Over at The Distant Ocean, John Caruso discusses the belief that America is inherently good. And, sadly, when he lost that belief. It is interesting to me that he lost his about the same time that I lost mine, but for different reasons. Go read his, I'll wait. Caruso is an interesting read; I often find that he introduces no new facts into a discussion (by which I mean, nothing I didn't already know), but puts a quite different interpretation on them that makes much more sense than my original theories. I worry that I am turning into a Nader-voting lefty like him.
To understand my change of mind, you need to go back another decade to the Iranian revolution. I was just a kid then, and all I knew was snatches of foreign affairs news in the local paper and radio news. The old Shah (a repressive and unpopular dictator) got booted out by a popular uprising headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Some of the locals promptly occupied the US embassy; why they would do that is something I didn't understand until many years later. Very quickly the new Iranian government became a bunch of America-hating howling fanatics, which of course made them bad people.
Not too long after that, Iraq and Iran went to war, for reasons I wasn't clear on. Iraq was presented to me as a modern, western-oriented state; and so of course they got a lot of aid in their fight with Iran. This went on for a long time, and there were a lot of casualties on both sides.
And then Iraq invaded Kuwait. Suddenly, Iraq was run by an oppressive dictatorship, and needed to be booted out. And I realized that I had no idea how worthy any of the various US-supported regimes around the world were. I guess that was an opinion I had been coming to for a while - South Korea had terrible governments for many years, but they were up against North Korea. Iraq crystallized it. In the second gulf war the joke went that the US knew Iraq had chemical weapons - they still had copies of the receipts.
Not long ago I read Christopher Hitchens book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. I have no idea how accurate it is; but what struck me about it was that even if it was all true, it wasn't really a trial of Henry Kissinger. There were some things he had allegedly done that could reasonably earn him a treason conviction (like his interference in the Vietnam peace talks, and the kickbacks from the Greek Junta), but mostly he was simply accused of being up to his neck in US foreign policy. That is, anyone who was involved in US foreign policy in those years could (per Hitchens' arguments) be charged with war crimes.
As I have grown up I have continually run into claims (or clear facts) that the US has supported violent and unsavory governments around the world. In my youth I figured that they were up against a serious opponent in the USSR and sometimes Bad Things Had To Be Done. But the USSR has gone; the modern equivalent is al Quaeda, and if ever there was an opponent to be fought by being the Good Guys, they are it.
I still think the US is a lot better than it could be. It is a country to be improved, not fought. But I no longer assume, when I hear of conflict between it and someone else, that the US is in the right until shown otherwise. At least until Nehemiah Scudder is elected in 2012.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Information security
If you're anything like me, you get a lot of personally addressed ads from the various companies you do business with (and those you don't). They include them in bills and updates; they send out offers regularly; they try to get you to join up. American Express is a particular offender here.
When I throw them out (as I do with the vast majority of them), I like to strip off the personal identification. I don't think it's a good idea to have pieces of paper with my name, address, and account number blowing around garbage dumps or recycling facilities. Some of them can be used directly as ID, and applications can be filled in and accepted on your behalf, even with obvious modifications to contact details. Many provide enough information for identity theft, like birthdays.
Once upon a time, picking out the personal info was easy. Printing individualized messages was expensive and tricky; so there would be a one page form with extra info filled in here and there, and it would be in a different font, a different ink, a different size, and possibly even offset to the rest of the printing. Tear up that page, and you're done.
As the years go by, it gets cheaper and cheaper to do quality printing. So at the very least, they'll get paper with colored logos on it and print the entire form out on that - same font, ink, size, and alignment. Worse, when they send irrelevant fillers, they'll print them the same way. And when they send you a form to accept their wondrous offer, they'll pre-fill it with your info, and stick bar codes all over it for quicker processing.
Instead of one page with an easily spotted name, address and account number (and the other four pages safely anonymous), I'll get five with my account details at the top of every page (including the one giving me account security tips), and various other bits of info scattered everywhere. My paper bin looks like it's been visited by a World War II censor. No doubt in a few years I'll discover that they've been using infra-red ink all this time, and my strategic tearing up has been in vain. I am tempted to get an industrial shredder just to be sure.
