How Memes Explain GOP Dysfunction

I'm amending my post based on results from the 2012 Presidential Election. Comments by GOP pundits speak directly to my comments below. Both Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer exemplify the anti-rational memes I identify and discuss below. Krauthammer, in fact, argues the GOP platform needs no changes; the GOP simply couldn't motivate the proper personalities to communicate the Republican message. If the message is so complicated 9 candidates cannot communicate the "message," the problem might be the message.
My previous post, a book review of D. Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity, left a cliffhanger, of sort. D. Deutsch spoke of static versus dynamic societies, specifically, static societies fail; dynamic societies endure, unless compromised or infected with non-rational memes. Then, demise of a society is a guaranteed surety. I dropped a parenthetical comment within my review indicating I would speak more on this topic later. This is later.
David Deutsch introduces a stunning array of ideas in a few short pages. He essentially breaks down culture and the transmission of cultural ideas and describes the bifurcation of a society’s choices into two paths. One path takes society down a static path, and essentially the end of that society. The other path takes society down a dynamic path, and persistence. Sounds a lot like Robert Frost, “the path not taken.”
My chosen theme for my writing is geography, the entire milieu of geography. When a quantum physicist wanders into the realm of culture and nation-building, my “geography-sense” begins to tingle. I have nigh-incomplete knowledge of quantum physics but I have a lesser amount of incomplete knowledge about geography. However, tying a few ideas from The Beginning of Infinity (TBOI) to geography should not be too difficult. What comes thereafter, might be.
The notion static societies and dynamic societies are part of the milieu of geography should not be too indulgent; this notion should be self-evident, actually. TBOI introduces a term which is not generally used in geography. The term is expressed more in sociology, or psychology, perhaps. However, TBOI introduces the term as a fundamental components of culture. The analysis of the term is used to examine the general success or failure of societies within a historical context. For instance, the failure of the Roman Empire, the failure of Nazism, the failure of the Soviet Union are all potentially explained by the function of a single term, and the terms components.

What is a meme?

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene (1976), posited the idea of a “meme.” A meme is a self-replicating idea (369). But not this simple, as a meme is a self-replicating idea within a culture much like a gene is a self-replicating set of biological instructions which communicates to cell how to develop. Memes carry cultural instructions which communicate and define individual’s behavior within a culture.

A meme is a self-replicating idea which carries the cultural instructions which communicate and define an individual’s behavior within a culture. Memes can mutate due to societal pressures, therefore memes evolve over time.

Thousands of memes can exist. Memes can arise and disappear within a person’s lifetime, or they can persist over generations. Memes can self-replicate with varying degrees of success. Some memes persist over time with considerable fidelity; they do not lose their message. Some memes adapt over time and evolve. The information content will change; did a new meme arise and replace the old meme? Or, is the meme simply a mutation?
Memes can be categorized as one of two types. “Rational” memes are based upon rational and critical thought (388). Being based upon rational and critical thought, rational memes are able to be accurately replicated. Rational memes evolve in the direction of real understanding and knowledge (389).
“Anti-rational” memes are founded upon non-rational thought or non-critical thought (388). Non-rational thought or non-critical thought is a means of saying the idea is not likely to be replicated with any degree of accuracy. An example of non-critical thought is the response to a question, “because I said so.” Another example includes memes which are based on religious ideologies, faith-based ideologies, or political-based ideologies. An example of such anti-rational memes would include the belief women are inferior or too delicate to vote or to become involved in politics, or the notion Blacks or people of color are inferior, or the notion the only true faith is Judaism. Anti-rational memes mutate away from developing better understanding and increased knowledge, and in doing so hinder or eliminate adaptations which encourage greater critical thinking.

Rational memes arise from critical thinking and encourage greater understanding through promoting more rational thought.
Anti-rational memes arise to hinder or prevent critical thinking and impair understanding and restrain knowledge.

Rational memes persist and are enjoyed throughout society and across time. Rational memes succeed in spite of debates and criticism because the memes themselves inspire debate and criticism, becoming better and accepted throughout society. The example set forth in TBOI are the Laws of Motion described by Isaac Newton. Newtonian physics not only is useful for construction, such as cathedrals and bridges, and useful for artillery (388). In other words, rational memes are useful across a broad spectrum of people and disciplines, are well-suited for being re-purposed, and foster more criticism and debate.

