RINO?

 

Positively 4th Street

You've got a lotta nerve to say you are my friend
When I was down you just stood there grinnin’
You've got a lotta nerve to say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on the side that's winnin'

You got a lot of nerve Lauren Boebert, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell!

Some bona fides first.  I was appointed by to a minor executive position by then Republican Massachusetts Governor William Weld.  My son’s youth soccer coach was the then wife of the Republican State Senator and Chair of the Republican Party in Massachusetts.  After leaving the legislature, her husband and I worked in the same building and I enjoyed chatting with him while we walked to catch the commuter rail.  Growing up I admired Republicans Ed Brooke, Margaret Heckler, Elliot Richardson, Margaret Chase Smith,  Everett Dirksen, Howard Baker, Nelson Rockefeller, John Chaffee.  Each of these individuals placed the interests of their country above their party.  While the Republican standard bearers have included such men of integrity as Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, John McCain and Mitt Romney, the standard bearers have unfortunately also included the corruption of Warren Harding, the indifference of Herbert Hoover, “Tricky” Dick Nixon, the madness of Barry Goldwater, the voodoo of Ronald Reagan, and Donald “The Con(fidence Man)” Trump.  I realize now that had I been alive at the end of the Nineteenth Century, I would have been a Mugwump, an anti-corruption Republican.

When the Republican party was founded, its major issue was the noble ideal of the limitation, if not the abolition, of slavery.  As such it welcomed those self-serving former Whigs ( mathematically they would be described as User Optimalists), and the Know Nothing Party exclusionists who also supported abolition. After slavery was abolished, this led to the  internal  battle for control in the Republican party that has raged since that time and today is no exception.

The self serving and exclusionists are today in ascendancy in the Republican Party.  Those who believe in the importance of  integrity;  that as long as humans must run the government/system, there is a danger that those serving in the government would seek their own interests and not the nation/system’s interests and thus government should consist of the smallest number of individuals possible with the most constrained power; and that any actions by the government should be carefully considered such that good intentions are not overwhelmed by unintended consequences, are being labeled as RINOs, Republicans In Name Only.  Those being castigated are the only the ONLY Republicans worthy of the name.  It is those who are casting stones who bring disgrace when they call themselves Republicans.

The Distribution of Wealth II

I Have a Dream

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring,
when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet,
from every state and every city,
we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics,
will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

We can not be free until, we all have an equal share.

For the 162 countries reported in Wikipedia using Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Databook for 2021, the total number of adults reported are 5.05 billion and the total wealth is $416 trillion USD.  The mean global wealth is $82,306.  If this wealth followed a statistical normal distribution, the mean should be equal to the median.  However the product of the median wealth in each county multiplied by the adults in that country summed over all countries would require a global wealth of $786 trillion, so clearly the mean is not equal  to the median and wealth is not normally distributed  The country where the mean comes closest to the median is Iceland where the mean wealth is $337,787 and the median wealth is $231,462.  Iceland also has the second lowest reported Gini Index at 50.9 ( the lowest is Slovakia at 50.3).  The Gini Index is a statistical measure of inequality, where a score of 100 indicates that most of the measurement is due to one individual in the population.  The United States was reported to have a total wealth of $126 trillion, a mean wealth per adult of $505,421, a median wealth per adult of $79,274, and a Gini Index of 85.0. This is the 25^th highest Gini Index, the highest being Brunei with a Gini Index of 96.2.

Wealth is not reported lower than $0 ( technically negative “wealth” is debt, and would not be  counted as wealth.)  A normal distribution would require the allowance of negative values.  Wealth might follow another distribution for example an exponential  distribution.  In an exponential distribution the mean can not equal the median, but that distribution is closest to a normal distribution if the mean is 1.44 times the median.  The ratio of the mean to the median in the United States is the third highest at 6.38, the highest again being Brunei with a ratio of 7.63. Wealth in the United States is thus neither normally distributed, or distributed at an exponential minimum.

