#215: This Could Work
.................
Step #1: Kids striking for the climate organize a tree planting program: any village or urban teen, anywhere around the world, can sign up for a donated tree. Organizing help from the UN and tree planting NGOs.
#2: Teens who step forward become future community leaders RE: climate.
#3: Funding comes from donor countries, each of which donates 0.05% of their 2019 military budget.
#4: Even if all countries signed up--very unlikely, funding would be modest ($1.739 trillion in military spending x 0.0005 = $852 million), but it's a start that can be built up to what's needed in years ahead.
Additional details can be added by the teens themselves. In some countries, trees would need to be watered. In other countries, trees would need wire fencing to keep animals away. Funding (only a twentieth of a penny on the military dollar!) can be sought from teens' home countries, building up from a few wealthier nations.
A single tree in a village or city center isn't much, but it brings focus to a first step, and it would be worldwide. With teens organizing, who knows what follows. Perhaps many times more saplings in likely settings.
Happy Earth Day!
Monday, April 22, 2019
A Creative, Co-op Culture: The Details
#214: Additional Details
.....................
For a brief bird's eye view: link.
The six elements that would likely produce a creative, co-op economy, and how they'd fit together:
1. A hefty corporate tax
The argument is often made that your favorite big box store merely passes on its corporate tax to you in the form of higher prices. While true, this misses the effect that a big business tax has on the comparative price for hand-made, 'artisanal', local goods. The more corporate profits are taxed, the more space there is for a creative economy that values excellence in local craftsmanship. For example: a wilted vegetable shipped across country, instead of a locally grown, fresh version found at a farmer's market.
2. A secure safety net (financial, medical, educational)
Having security in life allows liberty, which leads to true self-expression, and value placed on meaningful and better made products.
3. Tax breaks for co-ops and residential businesses
Encouraging co-ops means more workers owning the business they work for, and profits remaining in local communities; the same goes for owner-occupied farms, and other small businesses tied to a particular place.
4. Overall equalization (opportunity for everyone)
So much human potential is wasted simply because not everyone has a real chance at participation and success. But opportunity can be built-in to our society. Randomly assigning payouts (Savings Bonds) by congressional district could encourage participatory self-expression (see below); and, competitive prize monies, also assigned by congressional district, would help move workers into a creative economy, as the corporate, work-a-day economy sheds human labor thanks to robotics, A.I., etc.
5. Military and 'corporate welfare' spending re-directed to 'pay for'
The financing to pay for our safety net, tax breaks, and opportunities would come from re-directing federal government spending. The more we cut back, the greater the chance that a voter might receive the opportunity of a lifetime; this means more voters favoring less wasteful spending. Additional financing would come from large tax hikes on billionaires.
6. Vigorous enforcement of current and enhanced anti-monopoly legislation
To both encourage smaller, worker-owned businesses, and provide a competitive jolt to our current corporate monopoly culture, big businesses should be down-sized. This is because monopolies, left alone, have no reason to do better. Localizing business activity would instead ensure that our country doesn't hollow out; that the economy doesn't leave behind all but the very richest corporate headquarters with their ultra-wealthy CEOs and shareholders.
Summary
Ideally then, all children would have a bright future to look forward to: not only the financial, medical and educational security allowing them to follow their passion, but encouragement to actually start a creative enterprise, or join a locally rooted business.
Farms and ranches would become smaller, meaning local processing and consumption are more likely, allowing for the dramatic re-populating of rural areas and smaller cities. Businesses would offer high-quality alternatives, along with the hand-crafted, and the meaningful shopping experience, this, as consumers aren't necessarily captivated by the cheapest import.
Underlying the shift to a co-operative, creative future could be a political renaissance as well. The most likely way to ensure a level-headed electorate is to have nearly everyone immersed in the decision-making process; otherwise, fake news and other trickery can take root. But why would the vast majority of voters care to voice their opinions--aside from the occasional vote in a polling booth? Because those who participate in online decision making would be eligible to win both random and competitive prizes.
