The Powers-That-Be

A rather depressing look at how those in positions of power interact. 

I'm not really sure what to say that isn't already said here,or obvious. It reminds me of that quote about how "those who stand for nothing, fall for anything." 

Or rather "if all you care about is being powerful, then you will never stand up when doing so risks your position."

Even if that means ignoring or looking the other way when Epstein raped young girls.

Or giving money to Trump even as he makes a mockery of everything America stood for.

On Social Media and Political Discourse

I thought this was thought provoking -

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/illiberalism-cancel-culture-free-speech-internet-ugh.html

Job Update

I start my new job in December! I'm pretty excited about it. It's exactly what I was looking for, and it's such a relief that things worked out. 

Economy Musings III

I was thinking that trickle down economics implies that water flows up, and then from the wealthy at the top it trickles down to the rest of us... 

But a more accurate model is probably something like this.

It flows down, collects in a pool at the bottom... And you need a pump to get the water back at the top so it can continue circulating.

If it doesn't, the fountain dries up. Though it starts at the top, and the pool at the bottom is the last to be affected.

What's strange, though, is that the people who control a pool at the bottom resist and resent like hell any efforts to make sure that pump is working.

It's like they can't see how the whole thing flows, and just focus on keeping their big pool of water untouched. 

Of course, that has consequences. Predictable consequences, like, say, support for socialism when it's clear the current system is leaving them dry.

That's part of why FDR believed he was saving capitalism from itself. 

Unfortunately, some people have to learn that the hard way.

Economy Musings II

I'm not really satisfied with my earlier analogy with farming and mining, mostly because as I delved into them the distinction I was trying to make didn't seem as clear as I thought it did.

Perhaps I was trying too hard to force it to fit.

Stepping away from that for a second, I think what I want to envision is more like this:

Picture one of those lazy rivers, where the water loops around and people float along in inner tubes.

Now, imagine a much bigger and more intricate one, where water may flow into another channel where it turns a water wheel before returning to the main loop.

Now, imagine that this isn't something that was built with water proof walls. Some of the water sometimes seeps into the ground, and flows out.

Also, there are springs in various places where water comes out and adds to the volume of water.

To bring this back to my little economic image - some things are springs, and add volume to the water flowing through the system. Some things are water features that redirect the existing flow. And sometimes, some of the water seeps out into the ground and lessens the volume of water.

It is not quite a closed loop, but we want the flow to circulate around continuously. Most of the volume of water loops around. For the economy to grow, though, we want more springs adding to the volume of water. And we want to reduce the places where water seeps out of the system.

For my farming and mining analogy, when I started it I was basically imagining the typical 'someone gets isekai'd to a wilderness area trope and thinking of how they survive if they can't immediately find civilization.

You basically have to secure water, shelter, and food right away. Generally that means trying to create tools out of anything in your vicinity so that you can hunt and gather food. Farming generally comes next, if you can. Mining is... useful and important for making life easier, but not something you really focus on before food and shelter. At least, not unless you're taking advantage of resources that are easily visible.

It's true that in a modern economy there's startup costs to farming - the cost of the land especially, but also seed, water, and farming equipment.

So in thinking about it more, what I want to distinguish between the circulation of the existing volume of 'water', things that add more 'water' to the flow (like a spring), and things that reduce the volume of 'water' (like dehydration or ground seepage) - where water can sometimes mean the flow of currency, but it's not strictly limited to money because this would also work in a barter based economy. So maybe the flow of economic value? I think I'll leave that to the economists.

I also want to point out that some things occur 'downstream', or later on in the economic flow. Mining is more downstream than farming, since it relies on having a labor pool that doesn't have to spend all it's time farming. Plus having the resources to find veins, dig into the ground for them, etc.

Whether it's a 'spring' or just a water feature that moves around the existing flow depends. I don't know if there's a way to measure the net volume, to see what goes in and what comes out or something...

Again, you'd probably want to talk to a real economist as I'm sure there's somebody out there who's already thought of this.

I suspect the initial raw goods of food production act as springs, overall. I am less certain about all the 'downstream' products that depend on earlier flows.