Anti-rational memes can persist and spread among people in the very same as rational memes. However, their effect is different. Anti-rational memes harm society (378). Anti-rational memes discourage criticism, debate, the pursuit of knowledge and deeper meaning. These effects may see mundane, yet the effects of those effects tend not to be mundane. Discouraging criticism and debate leads to the rise of police states, censorship of the media, detainment, loss of freedoms, imprisonment, or death. Russia has created a set of Internet censorship laws which greatly restricts access to the media, makes libel a criminal offense, and forces foreign news reporters to register as foreign agents (Atlantic, 3 Nov 2012). Fascism is another example of an anti-rational meme. Fascism is the unquestioning devotion to an ideology, typically a political ideology. Fascism is not limited to politics; the adherence to religious indoctrination in the face of contrary evidence is also a form of fascism. The United States is not immune to anti-rational memes. The Salem Witch trials springs to mind, the Red Scare & McCarthyism of the 1950s, and the "You Are Either With Us Or Against Us" domestic and foreign policy during the 2001-2008 Bush Administration are all forms of fascism, and anti-rational memes. The persecution of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is an interesting circumstance. Yet, despite the controversy, I would argue this persecution is also an anti-rational meme because deeper truths are being hidden or concealed. This is precisely the nature of anti-rational memes.

The precise nature of anti-rational memes is to work against the revelation of knowledge, to blur or conceal the truth.

At this point I'm departing from my synopsis of memes, and discuss of rational and anti-rational memes. Rational memes are consistent with dynamic societies. Dynamic societies are not immune to the dangers of anti-rational memes. Within dynamic societies, both types of memes exist and are both exposed to the same sets of criticism. Anti-rational memes do not stand up to criticism, however, falter, fade away, and are replaced by rational memes. Even rational memes are under constant scrutiny and may be replaced by new memes or evolve into a new meme. Because of the continual improvement of rational memes in dynamic societies, the memes themselves become increasingly easier to replicate without loss of fidelity (388).

All meme forms and variants can exist within a dynamic society. Dynamic societies allow scrutiny and criticism of memes. Anti-rational memes will be identified as false, shallow, or useless. Rational memes will persist under critical observation and will be replicated accurately.

Static societies may have rational memes. However, due to the persistence of anti-rational memes, rational memes are disposed. Anti-rational memes can be as faithfully replicated as rational memes. For example, slavery in the United States was a persistent anti-rational meme based on several specious arguments. Generation after generation of people in the U.S. South were indoctrinated into the Slavery System. Most any attempt to argue against slavery, i.e. to criticize the meme, was immediately squelched. Static societies encourage the Status Quo, suppress criticism, and enforce invariant compliance of anti-rational memes (381). Laws are passed which encode the meme into the social fabric, such as the "Sundown Laws" which persisted in the United States well after Black Emancipation. Society may even foster and encourage the use of taboos to control behavior. Even within the allegedly "free and open" United States, some mixed race couples continue to find bias and discrimination.

Static societies are doomed to fail. Static societies impose rules, regulations, and restrictions which have the effect of ultimately shutting down human creativity. Human creativity is essential for meme evolution and transmission.

The society of the United States is generally associated with being a "dynamic" society. Many societies today are dynamic societies. All of Europe, India, the United States, Chile, Argentina, Canada, are all examples of "dynamic" societies. If you don't see your country mentioned, its probably still dynamic, I merely did not want to develop a comprehensive list. As long as a society is able to evolve to more rational ideas, i.e. rational memes, the society has a good chance of being a "dynamic" society.