* Random Drawings. Paying out $1,000 in savings bonds every month to 100 participants in each Congressional District would only cost 1,200,000 x 436 = $520 million per year.
* Competitive Opportunities. Similarly, each year could see a competition for best entrepreneurial
start-up in each Congressional District, voted on by that district's constituents. The cost for these $1 million prizes would be: $436 million a year.
As I've outlined elsewhere, online decision making can be merely instructive (telling one's representative one's opinion does not require voting booth secrecy), and if opinions are tabulated by a reputable pollster, and if the relevant House member needn't necessarily listen to the will of the people (though that may be advisable), we have an online politics that is possible, an engaged electorate, and something approaching real democracy. All for a mere $1 billion a year.
In practical terms, the above agenda is a Democratic approach, in that it's based on an extended safety net, tax increases for corporations and billionaires, and re-directing military spending to bread-and-butter concerns here at home. But, it also speaks to Republican strengths: small business, farmer and ranch interests, and the anti-monopoly policies of previous presidents like Teddy Roosevelt. So, it's actually populist, rather than being partisan.
Perhaps this agenda's greatest advantage is that it deals with the coming wave of robotics, A.I. and tech in general; a dramatic change that will likely displace much labor (self-driving vehicles are the usual Exhibit A). Of course we don't have to surrender all person-to-person business interaction to automation. But, it may be that supporting the hand-made, high quality, artisanal, locally sourced over the mass-produced import is all it would take to separate expendable, laborious work from the personal attention we truly value.
There is one question remaining: is a creative, co-op cultural agenda any better than a universal basic income (UBI)? With UBI, everyone receives a guaranteed income from the government, provided that is, the government has the funding. The effect is the same: to support incomes as jobs are lost to automation. And both systems could start small, and be ramped up over time. The obvious difference: a UBI that could provide an adequate income for everyone would be too expensive, and if it somehow were affordable, who's going to do the remaining necessary work if everyone can afford to retire? Simply writing every US adult an annual $50,000 check would cost something like 250 million x 50,000 = $12.5 trillion. For 2019, our President proposed $4.7 trillion in spending, with revenue at about $3.6 trillion. So, a UBI that allowed early retirement to balance out jobs lost to automation wouldn't be possible. It's only when combined with a creative, co-op culture that a modest UBI of say, $1,000 a year might make sense. That amount would of course assist everyone, but especially artists, crafts people, small farmers and assorted part-timers who make a living outside the corporate economy. Even so, that level of UBI would cost $250 billion.
Meanwhile, the move to a creative, co-op culture would transform America from a society in which corporate greed predominated, to one in which business was rooted and owned locally; all individuals were secure, and opportunities that kept hope alive were abundant.
.....................
For a brief bird's eye view: link.
The six elements that would likely produce a creative, co-op economy, and how they'd fit together:
1. A hefty corporate tax
The argument is often made that your favorite big box store merely passes on its corporate tax to you in the form of higher prices. While true, this misses the effect that a big business tax has on the comparative price for hand-made, 'artisanal', local goods. The more corporate profits are taxed, the more space there is for a creative economy that values excellence in local craftsmanship. For example: a wilted vegetable shipped across country, instead of a locally grown, fresh version found at a farmer's market.
2. A secure safety net (financial, medical, educational)
Having security in life allows liberty, which leads to true self-expression, and value placed on meaningful and better made products.
3. Tax breaks for co-ops and residential businesses
Encouraging co-ops means more workers owning the business they work for, and profits remaining in local communities; the same goes for owner-occupied farms, and other small businesses tied to a particular place.
4. Overall equalization (opportunity for everyone)
So much human potential is wasted simply because not everyone has a real chance at participation and success. But opportunity can be built-in to our society. Randomly assigning payouts (Savings Bonds) by congressional district could encourage participatory self-expression (see below); and, competitive prize monies, also assigned by congressional district, would help move workers into a creative economy, as the corporate, work-a-day economy sheds human labor thanks to robotics, A.I., etc.
