Ron Paul's rise in the polls brings with it increased scrutiny. One of the few "sideshow" issues (there aren't many) that the media is trying to raise is regarding supposedly racist newsletters that he supposedly wrote.
Let's look at those claims a little more in detail. If you are think this country is on the wrong track and that freedom is under assault, please ensure that you are making an informed decision instead of relying on "edited reality". Please read on as well as the links referenced to get a better understanding of this controversy.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Again, be clear Dr. Paul
I just got to watch last night's debate. I heard Baier's question.
Grrr.... I HATE how unclear Dr. Paul is on this.
Just say:
Firstly, non-interventionism isn't a leftist policy. Non-interventionism - that is, freely trading with countries and avoiding entangling alliances - is a policy consistent with our founders. Let's not fall into the trap of making this a left vs right issue.
Secondly, if you are asking if I would be worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we maintain our current foreign policy of intervention, preemptive attack, nation building, and occupation, then yes, I would be very worried.
If you are asking if I would be worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we followed my foreign policy, then no, I would not be worried. If we aren't threatening them, if we aren't setting a no fly zone, if we aren't flying drones over their airspace, if we don't have 50 military bases virtually surrounding their country, if we aren't interfering with their communications, if we aren't threatening them with attack ourselves, then no, I don't think a nuclear Iran would be a direct threat to the United States.
Because history doesn't happen in a vacuum. You have to see that there is a greater context for what we're dealing with than just since 9/11. And there's more to my foreign policy than just "if Iran gets a nuke, do we attack or not?".
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Dr. Paul, Please Be Clear
When you are asked "Do you think the US invited/caused 9/11?", please be clear:
When you are asked "You have no problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon? Aren't you basically advocating sticking your head in the sand and hoping terrorism goes away?", please be clear:
Absolutely not. WE the people did not cause 9/11. But the actions of the US govt over the last 50-60 years did - and on our behalf.
When you are asked "You have no problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon? Aren't you basically advocating sticking your head in the sand and hoping terrorism goes away?", please be clear:
If you are asking if I'm worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we maintain our current foreign policy of intervention, preemptive attack, nation building, and occupation, then yes, I am very worried.For extended answers to these and more proposed responses, see my previous post.
If you are asking if I would be worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we followed my foreign policy, then no, I would not be worried.
3 Simple Steps to talking to Conservatives about Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy
One of the biggest hindrances to conservatives supporting Ron Paul is his foreign policy. Some of the most vocal like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc say that he's right on almost everything, except foreign policy. Here's how I've started talking to conservative friends and family about his foreign policy and have convinced most to agree with Ron Paul.
1) The purpose of terrorism
Ask them why the terrorists attack us. If they say our freedom and prosperity, ask them why they aren't attacking Australia, or Japan, or Sweden? Why is the US the "Great Satan"? Then point out that if you look at the 1998 fatwa, bin Laden's letter right after 9/11, his letter in 2002 or 2006, or the statements of various other terrorists and the core justification behind all of the attacks was our continued military presence, intervention and sanctions on countries in the middle east.
Then ask them, if we were to implement RP's foreign policy - a foreign policy NOT of isolationism, but of non-interventionism; if we were to end the active combat around the world; if we were to return our troops home from over 700 bases in over 135 countries; if we were to stop just giving money to foreign countries, countries that are often ran by authoritarian dictators; if we were to focus our defense spending on strengthening measures of ACTUAL defense; if we were to ensure a strong international intelligence network; if we are open, friendly and freely trade with all countries; if we were to do all of that, (besides saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year), why would they attack us? What would be the purpose? What would they be trying to get us to STOP doing by threatening attack?
If they reply that they believe that without provokation or justification, Muslims will simply attack us, minding our own business, for no other reason than to get their virgins or similar, then point out that they are confusing a rationalization for a justification. Ask them if they've ever asked an Islamic terrorist why they would attack us, and then state that their view is nothing but a ridiculous and ignorant caricature - even of Islamic extremists.
2) Support for Israel
"We cannot abandon Israel to be destroyed." is another common theme (usually among Christians). Yet, Israel has taken care of itself numerous times and dealt with various threats itself, often against US recommendations. Ask them exactly how taking a non-interventionist policy would hurt Israel.
Hurt Intelligence? It is generally admitted that Israel's intelligence network in the middle east is superior to the US.
Hurt Budget? On average, we give Israel $2.5 billion a year (Source), over 90% of which are military grants.