Some societies I tend to think of as being dangerously close to becoming static societies. Russia comes to mind. The more restrictive the government becomes, the more speech and political expression is curtailed, the more likely Russia will become static. China falls into the same category for essentially the same reason. North Korea is a static society. Venezuela under the rule of Hugo Chavez, becomes more of a static society under his strict leadership. Any of the Middle Eastern countries, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Maghreb countries, and many countries of sub-Saharan Africa have the potential of becoming static societies. Rules, laws, or taboos which restrictive the free movement of ideas, or limit certain populations are anti-rational memes. Limiting the role of women in business, industry, sports, or government are anti-rational memes. Discriminating against a population based on skin color or other physical traits is an anti-rational meme. The killing of albinos in Tanzania because they are seen as "ghost" people is an anti-rational meme. The notion in Malawi of having sex with a virgin girl as a cure for AIDS/HIV is an anti-rational meme.
In the United States, our political parties are susceptible to becoming victimized by the spread of anti-rational memes. The Democratic Party support of unions is an anti-rational meme which hinders business, disallows the movement of ineffective workers and their inherent inefficiencies, and prevents the replacement of outmoded business models with modern adaptations.
The Tea Party movement itself is based almost exclusively on a host of anti-rational memes, racism, Creationism, pro-Christian, pro-faith, and a return to the Gold Standard are simply a few anti-rational memes prevalent among the Tea Party.

Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans, have become significantly enamored by anti-rational memes. The "Patriot Act" provided unparalleled access to law enforcement for domestic surveillance. During the Bush Administration, citizens throughout the country found their "patriotism" challenged by simply criticizing White House policies. Members of the Senate Science and Technology Committee side with Creationists and other anti-science advocates against current research extending from the study of Cosmology, evolution, stem cell research, to climate change. Conservative Republicans, such as Donald Trump persist in perpetuating the Birther meme concerning President Obama's place of birth and his academic record. Other Conservative Republicans persist in associating environmental catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sally with God's wrath against the moral turpitude of homosexuality and abortion. The current political clarion among Republicans, "Take Back America" exemplifies yet another anti-rational meme. The United States has not been lost, has not been over-run or taken over. The government is not besieged. A coup d'etat has not supplanted any of our three government divisions.
Dynamic societies succeed by critical investigation of memes, by moot, and by using human creativity to expose, evaluate, and adapt memes. As memes are replicated, and evolve, individual memes may become static (383). Static memes are not necessarily bad. The idea of one-person, one-vote is a static meme which is important for governance which cannot really get more any more simple. Remember, the previous memes prevented women from voting, black males could cast a vote which counted as 1/2 the vote of a white male, and only white landowners could vote. Individual memes may become static. Danger arises when static memes become encoded with the law, or imposed by taboo, and society in its entirety is restricted from exercising creativity in advancing knowledge and gaining deeper understanding.

The two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are catalysts for memes. Democrats, often referred to as "Liberals," are criticized for simply being that, liberal. Liberal carries many connotation; open, explorative, educated, flexible, wavering, and progressive are a few terms which come to mind. Republicans are often characterized as "Conservative," meaning resistant to change, parochial, narrow-minded, and traditional are a few terms which come to mind.

Both political parties are far from perfect. However, Republicans are dangerously close to becoming the bastion of anti-rational memes. Advocating increased levels of religious expression in schools disaffect members of a society which purports to be accepting is an anti-rational meme. Anti-science faith-based messages which articulate evolution and cosmological sciences as being straight from Hell is an anti-rational meme. Deprecating education at levels beyond high school is an anti-rational meme. Denouncing climate and atmospheric sciences is an anti-rational meme. Advocating the status quo upon reliance on fossil fuels and against alternative energies is an anti-rational meme. Denouncing the rights of gay and lesbian citizens based on religious intolerance is an anti-rational meme. Stripping rights away from individuals to exercise control over her own reproductive rights in an anti-rational meme. Restricting the use of embryonic stem cells on religious grounds is an anti-rational meme.

For Democracy to succeed, at least two parties of equal rational and critical thinking acumen are necessary. My criticism of the Republican party is levied mostly to vent frustration over the entire political process. In reading TBOI, particularly the portion regarding memes and culture, I was struck by the relevance of Deutsch's comments and their applicability to current societal and governmental concerns. Much of the vitriol of our current political climate arises from anti-rational memes, examples of which I have already mentioned. These anti-rational memes are associated with members of one political party, are encoded within that party's platform, in fact. That the GOP cannot mount a substantive and unified front to the Democrat Party can be tied directly to the anti-rational memes harbored by many Republicans. To provide a better leadership at local, state, and national level, GOP leaders need to scrutinized their platform, their ideals, eliminate those notions which are parochial, limiting, predicated on ignorance and non-critical thinking, and purge their party of members who support anti-rational, non-critical memes. Otherwise, the Republicans are dooming themselves to irrelevance, being diluted by more non-critical thinkers, and radicalists, eventually being replaced by a number of factions.