5. Military and 'corporate welfare' spending re-directed to 'pay for'
The financing to pay for our safety net, tax breaks, and opportunities would come from re-directing federal government spending. The more we cut back, the greater the chance that a voter might receive the opportunity of a lifetime; this means more voters favoring less wasteful spending. Additional financing would come from large tax hikes on billionaires.
6. Vigorous enforcement of current and enhanced anti-monopoly legislation
To both encourage smaller, worker-owned businesses, and provide a competitive jolt to our current corporate monopoly culture, big businesses should be down-sized. This is because monopolies, left alone, have no reason to do better. Localizing business activity would instead ensure that our country doesn't hollow out; that the economy doesn't leave behind all but the very richest corporate headquarters with their ultra-wealthy CEOs and shareholders.
Summary
Ideally then, all children would have a bright future to look forward to: not only the financial, medical and educational security allowing them to follow their passion, but encouragement to actually start a creative enterprise, or join a locally rooted business.
Farms and ranches would become smaller, meaning local processing and consumption are more likely, allowing for the dramatic re-populating of rural areas and smaller cities. Businesses would offer high-quality alternatives, along with the hand-crafted, and the meaningful shopping experience, this, as consumers aren't necessarily captivated by the cheapest import.
Underlying the shift to a co-operative, creative future could be a political renaissance as well. The most likely way to ensure a level-headed electorate is to have nearly everyone immersed in the decision-making process; otherwise, fake news and other trickery can take root. But why would the vast majority of voters care to voice their opinions--aside from the occasional vote in a polling booth? Because those who participate in online decision making would be eligible to win both random and competitive prizes.
* Random Drawings. Paying out $1,000 in savings bonds every month to 100 participants in each Congressional District would only cost 1,200,000 x 436 = $520 million per year.
* Competitive Opportunities. Similarly, each year could see a competition for best entrepreneurial
start-up in each Congressional District, voted on by that district's constituents. The cost for these $1 million prizes would be: $436 million a year.
As I've outlined elsewhere, online decision making can be merely instructive (telling one's representative one's opinion does not require voting booth secrecy), and if opinions are tabulated by a reputable pollster, and if the relevant House member needn't necessarily listen to the will of the people (though that may be advisable), we have an online politics that is possible, an engaged electorate, and something approaching real democracy. All for a mere $1 billion a year.
In practical terms, the above agenda is a Democratic approach, in that it's based on an extended safety net, tax increases for corporations and billionaires, and re-directing military spending to bread-and-butter concerns here at home. But, it also speaks to Republican strengths: small business, farmer and ranch interests, and the anti-monopoly policies of previous presidents like Teddy Roosevelt. So, it's actually populist, rather than being partisan.
Perhaps this agenda's greatest advantage is that it deals with the coming wave of robotics, A.I. and tech in general; a dramatic change that will likely displace much labor (self-driving vehicles are the usual Exhibit A). Of course we don't have to surrender all person-to-person business interaction to automation. But, it may be that supporting the hand-made, high quality, artisanal, locally sourced over the mass-produced import is all it would take to separate expendable, laborious work from the personal attention we truly value.
There is one question remaining: is a creative, co-op cultural agenda any better than a universal basic income (UBI)? With UBI, everyone receives a guaranteed income from the government, provided that is, the government has the funding. The effect is the same: to support incomes as jobs are lost to automation. And both systems could start small, and be ramped up over time. The obvious difference: a UBI that could provide an adequate income for everyone would be too expensive, and if it somehow were affordable, who's going to do the remaining necessary work if everyone can afford to retire? Simply writing every US adult an annual $50,000 check would cost something like 250 million x 50,000 = $12.5 trillion. For 2019, our President proposed $4.7 trillion in spending, with revenue at about $3.6 trillion. So, a UBI that allowed early retirement to balance out jobs lost to automation wouldn't be possible. It's only when combined with a creative, co-op culture that a modest UBI of say, $1,000 a year might make sense. That amount would of course assist everyone, but especially artists, crafts people, small farmers and assorted part-timers who make a living outside the corporate economy. Even so, that level of UBI would cost $250 billion.