Hurt Military/Weapons? Israel is one of the most well trained military groups in the world. Our money doesn't make or break that. Nor is there any reason to believe that Israel would not be able to produce/purchase their weaponry or would be left "defenseless" if we left.
However, there may actually be an upside for Israel. One of the things that comes with that money to Israel is leverage. The US uses that money as a way to apply pressure on Israel to try to control/influence how it responds to threats. Thus the US, who does not face the same threats as Israel, tries to tell Israel how it must deal with certain situations and threats. This isn't right. Israel should be free to decide how to deal with its threats without US coercion. We remove that money, we remove the restriction on how Israel defends itself.
I would argue that a non-interventionist foreign policy would be better for both sides.
3) World's Police
Another potential rebuttal is that the US is the only country that can keep the threats of the world at bay. If the US isn't the world's police, who would be?
Firstly, ask them why there needs to be one? Countries can join together voluntarily and address a threat the presents itself without trying to constantly have our boot on the neck of every country in the world.
Secondly, that job brings with it enormous animosity and a monumental expense. Our habit of trying to intervene and control all international events in our favor has helped cause the animosity and resentment that we're dealing with now. And with the current economic and govt spending, we simply cannot afford to be that police force anymore. In addition, we put our young men and women at risk and in harms way, to be injured or even killed, not necessarily to fight a clear and immediate danger to the US, but to squash potential resentment and backlash.
Thirdly, read and find articles to present them evidence on blowback. Here's a good example to start with.
Summary
Basically, our current foreign policy of preemptive military assault, regime change, and nation building does NOT make us safer. It creates an environment where MORE animosity grows and additional terrorists are cultivated.
What would make us safer would be to remove the very complaints that terrorists have against us, that cost us enormous amounts of money and lives anyway, to spend more effort on intelligence and actual "defense" instead of offense, and to be a free and open trading partner with all nations. Where trade flows free, there is peace. Where trade is blocked, war will follow."
TL;DR
Talking to conservatives about Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy:
1) Point out that the terrorists attack us because of our intervention and military presence.
2) Point out that US support for Israel doesn't make or break the country and removing the monetary aid may, in fact, give Israel more freedom and flexibility in how it deals with threats.
3) Being the world's police is enormously expensive in both money and, more importantly, in lives. But beyond that, it doesn't work. Trying to militarily control the world CREATES animosity and generates terrorism.
UPDATE:
Let me also say, Don't give up! With the people I talked to, it was always multiple conversations. I generally just said the same things in response to their same complaints. They seemed to wear a little with each one. And note that NONE of them changed their minds while talking to me. It was only weeks later after having heard these points and going back to their normal lives that they ended up changing their mind.
1) The purpose of terrorism
Ask them why the terrorists attack us. If they say our freedom and prosperity, ask them why they aren't attacking Australia, or Japan, or Sweden? Why is the US the "Great Satan"? Then point out that if you look at the 1998 fatwa, bin Laden's letter right after 9/11, his letter in 2002 or 2006, or the statements of various other terrorists and the core justification behind all of the attacks was our continued military presence, intervention and sanctions on countries in the middle east.
Then ask them, if we were to implement RP's foreign policy - a foreign policy NOT of isolationism, but of non-interventionism; if we were to end the active combat around the world; if we were to return our troops home from over 700 bases in over 135 countries; if we were to stop just giving money to foreign countries, countries that are often ran by authoritarian dictators; if we were to focus our defense spending on strengthening measures of ACTUAL defense; if we were to ensure a strong international intelligence network; if we are open, friendly and freely trade with all countries; if we were to do all of that, (besides saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year), why would they attack us? What would be the purpose? What would they be trying to get us to STOP doing by threatening attack?
If they reply that they believe that without provokation or justification, Muslims will simply attack us, minding our own business, for no other reason than to get their virgins or similar, then point out that they are confusing a rationalization for a justification. Ask them if they've ever asked an Islamic terrorist why they would attack us, and then state that their view is nothing but a ridiculous and ignorant caricature - even of Islamic extremists.
2) Support for Israel
"We cannot abandon Israel to be destroyed." is another common theme (usually among Christians). Yet, Israel has taken care of itself numerous times and dealt with various threats itself, often against US recommendations. Ask them exactly how taking a non-interventionist policy would hurt Israel.
Hurt Intelligence? It is generally admitted that Israel's intelligence network in the middle east is superior to the US.