Source: Deutsch, David; The Beginning of Infinity; Penguin; 2011.

The Complicated Geography of Labor

 

Americans are an ignorant lot. Though pained to state this, I believe that by-and-large Americans are pretty ignorant. Ignorance does not mean “stupid,” ignorance simply means, “uninformed.” Lest you think I am above being ignorant myself, I am not. I realize I am ignorant, though, and the more I learn the more I realize the depths of my own ignorance.

Americans are becoming more ignorant, I fear. Despite the increasing prevalence of technology in our lives, we are becoming increasingly fragmented in our knowledge. The Internet allows us entry into an enormous world of information. Sort of. Sifting for Truth on the Internet is very much like searching for a precious item in a New Jersey landfill. And, what is “Truth,” anyway. Let’s avoid that debate.

Politicians, and Corporations, deliberately or unwittingly, take advantage of our ignorance. Our lack of knowledge works to their advantage, and against ours. Also, our politicians are not immune to being ignorant or vacuous. Many of them seem to lack wisdom to truly understand dilemmas faced by the United States, especially when it comes to Unemployment, Employment, Labor, and Education.

As a result of their lack of knowledge, wisdom, or, perhaps, malevolently they hide their knowledge knowing that they can leverage the ignorance of their districts of their own benefit, politicians pander to Americans, furthering economic myths, and establish bad economic policy.

Here is an example of what I mean by saying “politicians pander.” A politician who says, “We need to bring jobs back to America,” might illicit a nice response from his constituency, and people will rally around a politician who proclaims that the “government needs to protect American jobs and punish those companies that move manufacturing to other countries.” This is pandering, potentially bad economic policy, potentially bad for America, and bear with me and I will explain why.

For this essay, my focus is manufacturing. Specifically, shoes. I am really discussing Globalization – the interconnectedness and dependence among various people, places, things, and ideas driving global development. But I want to couch my discussion of Globalization in terms of shoes.

For the record, I do not view Globalization as a good thing or bad. Guns are neither good nor bad; their use can be used for good or ill. Same as money. Money can be given to charity, or used for buying drugs, or people. Question the motives of anyone who says “globalization is _____” (bad / destructive / harmful / etc.) That person has an agenda and is distorting information for his/her own purpose.

Let’s get started.

Nike’s international headquarters is located in Beaverton, Oregon. In 2010, Nike made $19 billion in gross profits from its different business ventures. Nike has over 30,000 employees working in 160 countries. Including their suppliers, shippers, and retailers, Nike employees over 1 million people world-wide.

Nike does not make shoes, per se. Nike designs shoes. Nike sells shoes. Nike markets shoes. Nike contracts with factories around the world to build their shoes. Nike does not own the factory. Nike simply finds a shoe factory, perhaps in Brazil, China, Viet Nam, and contracts out the job of building the shoes. Nike may help find the raw materials for building the shoes. Nike might assist in finding rubber from Malaysia. Find cotton from France, or the United States. Locate leather from Brazil or Argentina.

Nike does not hire the labor that works in the shoe factory. Those workers are hired from local pools of labor by the managers of that shoe factory. Those local workers need employment and are willing to work. Willing to work for $5-$10 per day. Those workers do not protest for vacation days. Generally. Those workers do not protest for health care, for dental plans, for eye care. Those workers do not protest for retirement plans. That is the fact on the ground. For the time being. We may see changes in labor in Southeast Asia over the next 5 years or so.

Yes, yes, you say, you know that. People work for 1/10th of the wages of an American. In the U.S., our Minimum Wage is $7.25 per hour. The minimum average wage in Viet Nam (2009) was $1 per hour for an 8-hour day.

