In the movie "Civil Wars", Captain America seeks justice over order. When Spiderman says “With great power, comes great responsibility”, it clearly means responsibility to others even if it is to your own detriment.  Greek tragedies often describe what happens when heroes seek to advance their own interests, seek a User Optimal solution, and abandon seeking what is best for others, a System Optimal solution.

If you expect a hero to not seek their own User Optimal solution and save you, or you follow a story where a hero does just that, you probably also prefer System Optimal solutions over User Optimal solutions.   A hero may not only be someone who doesn’t get captured, but also includes those that get captured, depending on why they got captured and what they did once they were captured.  The best way to show that we admire heroes is to seek System Optimal solutions for ourselves. Then we can be our own heroes.

Trade Wars

War 

(War) h'uh. Yeah! 

(What is it good for?) Absolutely nothin’ 

 uh-huh, uh-huh 

(War) h'uh. Yeah! 

 (What is it good for?) Absolutely nothin' 

 Is a trade war good for nothing, too?

 “The US trade deficit is increasing because the US is losing the trade war with China.” There is a lot to unpack as wrong in that statement. 

First, war is a zero-sum game in that there are winners and losers. Trade is NOT a zero-sum game, and if it is done correctly should be a win-win game. 

Second , trade is not always a bilateral game. The trade deficit between one country and another is not necessarily relevant. In grade school we learned of the 17th and 18th century triangle trade: of slaves from Africa to the Caribbean; of molasses from the Caribbean to New England; and of rum from New England to Africa. (the following by no means is an endorsement of the triangle trade but is illustrative as to why bilateral trade measures are not relevant.) Between New England and Africa, Africa is the loser and New England is the winner. Between Africa and the Caribbean, Africa is the winner, and the Caribbean is the loser. Between the Caribbean and New England, New England is the winner, and the Caribbean is the loser. However the lesson of the triangle trade is that bilateral winners and losers do not mean anything. Another example is when the Red Sox traded Mookie Betts to the Dodgers as part of a three-team deal with the Twins. Trade can involve more than just two parties. 

Third, is the trade deficit in goods and services for the US increasing? Yes, but it has been increasing since the Bretton Woods agreement was terminated in 1971. The US Dollar is an international reserve currency and a major currency used in international trade. If US Dollars are in demand by other countries, they have a reason to be in a trade surplus with the US. This means that the US will be in a trade deficit with the rest of the world. Highlighting the trade deficit in service and goods acts as if the only value of the US dollar is to the US economy, which is not true. If the US dollars have a value to other countries, and there is value in trade between countries that does NOT even involve the US, the expected result is that the US will have a trade deficit. If  US dollars were not a reserve currency or the major international trade currency, there would probably be no trade deficit. 

So is the US losing a trade war with China and is that responsible for the US Deficit in goods and services. That viewpoint is so wrong that it is good for absolutely nothin’.

“Law and Order” vs. “Honor and Justice"

 

The Impossible Dream

This is my quest, to follow that star
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far
To be willing to give when there's no more to give
To be willing to die so that honor and justice may live.

“Law and Order” may only mean supporting the existing system.

We have elections to determine who controls the government, i.e. the system.  “Law and Order” supports those who control the existing system.  “Honor and Justice” supports the system, no matter who controls it. 

If there are protests against the system, those may not be supporting “Law and Order.”  However if those protests are on behalf of “Honor and Justice”, isn’t that  better than supporting “Law and Order”.

It brings to mind the opposition to protests when I was young as “My country, right or wrong”.  The best response that I remember agreed with that statement, but acknowledged that it was incomplete.  ”My country, right or wrong.  If it is right, keep it right.  If it is wrong, make it right."  That is supporting “Honor and Justice”, even if it is not supporting “Law and Order”.

Second Chances

 

I Am Changing

I am changing
Yes I know how 
I'm gonna start again.
I'm gonna leave my past behind
I'll change my life.
I make it up
And nothing is gonna stop me now. 

Is America is the Land of Second Chances? 

There is a popular tale used by certain groups, the Scorpion and the Frog.  A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. The frog lets the scorpion climb on its back and then begins to swim. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I couldn't help it. It's in my nature." 

