Republican Morality

What is Republican morality? Such a provocative question! Before we get to an answer, though, what is morality? Jonathan Haidt has much to say about this in this 2008 Edge article. I have often mentioned Haidt in my posts.  I find him to be a first rate thinker and writer.   Now, back to the topic of morality. Here's how Haidt defines morality:

Morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible. It turns out that human societies have found several radically different approaches to suppressing selfishness.
The first thing he teaches, then, is that "morality" is not an "it." Rather, it is a set of (potentially conflicting) approaches that all aim for the same end: "making social life possible." Haidt sets forth the sort of society that passes as "moral" for many of us:
First, imagine society as a social contract invented for our mutual benefit. All individuals are equal, and all should be left as free as possible to move, develop talents, and form relationships as they please. The patron saint of a contractual society is John Stuart Mill, who wrote (in On Liberty) that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Mill's vision appeals to many liberals and libertarians; a Millian society at its best would be a peaceful, open, and creative place where diverse individuals respect each other's rights and band together voluntarily (as in Obama's calls for "unity") to help those in need or to change the laws for the common good. Psychologists have done extensive research on the moral mechanisms that are presupposed in a Millian society, and there are two that appear to be partly innate. First, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to suffering and harm, particularly violent harm, and so nearly all cultures have norms or laws to protect individuals and to encourage care for the most vulnerable. Second, people in all cultures are emotionally responsive to issues of fairness and reciprocity, which often expand into notions of rights and justice. Philosophical efforts to justify liberal democracies and egalitarian social contracts invariably rely heavily on intuitions about fairness and reciprocity.
I'll call this Society #1.  Now consider a different social arrangement, Society #2: [More . . .]

Continue ReadingRepublican Morality

Come to the United States for slow and expensive Internet

As reported by Common Dreams:

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the U.S. has sunk to 25th in a global ranking of Internet speeds, just behind Romania. Why? Because our nation's regulators abandoned an earlier commitment to foster competition in the marketplace for Internet access providers.
Here's the problem:  Most households in the United States have little-to-no choice when it comes to land line broadband:

The lack of competition has turned America into a broadband backwater. In the aftermath of the FCC’s decisions, powerful phone and cable companies legislated and lobbied their way to controlling 97 percent of the fixed-line residential broadband market — leaving the vast majority of consumers with two or fewer choices of land-based providers in any given market.

This article links to a Free Press publication, "Dismantling Digital Deregulation: Toward a national Broadband Strategy," which tells us what deregulation has brought us:
Almost right out of the gate, the Bush administration’s FCC declared war on competitive ISPs. It quickly decided that even though the cable platform had transformed into a two-way communications medium, cable companies didn’t need to abide by any of the pro-competitive requirements of the 1996 Act. The FCC also decided that incumbent monopoly phone companies would no longer be required to provide competitive broadband ISPs wholesale access at reasonable rates and conditions. This abandonment of “open access” policy flew in the face of congressional intent and doomed the competitive ISPs to irrelevancy and bankruptcy. Meanwhile, overseas, other countries maintained this commitment to competition and reaped the benefits. The OECD countries with open access policies have broadband penetration levels nearly twice that of countries without these policies. Citizens in the countries with open access policies also get more broadband bang for their buck. For example, consumers in countries with “line sharing” open access policies pay about $14 per Mbps; consumers in countries without these policies pay more than double this amount. The FCC, in its blind pursuit of deregulation, abandoned line sharing and other open access policies in the hopes that this “regulatory relief” would inspire incumbents to make massive investments in broadband infrastructure. But this hope, based in part on the promises made by the incumbents to get favorable FCC treatment, turned out to be completely false. An examination of the data reveals that the pace of broadband deployment was no different in the years before major FCC broadband deregulation than it was in the years after. States like Virginia and Maine saw no improvement in deployment, while in some states like Nebraska, things actually got worse. The FCC also justified its abandonment of competition policy by arguing that the incumbent phone and cable companies would offer third-party ISPs wholesale access on favorable terms, even though they weren't obligated to do so. In retrospect, letting the fox guard the henhouse was a colossal mistake. An examination of the offerings of the few remaining third-party broadband ISPs illustrates the obvious: that incumbents have absolutely no reason to offer their competitors favorable wholesale rates. For example, Earthlink still resells Time Warner Cable broadband service, but the monthly rate is so high that no consumer in his or her right mind would pay it. Earthlink’s 7 Mbps tier costs consumers nearly $30 more than if they bought it from Time Warner Cable directly, while the lowest-price tier is nearly 20 percent cheaper if purchased from Time Warner Cable. In many cases, once they were granted relief from providing reasonable wholesale access, incumbents refused to offer wholesale altogether or jacked up the rates so high that third-party ISPs would lose money.