Wikipedia also reports countries by region.  It’s Northern American region includes only the United States and Canada.  (Mexico is assigned to its Central American region.)  Northern America is the region with the most wealth, and the highest mean wealth at $486,909, but the United States is responsible for 93% of that wealth. Canada has a mean wealth of $332,323 and a median wealth of $125,688. A region with a comparable mean wealth is Australia combined with New Zealand, which has a mean wealth of $465,680. However, the ratio of mean to median wealth in Australia and New Zealand is respectively 2.05 and 2.03.  Three regions comprising Europe (excluding Eastern Europe) have a wealth of $94 trillion, and the ratios of mean to median wealth per adult range from a high of 3.74 in Sweden to a low of 1.04 in Iceland.

The United States thus appears to have a less equitable distribution of wealth per adult: within its region, with a region of comparable mean wealth, or with regions of comparable total wealth.

 

Stories

 Dream a Little Dream of Me

Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you

Sweet dreams that leave all worries behind you

But in your dreams whatever they be

Dream a little dream of me

Story-telling is making telling our dreams more convincing. 

The average life  expectancy in the United States is less than 80 years.  And yet the Constitution of the United States was adopted in 1789, more than 230 years ago.  Greece, Rome, China, Japan, etc. have even more ancient roots.  The point is that societies endure much longer than their members.  The way that societies last is through the stories that are told.  Warner Media’s latest slogan is  “The stuff that dreams are made of” which is a quote from the Warner Bros. 1941 film the “Maltese Falcon”.  That is perhaps a paraphrase  of a line in Shakespeare’s Tempest: “We are such stuff as dreams are made on.” Story-telling is very, very old, even if the person telling the story is not.

Stories are not told only to amuse ourselves. They are the way that people pass on the stories, dreams, that are their truth.  The tools of story-telling have become so powerful, in the form of virtual production, that it is often hard to distinguish reality from fiction. Dragons are not real,  but virtual story-telling can make it appear that they are.

While the best use of story-telling is to pass along truths so that society endures longer than its members, the tools of story-telling can also be used to amplify lies. Malicious gossip and falsehoods become more dangerous if they appear to be true.  As our ability to tell convincing stories becomes more powerful, society needs to remember that while there are lots of stories there is only one truth.  Stories that are used to convey “alternative” facts are an abuse of the art of story-telling and are not dreams, but nightmares.

Sovereigns

King Kong

I'm King Kong, I got so much money,

I can buy anybody who gets in my path.

I'm King Kong, and I'm big and strong,

I can blow up your houses so you better beware.

Who made King Kong "King"?

Man is a tribal animal.  Nations are groups of tribes.  An individual can be in many Nations.  I belong not only to the Nation of the United States but I am also a proud member of Red Sox Nation.  Belonging to one nation ( i.e. the US) , does not mean that all members of the US belong to Red Sox Nation. ( They should, but even I admit that, misguided though they may be, there are Yankee fans.)  Membership in Red Sox Nation is also not limited to US citizens (there are more than a few Dominicans in Red Sox Nation).   A nation has sovereignty.  The nation can choose an individual as its sovereign.  That individual as sovereign might be a(n) :

Dynastic sovereign.  The existing sovereign chooses his successor as sovereign.

Elected sovereign.  The Holy Roman Emperors were chosen by prince electors.  Popes are chosen by the college of Cardinals. If elected, the body choosing the sovereign will be defined, e.g. Prince electors, Cardinals, property owners, baseball writers, etc.

Dominance Sovereign. A sovereign can be challenged by other contenders for sovereign and dominates them by some trait.  Successful nations will have a sovereign whose dominance in a trait is relevant for that tribe.  I.e. the strongest individual may be a Mets fan which does not make him suitable for being a sovereign of Red Sox Nation. The sovereign is expected to act for his nation not himself

A sovereign may pledge fealty to another sovereign.  E.g. Kings may pledge fealty to Emperors.  Barons may pledge fealty to Kings, etc.