Now, place yourself in the shoes of a business owner. You are going to pay the same transportation costs as your competitor. You are going to pay the same raw material costs as your competitor. Those are economic truths, not my truths. Raw materials like cotton, leather, rubber, etc. are traded on global markets. The global markets determine those prices. You and your competition, Reebok, Asics, New Balance, will be buying from the same pool of resources.

You can try to find better labor costs, however. If you were building shoes in the U.S. you were paying one employee $54.38 per day to build shoes. In Viet Nam, you could pay almost 7 workers for one day’s work for the same job, and arrive at the same product, with 7x’s as many shoes. And, as the case is, those workers are not yours, you do not have to worry about them. Remember? You are contracting with a factory in Viet Nam. You will pay that factory based on the shoes produced. In turn, that company will pay workers.

 

Your U.S. workers will cry “foul!” and complain, and protest, and picket your office.

You, on the other hand, will still employ people, designers, engineers, chemists, advertisers, salespeople, lawyers, accountants, etc. Plus, you will also indirectly employee people around the world. In other words, skilled employees that make decent money.

People who buy your shoes will be happy because they will still be able to afford to buy your shoes because you have managed to control the overall cost of your shoes.

Consumers, you and I, push companies to relocate to find cheap labor. When we buy devices, clothes, and shoes at Wal-Mart, or Target, or CostCo, we are telling Nike, Reebok, Levi, Lee, Magnavox, etc., we want cheap clothes and cheap electronics.

By preventing the movement of manufacturing jobs abroad, the cost of our clothes, shoes, DVD players, iPhones, Droids, XBoxes, LCD TVs, will all go up.

“Yeah, but paying people high wages to assemble that stuff will put money in their pocket to buy those things!”

No, not really. Remember the cost of paying those American workers is going to be passed along to us, the consumer. If a company could save 90% of its labor costs by shifting the production to Viet Nam, and chooses not to, well, that is not really in the interest of the company, is it? That company is not maximizing capital, human capital, therefore not acting efficiently. The costs of labor will be passed along to us, the American consumer. Prices will inflate to match the increased cost of labor, thereby putting these devices, clothes, etc. out of reach of many people aka The Middle Class.

Another bad side effect is Inflation. If wages did go up, then companies tend to increase prices. Companies feel people can afford to pay more, since they are making more money. And, another economic “law” is that as the amount of something goes up, its value goes down. Put more dollars into circulation, the value of a dollar decreases and what you can buy with that dollar goes down.

Goes like this: Say all Americans gets a 20% pay increase. Sounds good, right? Wonder Bread, seeing this, thinks, oh wow, everyone is making more money now. Let’s sell a loaf a bread for $1.20, instead of $1.00. Wonder Bread bumps the price of bread up 20%, not because their costs increased, but because consumers can now afford to spend more.

“No fair, that isn’t right! Wonder Bread just negated my raise because now my grocery bill just went up 20%! Government, you need to stop this!”

What are you, a Communist? Who are you to tell Wonder Bread how to run their business? What business is it of the government to tell Wonder Bread what they can charge for bread?

Maybe the good isn’t bread, it is a Blu-Ray player. Let’s revisit the earlier notion of passing along costs of production to the Consumer, you and I. For the sake of argument, consider from before the example of the U.S.-made Blu-Ray player versus an identical Blu-Ray player available from China.

The increase in cost of that Blu-Ray player from being made in the U.S. with U.S. wages now is $200 versus $150 for the China-made version. Now, if you are standing at Target, and two equal Blu-Ray players are shelved beside each other, and the U.S. Blu-Ray is $200, and the China Blu-Ray is $200, which one are you going to buy? You also think, if I save $50 I can go back and buy 5 of the Blu-Ray DVDs off the $10 rack.

History has already proven what Americans will do. That is why shoes are made in China, and TVs are made in China. In the 1970s and 1980s, Americans opted for the cheaper devices made in foreign countries over the same products made in the U.S.A.

“Yeah, the government opened up the trade floodgates! It’s the damned <insert political party here> fault!". They are the ones who destroyed manufacturing!”