Hurt Budget? On average, we give Israel $2.5 billion a year (Source), over 90% of which are military grants.
Hurt Military/Weapons? Israel is one of the most well trained military groups in the world. Our money doesn't make or break that. Nor is there any reason to believe that Israel would not be able to produce/purchase their weaponry or would be left "defenseless" if we left.
However, there may actually be an upside for Israel. One of the things that comes with that money to Israel is leverage. The US uses that money as a way to apply pressure on Israel to try to control/influence how it responds to threats. Thus the US, who does not face the same threats as Israel, tries to tell Israel how it must deal with certain situations and threats. This isn't right. Israel should be free to decide how to deal with its threats without US coercion. We remove that money, we remove the restriction on how Israel defends itself.
I would argue that a non-interventionist foreign policy would be better for both sides.
3) World's Police
Another potential rebuttal is that the US is the only country that can keep the threats of the world at bay. If the US isn't the world's police, who would be?
Firstly, ask them why there needs to be one? Countries can join together voluntarily and address a threat the presents itself without trying to constantly have our boot on the neck of every country in the world.
Secondly, that job brings with it enormous animosity and a monumental expense. Our habit of trying to intervene and control all international events in our favor has helped cause the animosity and resentment that we're dealing with now. And with the current economic and govt spending, we simply cannot afford to be that police force anymore. In addition, we put our young men and women at risk and in harms way, to be injured or even killed, not necessarily to fight a clear and immediate danger to the US, but to squash potential resentment and backlash.
Thirdly, read and find articles to present them evidence on blowback. Here's a good example to start with.
Summary
Basically, our current foreign policy of preemptive military assault, regime change, and nation building does NOT make us safer. It creates an environment where MORE animosity grows and additional terrorists are cultivated.
What would make us safer would be to remove the very complaints that terrorists have against us, that cost us enormous amounts of money and lives anyway, to spend more effort on intelligence and actual "defense" instead of offense, and to be a free and open trading partner with all nations. Where trade flows free, there is peace. Where trade is blocked, war will follow."
TL;DR
Talking to conservatives about Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy:
1) Point out that the terrorists attack us because of our intervention and military presence.
2) Point out that US support for Israel doesn't make or break the country and removing the monetary aid may, in fact, give Israel more freedom and flexibility in how it deals with threats.
3) Being the world's police is enormously expensive in both money and, more importantly, in lives. But beyond that, it doesn't work. Trying to militarily control the world CREATES animosity and generates terrorism.
UPDATE:
Let me also say, Don't give up! With the people I talked to, it was always multiple conversations. I generally just said the same things in response to their same complaints. They seemed to wear a little with each one. And note that NONE of them changed their minds while talking to me. It was only weeks later after having heard these points and going back to their normal lives that they ended up changing their mind.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Proposed Ron Paul "Soundbites" for Debates
I'm a huge Ron Paul fan. I don't agree with 100% of his policies, but the vast majority. I love that he's not suave and speaks simply. However, he seems to have trouble making his points in short time frames. Perhaps it's due to the complexity of the issue, perhaps it's due to the large amount of information he could call on to answer the question, perhaps it's due to the divergence from "mainstream" political thought, thus requires more explanation, but he has trouble getting his message into "soundbites" - that is, one or two paragraphs.
After watching him in debates and feeling like his answers were correct, but just didn't pack the concise punch they could, I took a stab at writing what I would love for him to say in future debates based on what I know of his positions.
TL;DR: I'd love to see Ron Paul answer some of these questions like this:
With the rampant drug problem in this country, how can you say you want to legalize [some drug]?
Let me be clear, I am not "pro-marijuana" or even "pro-heroin" or "pro-cocaine". I think drug use can be a harmful and dangerous thing. However, I am for ending the FEDERAL prohibition on narcotics. I believe in the Constitution and in the 10th amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution about drugs and I believe that those things that are not specifically mandated to the federal govt, fall to the states. In 1919, those that believed that liquor should be banned recognized that they needed a Constitutional amendment to do so. And they needed another amendment to repeal it. Drug prohibition is no different in the need for an amendment to have a federal ban. However, there is none, so it must fall to the states. If all 50 states want to prohibit cocaine, heroin and marijuana, then fine, but not at the federal level, not without an amendment. And personally, I would not support such an amendment.
Being a strong Christian, how can you support same-sex marriage when Christianity states homosexuality as a sin?