Meanwhile, the move to a creative, co-op culture would transform America from a society in which corporate greed predominated, to one in which business was rooted and owned locally; all individuals were secure, and opportunities that kept hope alive were abundant.
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Robots, A.I., & Tech --> Future Co-op Culture
#213: A Quick Look
...................
Worried about losing your job to a robot? Annoyed at all the disembodied voices and CCTV cameras in public spaces? Disturbed by a mindless corporate America? If you aren't already concerned, you soon may be.
But, there's a way that algorithms, robots and artificial intelligence (A.I.) can actually bring about the things we want. Here's the scenario:
Arrange public policy to encourage a creative, co-op culture.
As robots, A.I. and tech reduce the need for labor, creative careers open up.
We can thus look forward to automation.
The required building blocks for the above scenario would likely include:
1. A hefty corporate tax
2. A secure safety net (financial, medical, educational)
3. Tax breaks for co-ops and residential businesses, including farmers/ranchers who live on and farm their own land
4. Overall equalization (opportunity for everyone)
5. Military and 'corporate welfare' spending re-directed to 'pay for'
6. Vigorous enforcement of current and enhanced anti-monopoly legislation to encourage smaller, worker-owned businesses with local roots.
So, for every 100 factory workers laid off--due to robotics A.I., etc., there'd be, say, 70 new positions in local, worker-owned businesses, 5 early retirees (the well-enough-off), and another 25 creative entrepreneurs and the jobs they create.
This is a bird's eye view. Here's a link to the details. Suffice it to say that a populist, grass-roots political roadmap that promises equal opportunity, worker-owned, local businesses, and a secure safety net, could unite a large political majority.
...................
Worried about losing your job to a robot? Annoyed at all the disembodied voices and CCTV cameras in public spaces? Disturbed by a mindless corporate America? If you aren't already concerned, you soon may be.
But, there's a way that algorithms, robots and artificial intelligence (A.I.) can actually bring about the things we want. Here's the scenario:
Arrange public policy to encourage a creative, co-op culture.
As robots, A.I. and tech reduce the need for labor, creative careers open up.
We can thus look forward to automation.
The required building blocks for the above scenario would likely include:
1. A hefty corporate tax
2. A secure safety net (financial, medical, educational)
3. Tax breaks for co-ops and residential businesses, including farmers/ranchers who live on and farm their own land
4. Overall equalization (opportunity for everyone)
5. Military and 'corporate welfare' spending re-directed to 'pay for'
6. Vigorous enforcement of current and enhanced anti-monopoly legislation to encourage smaller, worker-owned businesses with local roots.
So, for every 100 factory workers laid off--due to robotics A.I., etc., there'd be, say, 70 new positions in local, worker-owned businesses, 5 early retirees (the well-enough-off), and another 25 creative entrepreneurs and the jobs they create.
This is a bird's eye view. Here's a link to the details. Suffice it to say that a populist, grass-roots political roadmap that promises equal opportunity, worker-owned, local businesses, and a secure safety net, could unite a large political majority.
Sunday, April 7, 2019
Carter, Clinton, Obama, ...A Progressive Next Step
#212: Dems Don't Need A 'Smoke Break' To Defeat Trump
.....................
Here's the case for a 'natural', vapor-less, candidacy in 2020:
Much has been said about candidates like Bernie Sanders, who have very ambitious agendas, but who don't favor eliminating the senate's filibuster, an anachronism that would effectively prevent the implementation of their ambitious goals. What's going on? There are three possibilities:
A. Bernie's being smart, not adding to his radical image prior to an election when his biggest electoral handicap is the impression that he's a crazed, uncontrollable leftist. After all, once the election is won, Democrats can eventually kill the filibuster... over his increasingly mild objections.