Continue ReadingCome to the United States for slow and expensive Internet

George Carlin’s brutally patriotic criticism

The First Amendment isn’t worth a damn unless it is actually being used. If it is not being used, then politicians and their rich and powerful keepers will continue to utter long and loud streams of nonsense to financially screw the ordinary working people of America in dozens of ways. They will continue to feed us unending misinformation in order to justify their urges to wage unnecessary wars to help them retain their power. They will continue invading our houses and and minds thanks to their many stenographers in the commercial media. Those of us who have resisted drinking much of this country’s spiked elixir of Judeo-Christian-consumerist-warmongering-bigotry know that most of what we hear our authority figures uttering, even those authority figures who we want to believe to be on our side, is flawed. Much of it substantially untrue and quite a bit of it is absolute bullshit.  I hate to be writing these words, but I've lost a lot of faith in the United States in the past ten years.  Misinformation pours into the living rooms and cars of Americans every day, where it too often takes root, perhaps because it is uttered by people wearing fancy suits and flag pins. Americans need an antidote to this unending poison. They need the kinds of people who can effectively challenge these messages and messengers--someone who not only can challenge this propaganda but can do it with sharp fast pinpricks that deflate this bloviation on the spot.  They need much more than "news" reporters who don't have the tools, courage or motivation to challenge all the BS. They need someone who is old enough and thick-skinned enough that he/she doesn’t give a shit about being criticized for being unpatriotic. In fact, this type of person, of whom we actually need many, feeds on the criticism aimed at them by the powers-that-be and even gets even better under attack; he/she feels compelled to speak truth to power because it is the right thing to do, it's in the blood and it's the patriotic thing. The types of patriotic people we need to deliver this blitzkrieg criticism also need to be excellent entertainers in order to maintain the attention of large numbers of Americans. As comedians, they can hone their messages into comical memes that their audience members will pass around in viral fashion long after the original message was delivered. To the extent that these funny social critics portray themselves as jesters, they will have more access to the mass media, enabling them more effectively put their verbal swords in and out of those who own and run this country. Many conservatives consider this iconoclastic feedback to be unpatriotic. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingGeorge Carlin’s brutally patriotic criticism

Investing voodoo

I've followed the writings of Investment Advisor Dan Solin for several years.   After reading a half-dozen of his articles, he might start to sound like a guy who only sings one song, but it seems to be a damned good song.  Solin constantly rails at investment "experts" claim that they can actively manage your investments efficiently because they can "time the market"--they claim that they can figure out when and what to buy, such that you will make good returns on your investments. The problem, as Solin once again indicates in his latest article, is these experts who advocate active-management of funds are shams and charlatans because high-fee actively managed investment funds almost never beat low-fee passively-managed index funds.  In fact, almost all of these investment "experts" who set up think tanks, newsletters and websites end up out of business. Solin repeatedly tells us what the problem is and what to do about it: "Well-advised investors hold a globally diversified portfolio of low management fee stock and bond index funds in an asset allocation suitable for them." Repeat as necessary.  The evidence is clear that actively-managed plans consistently fail to beat the market as a whole (only 5% of actively managed funds will equal their benchmark index each year) and they cost a lot more money in management fees than index funds.  Passive funds run by Vanguard charge only .41% per year on average.  Actively managed funds typically charge 1% more than passive funds, and this difference can add up to huge numbers of dollars over the life of an investor. [caption id="attachment_19627" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image by Vtupinamba at Dreamstime.com (with permission)"][/caption]

According to Vanguard, for the 10 years leading up to 2007, the majority of actively-managed U.S. stock funds underperformed the index they were seeking to outperform. For instance, 84% of actively-managed U.S. large blend funds underperformed their index, and 68% of actively-managed U.S. small value funds underperformed, as well. The case is even worse for actively-managed bond funds. In that case, almost 95% of actively-managed bond funds underperformed their indexes for the 10 years leading up to 2007.

Give the damning evidence Solin has offered over the years, it amazes me that so many of us are forced into 401K accounts that charge much bigger fees to hire people who claim that they can "time the market."  That might be changing.  Consider what happened to Kraft's plan administrators after they included actively managed funds in their plans:

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs asserted the retention of two actively managed funds in the defined contribution plan violated Kraft's duty of prudence. They claimed the plan administrators in this plan should have followed the lead of the trustees in the defined benefit plan and dumped all actively managed funds.

In a stunning decision, Judge Ruben Castillo agreed to let this issue proceed to a jury trial. He held that, based on the conclusion of the Investment Committee for the defined benefit plan to drop all actively managed funds, a jury could conclude that the decision of the plan administrator and consultants to the defined contribution plan to retain two actively managed funds was a breach of fiduciary duty.

What is Smolin's advice for Plan Administrators or retirement plans?
This decision should be a wake-up call to all trustees and plan administrators of retirement plans. Either they should pay attention to the data and replace actively managed funds with index funds, or risk the possibility of being liable for the shortfall.

Continue ReadingInvesting voodoo

Health care and death

Progressive sites are howling at the insensitivity of the Tea Party based on a hypothetical. This is how the conversation went down at a recent Republican debate:

Wolf Blitzer: A healthy 30 year old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides—you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy—I don’t need it. But something terrible happens … all of a sudden he needs it. Who’s going to pay for it if he goes into a coma. Ron Paul – He should do whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself . . . My advise to him is to have a major medical policy . . . Blitzer: But he doesn’t have that and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays? Ron Paul: That’s what freedom is about . . . taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody . . . Blitzer: Are you saying society should just let him die?" [A couple voices in the large crowd shout “Yes!”] Ron Paul: . . . The churches . . . [will help him]
Several things come to mind. The hypothetical was designed to make us not want to take care of this man. After all, if I am working overtime to scrape together huge payments for my family’s health insurance and the man in the hypothetical decides he won’t bother to pay even though he “makes a good living,” my gut feeling is he is trying to cheat the system, which makes me highly ambivalent about him, and much less sympathetic about his terrible situation. How much do I care about this man? I once told a friend of mine that I “cared” about a sad situation, and he said, “No you don’t. If you cared, you would do something to fix the problem and all you’re doing is complaining.” I think he was dead-on with that comment. If we care, we get involved. If we’re merely complaining, we don’t really care, no matter what we say. How do Americans often show they really care? By reaching into their pockets and giving money to the cause. With this in mind, allow me to offer a few of my own hypotheticals. [More . . .]

Continue ReadingHealth care and death