Similar to drug prohibition, this once again is an issue of federal overreach. Marriage and its recognition is not mentioned in the Constitution as a power the federal govt has authority to oversee, regulate or restrict. Thus, that responsibility should, by the Constitution, fall to the states. I can be against an act, think it's sinful, and still not believe that it's the federal govt's job to prohibit it. Beyond that, marriage to the federal govt amounts to little more than legal declaration of shared rights (e.g. medical information sharing). Is there really a Christian reason to prohibit two people of the same sex from having the federal govt recognize them as having shared rights any more than one man being granted power of attorney for another man?
By removing national standards by eliminating the dept of education and advocating non-scientific positions like denying global warming and saying creationism is legitimate, as well as ending scientific funding, aren't you putting future generations at risk of falling behind the rest of the world educationally and competitively?
Firstly, the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal govt to dictate educational policies. The Dept of Education has only been a cabinet level agency since 1980. Are you honestly going to tell me that due to their involvement, education in this country has gotten significantly better since then? No, I believe that the US became the foremost scientific and educational country in the world BEFORE govt began funding research in every scientific field imaginable and BEFORE govt began managing education for the entire nation. Govt funding and control does expand these areas but it corrupts the systems, it doesn't really improve them. Plus,
Secondly, my positions on both global warming and creationism vs evolution is that we don't know. We have very good ideas and some evidence that supports a theory, but I believe that the science isn't definitive yet. Listen, I'm not anti-science - I'm a doctor of medicine for pete's sake. I've looked at the science for these theories and while we should continue to research and investigate these ideas, I am not convinced that they are definitive enough to be teaching in classrooms as fact and setting restrictive economy-wide policies by - doubly so when considering that the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal govt to dictate such policies.
With your focus on privacy, freedom and personal rights, why do you want to restrict a woman's privacy and freedom and ban abortion?
It's not about restricting her freedom or invading her privacy. However, as a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies, many of which were not full term, I recognize that what is inside a woman's womb is a life. In addition, the law recognizes it as a life since as a doctor, I was legally liable for that life and that life has inheritance rights. And as such I am a firm advocate for the protection of rights and the right to life is a critical one. Also note that my position is that I don't believe the federal govt has the Constitutional authority to be the "Abortion Police" - to either legalize or ban the practice. If a state wants to ban abortions or allow them, the Constitution doesn't grant the federal govt the authority to overrule that. At the core, I believe that protecting life is the first and most crucial step in protecting liberty.
Your policy calls for closing all military bases in foreign countries. Do you also want to shut down military bases in the US?
Well, I'm not sure that's necessary. How about we take it one step at a time and implement my foreign policy first and evaluate things at that point? I will emphasize is that what I want to do is cut the military, not defense. I think a strong defense and intelligence network is essential to a strong country. However, our military is overgrown and expansive. The military has become a tool of aggression instead of defense. I believe that our intervention in the affairs of other countries and the entangling alliances we get involved with cause us to be LESS safe. [If you agree that govt intervention in the economy causes problems, can't you see that govt intervention in the affairs of foreign countries causes problems? (this line can be added or removed based on who the audience is)] We are now in a position, we have SO many enemies, thanks to over 50 years of intervention around the world, where we feel we have to keep our boot on the necks of every country out there for fear they will try to get back at us. That's not only dangerous and not sustainable, it's not moral.
Are you suggesting that we invited 9/11?
Absolutely not. WE the people did not cause 9/11. But the actions of the US govt over the last 50-60 years did - and on our behalf. WE the people didn't overthrow a democratically elected leader and replace him with a puppet dictator that brutally oppressed his people, but the US govt did. WE the people didn't supply Saddam Hussein with weapons and encourage him to attack Iran in the 80s, but the US govt did. WE the people didn't give billions of dollars to dictators that oppressed their people, but the US govt did. [More detail about what the US govt has done and emphasize the difference between WE the people and the US govt] These aren't the acts of everyday Americans, as the question implies, but the acts of govt.
You have no problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon? Aren't you basically advocating sticking your head in the sand and hoping terrorism goes away?