One of the firms I deal with has the right idea. The first page of my bill is double sided, with everything itemized on that one page. - they've taken some trouble to squash everything in there. There's a space for me to fill in with all the details when I pay it. That page gets filed. The rest is completely anonymous, and can be safely junked. They are making my life easier, and I feel kindlier towards them as a result - you can't buy advertising like that. (I am not naming them, because telling the entire internet details about your life would be rather ironic in this post).
Of course, many other companies are moving to internet-only bills. This solves the throwing-out problem (except for old hard drives, which would require care anyway), but means I have to remember to download the record every month. They may keep excellent historical data, but why take the chance?
Look for another rant in a few years/months/days/hours/minutes, on the topic of backups and how not to do them.
When I throw them out (as I do with the vast majority of them), I like to strip off the personal identification. I don't think it's a good idea to have pieces of paper with my name, address, and account number blowing around garbage dumps or recycling facilities. Some of them can be used directly as ID, and applications can be filled in and accepted on your behalf, even with obvious modifications to contact details. Many provide enough information for identity theft, like birthdays.
Once upon a time, picking out the personal info was easy. Printing individualized messages was expensive and tricky; so there would be a one page form with extra info filled in here and there, and it would be in a different font, a different ink, a different size, and possibly even offset to the rest of the printing. Tear up that page, and you're done.
As the years go by, it gets cheaper and cheaper to do quality printing. So at the very least, they'll get paper with colored logos on it and print the entire form out on that - same font, ink, size, and alignment. Worse, when they send irrelevant fillers, they'll print them the same way. And when they send you a form to accept their wondrous offer, they'll pre-fill it with your info, and stick bar codes all over it for quicker processing.
Instead of one page with an easily spotted name, address and account number (and the other four pages safely anonymous), I'll get five with my account details at the top of every page (including the one giving me account security tips), and various other bits of info scattered everywhere. My paper bin looks like it's been visited by a World War II censor. No doubt in a few years I'll discover that they've been using infra-red ink all this time, and my strategic tearing up has been in vain. I am tempted to get an industrial shredder just to be sure.
One of the firms I deal with has the right idea. The first page of my bill is double sided, with everything itemized on that one page. - they've taken some trouble to squash everything in there. There's a space for me to fill in with all the details when I pay it. That page gets filed. The rest is completely anonymous, and can be safely junked. They are making my life easier, and I feel kindlier towards them as a result - you can't buy advertising like that. (I am not naming them, because telling the entire internet details about your life would be rather ironic in this post).
Of course, many other companies are moving to internet-only bills. This solves the throwing-out problem (except for old hard drives, which would require care anyway), but means I have to remember to download the record every month. They may keep excellent historical data, but why take the chance?
Look for another rant in a few years/months/days/hours/minutes, on the topic of backups and how not to do them.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Jobs!
One of the regular complaints I hear about any kind of action on climate change is that it will cost jobs. Conversely, the merits of projects are often expounded in terms of how many jobs it will create. Such comments rather miss the point of what a "job" is.
There are two things that a job represents. One is some amount of work that must be done by somebody to maintain some desired standard of living (usually our current standard, or some improvement on it). The other is some defined task that a person can do in order to get their cut of society's goods and services.
Technological improvements have over many centuries taken away a great many jobs of the first kind, by making tasks easier, or eliminating them entirely. We live much better than our ancestors did, and we work a great deal less. Compare the percentage of the population currently engaged in agriculture with historical levels, and you will see a massive loss of jobs. This is an excellent thing.
Other technological improvements have created jobs of the first kind. The number of jobs in telecommunications has vastly increased over the past couple of centuries. This is also a good thing, because it has increased our standard of living; we like to be able to talk to people even when they are in other places. Judging by the number of mobile phones I see in public use, we like it a lot.
Basically, a job of the first kind is something people can do to increase society's wealth. If something bad happens, and people can fix it, this creates jobs of the first kind. If someone finds a new way of creating useful stuff, this also creates jobs of the first kind. Disasters create jobs, but only by costing money in the first place (the broken window theory). Inventions create jobs, and are much better for society.
Creating jobs of the first kind almost always creates jobs of the second kind. Creating jobs of the second kind can be done by reducing the amount of work everyone else does (which can be a good thing, and we have done a lot of that over the last couple of centuries), or by doing stuff that isn't really necessary (i.e., no-one would ordinarily pay for it). Governments sometimes do this in recessions, just to spread out the wealth and make sure everyone gets enough to live on. This hopefully kick-starts the economy, because modern economies are complicated beasts that appear to function more smoothly with a bit of external management.