B. Bernie is being inconsistent, and hasn't thought through the 'how-do-we-get-there' question.
C. Bernie has thought up a way around the filibuster problem, but hasn't announced it, or won't announce it until it's needed. This could be a modified ban on the filibuster, for example, that exempted science-based, emergency legislation to combat epidemics, natural disasters, etc.
Unfortunately for Sen. Sanders, all three possibilities point to a candidacy more interested in a solution, than in how to get to that solution. As I wrote in my Alert: Bernie Could Lose post last month (which, BTW, has turned into my all-time most popular, by far), interest in the end result, rather than the journey itself, is a particularly male problem.
So what is the case to be made for a more 'natural' theory of how change might come?
1. The easiest path to a Democratic victory in 2020's presidential election runs through Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (as opposed to Florida, where Democrats hit a wall in 2018, in an election with high voter turnout).
2. Michigan and Pennsylvania (the more urban of these states, and thus easier to win with a big base turnout), wouldn't, however, be enough on their own (Hillary's 232 electoral votes, plus MI & PA's 36 = 268; 270 needed).
3. Either Wisconsin and/or Iowa is thus the audience Democrats should be addressing, with a message that brings out the base, but that doesn't involve what I'm calling a 'smoke break'-style radical imperative.
Furthermore, the Senate map of all but the utterly impossible contests in 2020 calls out for the same approach:
Purple states: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina
Red states: Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Tennessee, Texas
To have any chance at passing progressive legislation, Dems need to focus on radical but popular policies that would be welcomed by most all voters, for example: free childcare.
The nay-sayers insist, meanwhile, that Dems need to take two steps, not one, due to Republican mendacity (here's David Roberts at Vox on one such imperative: climate change). Their thinking is that progressive change can't happen fast enough, and that street demonstrations, an across-the-board radical agenda, and general agitation are our only hope.
If we take their strongest argument, the need for immediate action on climate, it's true that the next decade will transition us from still-time-to-act to irreversible-doom-scenario; but, they're asking for a wholesale radical agenda to be placed on the ballot (a carbon tax with teeth, for one). That agenda would likely win big in blue base states that know the details on climate; it would likely lose, however, in Wisconsin and Iowa.
A more likely approach:
* Winning the House and Senate is crucial. Aim for a senate majority that is 55-45 Democratic. This would require nominating a non-threatening presidential candidate whose coattails would pull the necessary 7-8 candidates from the above list of 12 states over the finish line (the way that Obama did in 2008).
* Once in power, set the stage for a filibuster-proof 60 votes in 2022 by following through on popular legislation proposed in the run-up to 2020. This would include a Reconciliation bill (that would require only 50 Democratic votes) to reconfigure the tax code. With Senate votes to spare, a truly progressive tax structure would be possible.
* Now, to tackle Climate, set up a mechanism similar to Reconciliation that would carve out an exception to the filibuster whenever there's a near-consensus among our nation's top scientists. A dozen or so expert panels in a range of disciplines would be consulted whenever congress considers science-based legislation. Most likely, a large voter majority would find this approach acceptable, and would require only 50 senate votes to pass (both the carve out and any follow-on legislation).
An additional two factors can be expected:
** Once Trump loses--if he hasn't already been removed from office--and if Democrats are victorious in the Senate, the dynamic of obstruction, with its know-nothing, anti-science bull-dozing, would likely be dealt a serious blow (losing the popular vote in all but one of the past six elections should be, on its own, a wake-up call). This would make possible many additional progressive agenda items prior to 2022.
** Carried on in the court of public opinion, a radical-agenda based on street demonstrations and general agitation would move the conversation in a progressive direction.
So, to the extent that progressives are looking for a next step beyond Carter, Clinton, Obama..., there's no reason to feel the need for a 'smoke break'.
.....................
Here's the case for a 'natural', vapor-less, candidacy in 2020:
Much has been said about candidates like Bernie Sanders, who have very ambitious agendas, but who don't favor eliminating the senate's filibuster, an anachronism that would effectively prevent the implementation of their ambitious goals. What's going on? There are three possibilities:
A. Bernie's being smart, not adding to his radical image prior to an election when his biggest electoral handicap is the impression that he's a crazed, uncontrollable leftist. After all, once the election is won, Democrats can eventually kill the filibuster... over his increasingly mild objections.