If you accept the "moral" of this fable , then even though the scorpion knows that he will drown, you believe that he can’t change his nature.  You believe that the frog was “foolish” to give the scorpion a second chance.  Blaming nature is saying that one can’t change.  The problem is that the scorpion lied when he said he knew that they both would drown and would act to prevent that.  The frog would have been foolish to believe that the scorpion wouldn’t sting him on land, but the frog acted reasonably in believing that the scorpion would not sting him in the water where they both would drown. If you believe in second chances, then you believe that people can change their nature.

Cancel Culture

 Imperfection

I need imperfections
I don't need you to be perfect (oh, no, no)
We all got a past now
You just gotta leave it in the past now (uh)
So cancel out your ex (cancel out your ex)
And let 'em know I'm next (let 'em know I'm next)
And cancel out your stress (cancel out your stress, yeah)
'Cause baby I'm the best (yeah, yeah)

Is Dr. Seuss being Cancelled?

Hardly. Six out of his almost fifty books will no longer be published by his estate, but the remaining books will be treasured by readers in the years to come.  This decision not to publish was not made by the government, or by any political party. It is purely a business decision.

Is Dr. Seuss a racist?  That is a complicated matter.  He certainly drew things in ways that can be considered offensive early in his career.

https://www.businessinsider.com/before-dr-seuss-was-famous-he-drew-these-sad-racist-ads-2012-3#-3

"Wife on vacation, King?”

“Vacation nothing.  Nice girl, but I simply had to swap her for this Flit Gun.”

He avidly supported the WWII wartime Japanese internment camps,  but  later came to view the post-war occupation of Japan as tragic and that is thought to have inspired "Horton Hears a Who".

Like Saul, Theodore Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss, appears to had his moment on the road to Damascus.  If we don’t honor Paul’s older offensive letters from when he was called Saul, why are we troubled that older, offensive Dr. Seuss images and words will no longer be published by his estate.  There is a difference between honoring the past, and remembering the past.  Let us honor the person that Dr. Seuss became, and not remember the racist images and words in some of his early works.  Not publishing those images or words is not cancelling Dr. Seuss. It is honoring him.

Trust

 

Oriental Sadness 

She's been talking to somebody.
Who told her lies?
She'll never trust in anybody no more.
Who told her lies?

If those governing tell lies, how can we trust them?

The US one dollar bill carries the motto "In God We Trust", but we are also trusting those who govern, control, society, including those that issue money.  Capitalism assumes that there is perfect information available to both the buyer and the seller.  However this is an average over time. It does not apply to every transaction.  Over time, those transactions that are unsatisfactory will fail and those that are beneficial will succeed.

Like all statistics, this does not apply to each individual transaction.  Knowing that a fair coin flip will be heads one half of the time, provides no information on what the next coin flip will be. Information is unlikely to be available for every transaction.  The buyer and seller have to trust each other for their transaction to be satisfactory. 

It would be great if complete information were available for every transaction and trust was unnecessary.  However, economics shows that users will seek the lowest possible cost/price.  If that cost/price includes using tainted products, child labor, etc. then users will seek this cost/price regardless of their own long-term interests. That is why laws are passed to ensure that harmful outcomes, whether child labor, tainted or counterfeit products, wages below a minimum, etc. can not be considered.  However buyers and sellers still need to trust that the enactment and enforcement of these laws will be in their best interests.  That is why lies matter.  If you can’t trust someone about one thing, then you may not trust them about anything.  

Private Property

 

We Can Be Together

Come on all you people standing around
Our life's too fine to let it die
We can be together
All your private property is target for your enemy
And your enemy
Is we 

Is private property Godly and public property Godless? 

Communism is defined in the dictionary as “a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned, and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.” I happen to be a Marxist myself, but I aspire to follow Julius Henry “Groucho” Marx. Karl Marx also espoused that religion was the opiate of the people and his followers are considered to be Godless.  My college chaplain, who hardly could be called Godless, was a Franciscan priest who took a vow of poverty. He believed that all property was communal, public.  Thus while Communism might be claimed to be Godless, public property, can also be considered to be property owned by God’s people, and is thus by definition not Godless. 

Similarity private property is not Godly.  In fact, Christians believe that the “love of money
(a measure of private property) is the root of all evil”.  The Bible might have said that God gave man dominion over the earth, but that that should be taken to mean all mankind, and not an individual man. 

While I live in private property, I only have to take a few steps outside my door to be on public property, a street.  Even those who believe that private property is Godly, do not think that travelling on a public street is a Godless action.  

Neither private nor public property is Godless in its own right.  It is how that property is used, which determines whether it or not it is Godly.