Our founders warned us to avoid entangling alliances and to avoid meddling in the affairs of foreign countries for fear of exactly the type of backlash we are seeing now. Look at the 1998 fatwa, bin Laden's letter right after 9/11, his letter in 2002 or 2006, or the statements of various other terrorists and the core justification behind all of the attacks was our continued military presence, intervention and sanctions on countries in the middle east. If we were to implement my foreign policy - a foreign policy NOT of isolationism, but of non-interventionism; if we were to end the active combat around the world; if we were to return our troops home from over 700 bases in over 135 countries; if we were to stop just giving money to foreign countries, countries that are often ran by authoritarian dictators; if we were to focus our defense spending on strengthening measures of ACTUAL defense; if we were to ensure a strong international intelligence network; if we are open, friendly and freely trade with all countries; if we were to do all of that, (besides saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year), why would they attack us? What would be the purpose? What would they be trying to get us to STOP doing by threatening attack?
And the idea that, without provocation or justification, Muslims will simply attack us, minding our own business, for no other reason than to get their virgins or similar is nothing but a ridiculous and ignorant caricature - even of Islamic extremists.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Math doesn't lie... Right?
If a bucket has 2 apples in it, and you add 2 more apples, how many apples are now in the bucket?
4 right?
2 + 2 = 4
"Math doesn't lie." Right?
That's true, "Math doesn't lie." But math CAN be wrong.
What if I told you the correct answer is 6?
Would you cry foul and declare your original answer to be true? Would you show me mathematical theorems and proofs that demonstrate that 2 + 2 DOES in fact equal 4?
As I said, "Math doesn't lie.", but math CAN be wrong when it tries to represent the real world. Or, let me rephrase - we are wrong when we assume that the world described by the math, identically represents the world in which we live.
In our scenario, that math didn't lie. In fact, the math wasn't wrong. But we were wrong when we assumed that the math accurately represented the world. What the math failed to take into consideration was that John also added 2 apples to your bucket. Thus, there are now 6 apples in your bucket.
"That's not fair! You never mentioned anything about anyone else."
4 right?
2 + 2 = 4
"Math doesn't lie." Right?
That's true, "Math doesn't lie." But math CAN be wrong.
What if I told you the correct answer is 6?
Would you cry foul and declare your original answer to be true? Would you show me mathematical theorems and proofs that demonstrate that 2 + 2 DOES in fact equal 4?
As I said, "Math doesn't lie.", but math CAN be wrong when it tries to represent the real world. Or, let me rephrase - we are wrong when we assume that the world described by the math, identically represents the world in which we live.
In our scenario, that math didn't lie. In fact, the math wasn't wrong. But we were wrong when we assumed that the math accurately represented the world. What the math failed to take into consideration was that John also added 2 apples to your bucket. Thus, there are now 6 apples in your bucket.
"That's not fair! You never mentioned anything about anyone else."
That's true, but when we create math to model the world, we aren't TOLD all the characters and variables and the exact scale and nature of their effects. We have to derive them ourselves. Sometimes, in simple systems, we can deduce all of them and the math does accurately reflect that system. However, the more complex the system, the more variables, the more interactions, the more complex the math, the more difficult it is to discover all affected and affecting variables, and the easier it is to miss (or misunderstand) something. Thus, when we create mathematical models to represent extremely complex systems, the potential for overlooking variables (or even simply under or over estimating their effects) is not only possible, it's likely.
In the world described by the math, John doesn't exist. Nobody other than you exists. Therefore, if you only added 2 more apples, there will only be 4 apples in the bucket now. It's simple, it's straightforward, but it'd be wrong. Overlooking John as a variable means that, while the math didn't lie; while the math wasn't wrong, it did not reflect reality. And if we had based our actions on the result of that math, we would have potentially made the wrong decision.
Let's say that we adjust our math, represent John, and based on this math, decide we have enough apples to bake an apple pie. However, what happens to our plans if, because of our mathematical oversight of not considering Sally, we only wound up with only 1 apple in our bucket because our math didn't represent that she removed 5 apples for herself? Based on our math, we would have concluded that we had enough apples, and we would have began preparing to bake. However, at some point, we would have come up very short of apples.
Similarly, when we try to model complex systems like climate or the economy, we can easily draw the wrong conclusions and plan the wrong actions based on, not faulty, but incomplete, math.
Even looking at previous data can be misleading if not all variables are considered. If we look at data that shows that home sales went up at the same time that tax rates went up, we could draw the conclusion that higher taxes cause increased home sales. Based on this conclusion, we could plan to raise them even more in hopes of further increasing home sales. However, by overlooking that a new factory opened up a few miles down the road, our conclusion would be wrong, and our actions would be mistaken. In the end, our wrong conclusion and the following actions might have led to not only the reduction in home sales, but also possibly the closing of the factory.