Now I've said all that, I can discuss the claims I opened this post with.
Yes, your nice new project will create jobs of the second kind. This will be a great thing if it's because the work those people do is actually worth it (i.e., it creates jobs of the first kind), but if the best that can be said of something is that it will create jobs, there's probably something better we could do with the money. In the worst case, it will just be the equivalent of an artificial disaster. Unless there's a recession on, that's bad; even if there is, think harder.
Climate change action is very unlikely to cost jobs. It will almost certainly create jobs of the first kind - that is, instead of taking the easy route of burning fossil fuels to get something done, we will have to instead commit elbow grease, or farm biofuels, or build and run solar collectors, or whatever. It will therefore increase the numbers of the second kind of job as well.
Climate change is almost certainly an actual disaster, which we can fix by doing work. That creates jobs of the first kind. If we're extraordinarily lucky, we will develop technologies that take away those jobs almost immediately. Don't hold your breath.
And even climate change skeptics agree that these jobs will appear (because fossil fuels are limited). Only the timing is up for debate. Those who think we are warming the planet are hoping to avoid creating disaster jobs as well (relocating cities and farms, reorganizing food production, adjusting to extinctions, etc, etc). If that's considered to be costing jobs, bring it on.
There are two things that a job represents. One is some amount of work that must be done by somebody to maintain some desired standard of living (usually our current standard, or some improvement on it). The other is some defined task that a person can do in order to get their cut of society's goods and services.
Technological improvements have over many centuries taken away a great many jobs of the first kind, by making tasks easier, or eliminating them entirely. We live much better than our ancestors did, and we work a great deal less. Compare the percentage of the population currently engaged in agriculture with historical levels, and you will see a massive loss of jobs. This is an excellent thing.
Other technological improvements have created jobs of the first kind. The number of jobs in telecommunications has vastly increased over the past couple of centuries. This is also a good thing, because it has increased our standard of living; we like to be able to talk to people even when they are in other places. Judging by the number of mobile phones I see in public use, we like it a lot.
Basically, a job of the first kind is something people can do to increase society's wealth. If something bad happens, and people can fix it, this creates jobs of the first kind. If someone finds a new way of creating useful stuff, this also creates jobs of the first kind. Disasters create jobs, but only by costing money in the first place (the broken window theory). Inventions create jobs, and are much better for society.
Creating jobs of the first kind almost always creates jobs of the second kind. Creating jobs of the second kind can be done by reducing the amount of work everyone else does (which can be a good thing, and we have done a lot of that over the last couple of centuries), or by doing stuff that isn't really necessary (i.e., no-one would ordinarily pay for it). Governments sometimes do this in recessions, just to spread out the wealth and make sure everyone gets enough to live on. This hopefully kick-starts the economy, because modern economies are complicated beasts that appear to function more smoothly with a bit of external management.
Now I've said all that, I can discuss the claims I opened this post with.
Yes, your nice new project will create jobs of the second kind. This will be a great thing if it's because the work those people do is actually worth it (i.e., it creates jobs of the first kind), but if the best that can be said of something is that it will create jobs, there's probably something better we could do with the money. In the worst case, it will just be the equivalent of an artificial disaster. Unless there's a recession on, that's bad; even if there is, think harder.
Climate change action is very unlikely to cost jobs. It will almost certainly create jobs of the first kind - that is, instead of taking the easy route of burning fossil fuels to get something done, we will have to instead commit elbow grease, or farm biofuels, or build and run solar collectors, or whatever. It will therefore increase the numbers of the second kind of job as well.
Climate change is almost certainly an actual disaster, which we can fix by doing work. That creates jobs of the first kind. If we're extraordinarily lucky, we will develop technologies that take away those jobs almost immediately. Don't hold your breath.
And even climate change skeptics agree that these jobs will appear (because fossil fuels are limited). Only the timing is up for debate. Those who think we are warming the planet are hoping to avoid creating disaster jobs as well (relocating cities and farms, reorganizing food production, adjusting to extinctions, etc, etc). If that's considered to be costing jobs, bring it on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)