Yes, you are correct. The U.S. government opened trade with China, and Japan, and Taiwan, and Singapore, and India, and Bangladesh, and wherever. And, you benefited. You ran right out and bought that LG LCD TV, that XBox, that iPod Touch, that microwave oven. Or, your parent’s did; or, grandparents. Doesn’t matter. Americans saw the value of the products, the savings they were able to achieve, and how they could better use their money for other things.

Let me get this straight: you would rather pay an extra $50 for that Blu-Ray player to keep an American employed? In other words, you want the U.S. government to place a $50 dollar tariff on the China-made Blu-Ray player so that the cost is the same? $50 is a lot of money. Are you sure you would do that?

If you answered “Yes,” then you are advocating for government involvement of Labor, which is primarily a platform of the Democratic Party. Are you a Democrat? Then, you are also advocating for tariffs to protect domestic economics, throwing a wrench into Free Market economics, and that is a Socialist tenet. Are you a Socialist?

Listen to the news, and listen to political pundits from all parties. Politicians speak from all sides of their mouths. They want to keep costs down, yet prevent jobs from going off-shore, yet want to reduce education spending that builds a healthier economy. Right …

And, Americans seem to want it both ways, too. We want cheap phones, and cheap TVs, and cheap cars, and cheap whatever. Yet, we also claim to want good, high-paying jobs. Well, remember folks, that someone has to pay for that high-paying job, and that someone will be you and I.

Americans need to be aware of the repercussions of their “calls to action.” Like “fix unemployment!” or the cry for “we need jobs!” That is why you need to stay awake in Microeconomics and Macroeconomics; this is where we learn about these topics. But most of us are like, “man, these supply and demand curves are freaking boring.”

Yeah, well ignoring those Supply and Demand curves allow corporations and politicians to work their magic at our expense.

And, ignoring your math class allows corporations and politicians to run a numbers games against Americans as our ignorance grows.

We have jobs, 3.5 million that have gone unclaimed.

Those jobs have gone unclaimed, in part, because Americans do not pay attention to educating themselves to the Job Vacancies or Employment Growth Sectors. We educate ourselves for stuff that sounds fun. Like “Sports & Leisure,” or “Journalism,” or “English.” There is nothing wrong with those degrees in and of themselves. The U.S. doesn’t need them right now. We need computer programmers, nurses, health care workers, chemists, engineers, database managers. Those are good jobs. High paying jobs.

Educated people will always have a distinct advantage over those that have fewer skills or lack formal education.

As the Election Season begins, we will have to listen hard and well to sift through the BS from all sides. Take nothing said by anyone for granted. Do not fall victim to Confirmation Bias, believing what you hear or read from people who seem to think as you do. That is borderline Fascism.

Question.

Technorati Tags: education,unemployment,nike,reebok,globalization,democratic party,republican party

Tea Party and Constitutional Confusion

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The Tea Party, like I've said in past writings, has some good ideas. Having a government that is fiscally responsible, that is an idea I can connect with.

But, I am struggling with the notion that Tea Partiers have with the elimination of the Department of Education. Not necessary, Tea Partiers claim; give the power to educate to the states and local communities. And, they claim, there is no provision in the United States Constitution for a Department of Education.

Technically, that statement is true; nowhere will one find the provision to instantiate a "Department of Education." I don't see anything for the Department of Energy, or Interior, either.

As an aside, there is a provision for the Federal Reserve Bank, because Article 1, Section 8 specifically gives the government power to coin money and control the value of said money.

Article 1, Section 8 provides two provisions for the creation of the Department of Education, and any other Department, Agency, Office, or whatever else the government needs. Let's look at the obvious one first.

"...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United State..."

I don't know how you define "general Welfare" but to me, and to the Supreme Court (whose job it is to interpret the law) "general Welfare" means that Congress can do pretty much as it pleases for creating or abolishing whatever it sees fit to create or abolish. That means if Congress thinks that we need direction for education, then the creation of the Department of Education is completely within the domain of Congress.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The key part of the this provision is the "necessary and proper" fragment. It is this fragment that the Supreme Court, over the years, has allowed Congress to pretty much act with impunity in legislating policies.