A sovereign nation is expected to last longer than the individual that is its sovereign.  A sovereign may die, be deposed, or retire. If a sovereign is an individual, then another sovereign must be chosen for the nation to endure.

Roles of a sovereign

1.     To protect the subjects of that sovereign.

Avenging wrongs against the subject is reactive.  Protection is proactive.

2.     To administer that sovereign’s justice to the subjects of that sovereign. ( this includes enacting and enforcing laws.)

Taking 1 and 2 together, using a superhero movie analogy, the DCEU’s Justice League may be better than the MCU’s Avengers

3.     To equitably distribute benefits to the subjects of that sovereign.

This means distributing benefits to all of the subjects based on their need, not based on their contribution.

4.     To protect and administer the sovereign resources that are needed for production by the sovereign’s subjects.

The availability of common resources without a price may be necessary for production.  Having no price does not mean that the resource has no value.

A sovereign rules through a government.  In the United States the sovereign is the People. It is NOT any of its three branches of government: the President, the Supreme Court, or the Congress.

Individuals that are elected to those branches of government in the US may represent the sovereign, but they are NOT the sovereign.  That, after all is, what a republic, a representative democracy, is all about. Ben Franklin when asked about our the type of government said.  “A Republic, if you can keep it”.  The Republic IS in danger, but the Republic is valuable and we should work to keep it.

Tyranny

 

The Declaration of Independence

In every stage of these Oppressions
 We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms:
Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant,
is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

The US declared freedom from every Tyrant, including the tyranny of the minority.

The Founding Fathers took great pains in drafting the Constitution to prevent a tyranny of the majority.  There is a Bill of Rights.  There are check and balances.  There are three branches of government.  Laws must be passed by both branches of Congress.  An act of Congress can be vetoed by the President.  That veto can only be overridden by  2/3 of the members of each house of Congress. Treaties require a 2/3 vote by the Senate.  Amendments to the Constitution require a 2/3 vote in Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states. A 2/3 vote of the Senate is required to find guilt at an impeachment trial.  While not in the Constitution, US Senate rules require that debate on laws or nominations continue unless 60% of the members vote to end that debate.

Yet current Supreme Court decisions are rendered by a simple majority.  It was not always the case.  Until the 1940s, the Supreme Court decided its cases by consensus, that is a unanimous  decision.  Criminal cases still require a unanimous 12 member jury decision, but hung juries can be declared a mistrial.

The protections against tyranny of the majority were arrived at empirically.  When the Founding Father’s drafted the constitution, they did not envision the formation of political parties.  It was not until French sociologist Maurice Duverger articulated it in the 1960s ,that it was shown that single member district with plurality winner-take-all systems, such as those in the United States, would probably lead to two party systems.  Decisions in a two party system can not be a super majority unless one of those two parties is also a super majority.

The size of a super majority has included  provisions for 55%, 60%, 66.7%, 75%, 100% but these are all empirical.  If a unanimous decision is required, only one individual can block any action. A simple majority offers no protections against the tyranny of that majority.  The size of an efficient super majority has been proposed by Caplin and Nalebuff to be 64%.   This is close enough to the 2/3 requirement in the Constitution that changes hardly seem warranted.  However if this is an efficient supermajority, there appear to be two instances where supermajority actions are not followed.

In a Supreme Court with nine justices, 64% would require that super majority decisions be 5.76 to 3.24.  Given that fractional votes by justices are not practical, the size of that court should be 12 justices where an 8 to 4 decision would be a 2/3 supermajority and an integral number of justices. If packing the courts is anathema, then a 6 member court with 66.7% vote for decisions, would serve the same function.

In the Senate, with a two-party system of 100 Senators, any action can be blocked if retaliation is taken on any votes against the party line,. With retaliation,  the system devolves into a two-party game which allows a tyranny of the minority unless it is also  a super minority.  If all votes requiring supermajority actions were by secret ballot, then retaliation might not be possible and actions might be advanced even if one party was not also a super majority.