B. Bernie is being inconsistent, and hasn't thought through the 'how-do-we-get-there' question.
C. Bernie has thought up a way around the filibuster problem, but hasn't announced it, or won't announce it until it's needed. This could be a modified ban on the filibuster, for example, that exempted science-based, emergency legislation to combat epidemics, natural disasters, etc.
Unfortunately for Sen. Sanders, all three possibilities point to a candidacy more interested in a solution, than in how to get to that solution. As I wrote in my Alert: Bernie Could Lose post last month (which, BTW, has turned into my all-time most popular, by far), interest in the end result, rather than the journey itself, is a particularly male problem.
So what is the case to be made for a more 'natural' theory of how change might come?
1. The easiest path to a Democratic victory in 2020's presidential election runs through Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (as opposed to Florida, where Democrats hit a wall in 2018, in an election with high voter turnout).
2. Michigan and Pennsylvania (the more urban of these states, and thus easier to win with a big base turnout), wouldn't, however, be enough on their own (Hillary's 232 electoral votes, plus MI & PA's 36 = 268; 270 needed).
3. Either Wisconsin and/or Iowa is thus the audience Democrats should be addressing, with a message that brings out the base, but that doesn't involve what I'm calling a 'smoke break'-style radical imperative.
Furthermore, the Senate map of all but the utterly impossible contests in 2020 calls out for the same approach:
Purple states: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina
Red states: Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Tennessee, Texas
To have any chance at passing progressive legislation, Dems need to focus on radical but popular policies that would be welcomed by most all voters, for example: free childcare.
The nay-sayers insist, meanwhile, that Dems need to take two steps, not one, due to Republican mendacity (here's David Roberts at Vox on one such imperative: climate change). Their thinking is that progressive change can't happen fast enough, and that street demonstrations, an across-the-board radical agenda, and general agitation are our only hope.
If we take their strongest argument, the need for immediate action on climate, it's true that the next decade will transition us from still-time-to-act to irreversible-doom-scenario; but, they're asking for a wholesale radical agenda to be placed on the ballot (a carbon tax with teeth, for one). That agenda would likely win big in blue base states that know the details on climate; it would likely lose, however, in Wisconsin and Iowa.
A more likely approach:
* Winning the House and Senate is crucial. Aim for a senate majority that is 55-45 Democratic. This would require nominating a non-threatening presidential candidate whose coattails would pull the necessary 7-8 candidates from the above list of 12 states over the finish line (the way that Obama did in 2008).
* Once in power, set the stage for a filibuster-proof 60 votes in 2022 by following through on popular legislation proposed in the run-up to 2020. This would include a Reconciliation bill (that would require only 50 Democratic votes) to reconfigure the tax code. With Senate votes to spare, a truly progressive tax structure would be possible.
* Now, to tackle Climate, set up a mechanism similar to Reconciliation that would carve out an exception to the filibuster whenever there's a near-consensus among our nation's top scientists. A dozen or so expert panels in a range of disciplines would be consulted whenever congress considers science-based legislation. Most likely, a large voter majority would find this approach acceptable, and would require only 50 senate votes to pass (both the carve out and any follow-on legislation).
An additional two factors can be expected:
** Once Trump loses--if he hasn't already been removed from office--and if Democrats are victorious in the Senate, the dynamic of obstruction, with its know-nothing, anti-science bull-dozing, would likely be dealt a serious blow (losing the popular vote in all but one of the past six elections should be, on its own, a wake-up call). This would make possible many additional progressive agenda items prior to 2022.
** Carried on in the court of public opinion, a radical-agenda based on street demonstrations and general agitation would move the conversation in a progressive direction.
So, to the extent that progressives are looking for a next step beyond Carter, Clinton, Obama..., there's no reason to feel the need for a 'smoke break'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)