This type of oversight can happen easily. Looking at some specific economic data, one can easily see how people would conclude that getting into WW2 got us out of the Great Depression. However, the data doesn’t tell the whole picture. Similarly, many economists and politicians will bring up a chart or point out some data that indicates that their prescribed action worked in the past and should be implemented now. But without taking a full, contextual view of that event and that time, it’s difficult to understand all the variables that may have affected things.
“So are you saying we can’t trust math? Well we might as well throw it all out the window?”
My point isn't to say we should ignore math. My point is that we need to be cautious about just blindly trusting what math "tells" us. We need to understand that in complex systems, even a small misunderstanding of a single variable, let alone possibly omitting one entirely, can change a negative feedback system into a positive feedback system. We need to be careful about basing actions on mathematical models without trying to look at the entire context of the situation. Otherwise, we may very likely find out we don't have enough apples.
In the world described by the math, John doesn't exist. Nobody other than you exists. Therefore, if you only added 2 more apples, there will only be 4 apples in the bucket now. It's simple, it's straightforward, but it'd be wrong. Overlooking John as a variable means that, while the math didn't lie; while the math wasn't wrong, it did not reflect reality. And if we had based our actions on the result of that math, we would have potentially made the wrong decision.
Let's say that we adjust our math, represent John, and based on this math, decide we have enough apples to bake an apple pie. However, what happens to our plans if, because of our mathematical oversight of not considering Sally, we only wound up with only 1 apple in our bucket because our math didn't represent that she removed 5 apples for herself? Based on our math, we would have concluded that we had enough apples, and we would have began preparing to bake. However, at some point, we would have come up very short of apples.
Similarly, when we try to model complex systems like climate or the economy, we can easily draw the wrong conclusions and plan the wrong actions based on, not faulty, but incomplete, math.
Even looking at previous data can be misleading if not all variables are considered. If we look at data that shows that home sales went up at the same time that tax rates went up, we could draw the conclusion that higher taxes cause increased home sales. Based on this conclusion, we could plan to raise them even more in hopes of further increasing home sales. However, by overlooking that a new factory opened up a few miles down the road, our conclusion would be wrong, and our actions would be mistaken. In the end, our wrong conclusion and the following actions might have led to not only the reduction in home sales, but also possibly the closing of the factory.
This type of oversight can happen easily. Looking at some specific economic data, one can easily see how people would conclude that getting into WW2 got us out of the Great Depression. However, the data doesn’t tell the whole picture. Similarly, many economists and politicians will bring up a chart or point out some data that indicates that their prescribed action worked in the past and should be implemented now. But without taking a full, contextual view of that event and that time, it’s difficult to understand all the variables that may have affected things.
“So are you saying we can’t trust math? Well we might as well throw it all out the window?”
My point isn't to say we should ignore math. My point is that we need to be cautious about just blindly trusting what math "tells" us. We need to understand that in complex systems, even a small misunderstanding of a single variable, let alone possibly omitting one entirely, can change a negative feedback system into a positive feedback system. We need to be careful about basing actions on mathematical models without trying to look at the entire context of the situation. Otherwise, we may very likely find out we don't have enough apples.
Saturday, July 09, 2011
The "Good Side" of Regulations
We have created a system, a bureaucracy, that is self-perpetuating. People whose job is to come up with more and ever more invasive regulations, restrictions, directives and mandates. I've complained about these rules before. Crafted "in the name of the people" for our own good, and enforced with the full, threatening power of the government.
Some would argue that some regulations are necessary. Well, some may be tolerable, but what if we reached that point a long time ago? What if we have passed the point of acceptable, useful, needed regulations and into the point of pedantic bureaucratic market meddling? Worse, the organism we've created encourages ever more regulations. New bureaucrats with something to prove, departments that must show they're doing something to earn that ever larger budget they're requesting. How will we ever know if we've gone beyond that necessary point?
But the part that is often overlooked is that whether you agree with the regulation or not, they have a cost. By requiring that businesses improve their product in some way, or that they pay their employees more, or that they use more expensive equipment, or that they use more environmentally friendly processes, you are increasing the cost of producing that product. And since that company isn't going to sell their product for a loss (at least not for very long), then that company is going to increase the price of the product in order to cover the increased cost of producing it.
So in the end, it is you and I, that pay the increased cost of these regulations!
Again, you can argue about whether each new regulation is worth the associated cost, but, as this link shows, it seems to me that we have already passed the point of diminishing returns a long time ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