People argue with me about the meaning of these provisions. These provisions are part of the original Constitution and not later Amendments. Furthermore, these provision appear in the First Article, which lends some weight to their importance. Arguing with me is like arguing against the Constitution ...

The Constitution is also what is referred to as a "Living Document," meaning the Constitution has the ability to change to reflect changes in American society and societal needs. The Constitutional is a tool with which to create, alter, modify, or delete elements of governance in order to adapt to changes in American society.

The vagueness of the document is DELIBERATE. There is no way the framers of the Constitution could anticipate future needs of Americans, other than to create a Constitution that would allow future generations the flexibility to govern. Govern, without the interference of Religion. Hence, the vagueness.

That there are no obvious references to the Department of Education, or to the Department of Interior, or to the Department of Energy does not mean that they cannot exist. There does not need to be any specific reference to any Office, Tax, Agency, or Department. The Constitution grants powers to Congress to create as needed.

Tea Partiers, and people leaning towards the Tea Party, need to really open their mind about their interpretation of the Constitution. Those that want to return the country to Constitutional Law - whatever that is - are living in a country created by Constitutional Law. Again, they seem to be a victim of Myopic Ignorance, of seeing only what they want to see.

Thoughts: Tea Party v. Federal Reserve Banking System

The Tea Party has some good ideas. Eliminating the Federal Reserve is not one of them.

People blame the Federal Reserve Banking System (FRBS) for such things as devaluing the dollar and causing the Great Depression. People actually do those things, through their misguided notions of trying to help - not the FRBS. That is like blaming the gun for killing people, not the people holding the weapon.

Americans have a dangerous form of myopic ignorance. First, we don't really understand governing processes very well. To compensate, we listen to allegedly smart people to tell us how we should think. These politicians, or WannaBe Politicians, get people worked into a lather, based some some truth, half-truths, and lies. The Tea Party is fomenting ignorance about the FRBS and advocating for its abolition. Second, not only do we not understand our own governing processes well, we do not understand the relevance of these processes to the Global Economy. I call these the Downstream Effects. Dump your garbage in the stream and who cares about the effects of your actions downstream.

Besides controlling monetary policy within the United States, the FRBS also engages with other countries. The FRBS is how countries pay each other for services or products rendered. Yes, that's right, that is how the United States buys and sells things on the global market. I'm not talking about Wal-mart, or IBM, I am talking about the money that the U.S. borrows from other nations to meet our own budget needs. Elimination of the FRBS throws uncertainty into the balance of payment equation as countries no longer understand the value of American currency.

People also need to understand this, too. Most all other developed nations, Japan, China, Russia, Germany, all have their own Central Banking System (CBS). These CBSs pretty much work the same way our FRBS works; controlling the money supply, interest rates, etc. Thus, not only does the United States have Fiscal Management Policies centered on a CBS, but all of our trading partners do, as well. Again, by going our own way, other countries now no longer have a basis of valuing American currency. Our trading partners expect and anticipate that everyone essentially operates in fundamentally the same ways, by the same set of predictable rules.

Consider this allegory for a moment. Imagine that each of our 50 States has its own currency. As long as each state operates by the same rules for circulating currency, each state understands the value of its own currency, and the currency of surrounding states. That is not to say that the values are equal. A California dollar may be of higher value than an Idaho dollar, or a Kentuckiana dollar may be more valuable than a Tennessean dollar. Exchange rates would be tabulated each day so people and businesses would know the differences in value. But, the market rules would be the same across the board. Now consider what happens when Kansas decides to eliminate Corn-backed monetary policy and instead impose a value based on Faith and the amount of Kansas dollars in circulation. People, being familiar with currency backed by some commodity, would have no idea what the value of the Kansas dollar might be. The Kansas dollar could become worthless, making life miserable for Kansans. The Kansas Government could peg the value of their dollar to the California wine-backed dollar, thereby saving the value of their currency. Kansas changed the rules for its currency. Our American lives are much better off that the individual state currencies alive before the Civil War did not survive after. Change the rules of our National currency has the potential of ruining the Global Value of our currency.

