Has anyone ever seen Rod and Kenny Kaley together?

An exchange with Polish Wolf over at Intelligent Discontent brought to mind a truth that is not so much inconvenient as unpleasant. I keep it submerged and don’t often let it surface. 

It is widely shared wisdom that everyone should vote, no matter intelligence or education. We should all have a voice. That sounds really good. We should all genuflect now. 

The  universal franchise created a new environment,  new problems for leaders last century. The biggest one was most people are clueless about international and national affairs, so that consulting them should only be done for show. There are two spins to put on this:

Bertrand Russell agreed that the average citizen was indeed clueless, but that the process was useful anyway. It routinely forces changes in leadership, a good in itself even if that is an unintended outcome for voters. It reins in aristocracy.

In the US  his reasoning does not apply, as our elections are privately financed, and this has led to two, and only two parties. The two parties and their financiers are our aristocracy. Democracy is a sham here. 

In the twentieth century American intellectuals addressed the problem of the universal franchise coupled with the ignorant voter. Their conclusion was that people had to be allowed to believe that they were in  charge, and so be given their sham elections and never let in on the secret. 

That’s pretty much how we do it now, and if we had enlightened leadership it would be a workable system. But we do not have that, so that the true effect of manufactured consent is an elite and detached leadership class fronting for silent power, or what we now call the “1%” (but which is in truth more like the “1/10th of 1%”). There is no effective way to hold them accountable, as our elections have no substance and do not affect policy. 

So contrary and illogical as it seems, our democracy was killed by too much democracy.

My solution? Rewrite or throw out the constitution. It’s dysfunctional anyway. Eliminate private money from politics, and minimize high elective offices, instead having very small districts elect representatives in gymnasiums, each required to make the case for election by means of deliberation. The resulting body, a parliament of sorts, would by ballot appoint the top tier of leaders and hold them accountable, removing them from office when they misbehave. Sound familiar?

The advantage of this system is that disinterested people would not show up, nor would they be encouraged to do so. People would not be encouraged to vote for the sake of voting, nor would they be influenced by stupid TV ads and other manipulations used to win elections. However, if conflicts arise that spring into action various constituencies, they have a means to power.

There is no system that satisfies ideal democracy, but my goodness, the one we have here is a not even a good joke. It is a hoax. My suggestion does not eliminate the problem of parties, but without money, influence, there would be more than just two.

Sorry if they run an annoying pre-roll ad. Whatever it is they are advertising, do not buy it.

This from John T. Harvey, economist, at Forbes Blogs:

…I wonder how many people know the formal Monetarist (Milton Friedman’s school of thought) explanation of how the Great Depression occurred? Their analysis depends on the existence of something called money illusion on the part of workers. The idea is that laborers are never quite certain what the current cost of living is since they do not keep a careful accounting of their expenditures. Meanwhile, firms are pretty darn sure what prices are because it is so important to their livelihood to pay close attention. Now imagine the following. Let’s say there is a massive collapse in the supply of money, leading to a fall in prices … The fall in prices, because it means they are earning lower profits, leads firms offer lower wages to their employees. But–and here’s what they say happened in the Great Depression–workers, not realizing because of money illusion that the cost of living has declined (and that firms’ offer is therefore not unreasonable), quit their jobs. And that, apparently, is how unemployment rose to 25% in the 1930s: the money supply fell, lowering prices, leading firms to offer lower wages, and causing workers to VOLUNTARILY QUIT THEIR JOBS!

I’ve heard this before – the monetarist explanation for the Great Depression, but had no idea it was mainstream neoclassical thought.

Read the whole article here.

CALCULABLE

In his Jan. 25 letter to the Tribune, Montana state legislator Tom Bur­nett presented the idea that state employees should punch a time clock because he feels that they’re not being honest about their hours. As a “part-time” public school teacher, I have to say I love this idea.

Currently, most of my work is long-term sub­bing. I don’t know how many hours I spend meet­ing with teachers who are planning long leaves, preparing lesson plans for their absences, evaluating student work, submitting grades, cleaning class­rooms and working with parents to solve problems, but I must say if I were punching a time clock, I’d be making twice my cur­rent wage. The same is true of every teacher I know.

They put in hours before school, after school, on weekends, during “vaca­tions” and all the rest.

Montana’s public educa­tors put in an incalculable number of hours of their own time, all of which is not paid.

Maybe Burnett’s on to something. Mount a time clock on my wall, and I’ll punch in while I’m writ­ing constructive feedback on my students’ work dur­ing the time between when school gets out and dinner with my family begins. I’ll clock out while I eat, then I’ll clock in while I enter that grading data. I’ll clock out while I bathe my kids, put them in jammies, brush their teeth and read them their nighttime story. Then I’ll punch back in while I plan tomorrow’s lesson. I’m all for this plan.

— Christopher Cummings, Kalispell

In the mind of the right-winger, people only “earn” what they are “worth.”

Oh, we have markets indeed, but in no way are they “free.” That clever little phrase is merely a mental trick, use of a word that has a pleasant feel about it to mask the true nature of markets. As shown in the photo above – “free markets” place no restraint on the powerful in exploiting the weak. It is not talent or contribution to our well-being that determines our wage (scuze me — salary). It’s power, proximity, acquisitiveness, scaling, enclosure, and the kill instinct.
Continue reading “The view from Neptune” →