Supermajorities offer protections from tyrannies of the majority.  However it can not be a two party system or require a unanimous decision because then one party or voter can block any actions.  Simple changes (three additional judges on the Supreme Court and a return to the process before 1940, and secret ballots for supermajority votes in the Senate), might prevent the rights of minorities from being trampled on by the majority while still allowing necessary actions to continue.

Complaining

 

It Takes One to Know One

You oughta know that cheaters never win
Because it takes one to know one who will hurt you
It takes one to know one who'll make you blue
It takes one to know one like I know you

If you know enough to complain, you know more than is good for you. Or us.

A basic rule of the playground is that “He that smelt it, it dealt it”.  In other words, those who complain most loudly about an act are probably the ones guilty of that act. Some examples:

·       Cheating on taxes.  The ones complaining most loudly about cheating on taxes are probably those who actually are not paying their fair share in taxes.  For example, billionaires who pay no taxes and hide their tax forms, while the common folk pay more in taxes as disclosed on their tax forms.

·       Claiming minority heritage.  There are reparations that are paid to minorities because of past actions or penalties placed on minorities simply because they are minorities. There might be advantages to pretending to be what you are not, either to get benefits not due, or to avoid penalties imposed on minorities.  Thus some one who mocks someone for saying they have Native American ancestry even though that person received no benefits for that ancestry, or someone who say had a father who pretended to be Swedish to avoid being associated with Nazi Germany, is probably complaining about the behavior of others to deflect their own complicity.

·       Bemoaning activist judges.  Conservative judges have invented a right for self-defense, stated that corporations are people, or that fetuses are people despite those rights not being listed in legal documents.  And yet the ones bemoaning about activist judges support these actions by these judges.

·       Bemoaning Voter fraud.  Texas Lt. Gov. Daniel Patrick offered a $25,000 bounty to anyone who could show voter fraud, expecting to find fraud by Democrats who voted against Donald Trump.  He had to pay the bounty to a Democrat poll worker in Pennsylvania who had found fraud committed by a Republican Trump voter.

I am sure that there are many more examples but beware of anyone who complains loudly about the behavior of others.  They  are  probably guilty of, or thought strongly about committing, that same behavior themselves.

Game Theory

 

Charlie Brown

Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown
He's a clown, that Charlie Brown
He's gonna get caught
Just you wait and see
(Why's everybody always pickin' on me)

Does Charlie Brown always have to be a loser?

It’s that time of the year when Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown before he can kick it.  He does it every year,  always with the same result.  He ends up on his back with Lucy holding the football that she pulled away at the last second.  This is a two-player game and Lucy always wins. But Charlie Brown keeps playing because he thinks that it is the only game in town.  I don’t think that Linus, or Schroder, or Peppermint Patty, etc. would pull the football away.  Charlie Brown  also obviously does not learn from the past or else he would not play with Lucy again. 

According to game theory, Charlie Brown has the problem of being the losing player in a two-player game.  He does not always have to be a losing player if he was in more than a two-player game (e.g. someone else held the football).  He also has the problem that he places no value on the future and does not learn from the past so he continues to play. Lucy also clearly places no value on the future and expects Charlie Brown to play again.

If Charlie Brown played a multiplayer game, where someone besides Lucy held the ball, he would probably get to kick the football.  If he learned from past games, he might not believe Lucy on the current kick and would walk away and refuse to play with her.

In the US Senate, there is currently a two-player Game: Democrats versus Republicans.  Mitch McConnell clearly has no value for the future, or else he would not have let society’s infrastructure crumble.  As long as the Senate plays a two-player game with someone who has no value for the future, there should be no expectation for a different result.  In December, expect Mitch McConnell to pull the football from Chuck Schumer again. Losers like Charlie Brown might be lovable.  But you can be lovable and not be a loser. Let us hope that Chuck Schumer learns this lesson before it is too late.