Another caveat to toss out: in order for the dissolution of FRBS to work, ALL OTHER COUNTRIES WITH CBS MUST DO THE SAME. Ron Paul-R (TX) states this in his book, "End the Fed," but states it in passing. All countries must agree to allow their currencies to float in the same way U.S. currency would float, or the process immediately fails, the American currency then becomes worthless. Now, what is the likelihood of all countries trashing their CBS in favor of free-floating currency. About the same as Satan converting to Catholicism, I'd wager.

Next, for our currency to have any value whatsoever, our money must be backed by something other than Faith (which it is essentially backed by now). That means returning to a precious metal supported monetary framework, like Gold. Again, another problem arises. In order to maintain the value of Gold, that means control of the Gold Supply. All Gold mines in the United States must then become wholly-owned, nationalized, by the government. Private ownership of Gold would also be severely restricted. In 1933 & 1934, in order to control the Gold supply, Executive Order 6102 required all people to sell their gold to the United States Treasury at a fixed price. Only since 1975 have Americans been able to legally own gold beyond a wedding ring.

Allowing U.S. to be backed by a precious metal and managed by market forces may seem like a good idea.
Actually, to me, this is a horrible idea. I should say, to the inattentive it may sound like a good idea. Or to those that are frustrated by current events, the removal of the FRSB may seem like a good idea.

The problem is that proponents, the Tea Party, especially Ron and Rand Paul, do not adequately describe the pitfalls of FRBS dissolution. I can only assume these proponents fall victim to Downstream Ignorance. They only see current events through a very small "lens" lack perspective regarding the repercussions of their ideas, and either have not fully explored all effects or simply do not care.

Low-tax states attract budget-conscious Americans | Reuters

Low-tax states attract budget-conscious Americans | Reuters

Interesting article.

Low-Tax states mentioned: Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Texas, and Michigan.

High-Tax states mentioned: New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut.

References: www.retirementliving.com & www.taxfoundation.com

The premise of the article is that one can save money by moving to another state and paying less in taxes. No doubt that can and does happen. But taxes are tricky economic tools, penalties - however you want to view them.

There are cigarette taxes, property taxes, investment taxes, state and local taxes, fuel taxes, retirement income taxes - all sorts of taxes. Nevada was said to be a low-tax state, but, by what measure? Nevada has one of the highest sales tax rates (6.85%). Depending on occupation, salary, and county-of-resident, the taxes paid could still be an issue. Pay less property taxes in one state, but personal property taxes and sales tax will make up for the lower property taxes.

The formula for tax-savings could therefore become very complicated.

Proponents of a national "flat-tax" focus on one aspect of a very complicated system of taxation.

Proponents of "no taxation, period" who also sometimes voice, "no taxation without representation," and, who also voice such ideas that taxes are unconstitutional - I think that these folks tend to follow Tea Party notions - seem to think that because the Constitution does not specifically state the specific areas where taxation is acceptable that no taxation is allowable. They seem to miss the point that the Constitution is a "living document." While many facets of government are not directly mentioned that does not mean that they cannot exist. The Constitution provides a means for government to conduct business as the government sees fit. Our duly elected members of Congress then provide the representative body required to manage the business of government.

Moving to avoid taxation is as American as Apple Pie, right? Besides religious freedom, and freedom of open discourse, freedom from unnecessary taxation was one of the motivational forces that led to Europeans moving to the New World.

On the surface, smaller taxes in neighboring states might seem attractive. Why pay property taxes of 6.8% in one state if the neighboring state has property taxes of 5.7%? Saving money on property taxes looks good on paper. That savings might be hard to calculate when the sales tax in the home state is 6% and the sales tax in the neighboring state is 9.2%. Now, which state is cheaper to live in?

The other consideration glossed over in the article are the services, the "value" you receive from the use of those tax dollars. Roads are costed, so is bridge maintenance, fire, police, E-911, garbage collection, etc.

Quantification of savings based on property value assessment from one place to another is pretty simple. Quantification of savings from other taxable entities is much different

Superficial costs and benefits are easy to see. Hidden costs, by definition, are not easy to see. Saving $13,000 in annual taxes says a lot about family size, living standards, and employment. Another family, with another means, might not have the same amount of cost savings. And, additionally, what are the trade-offs, or sacrifices?