A Correction on OWS

An addendum to my previous post on Occupy Wall Street. The purpose of that post was to criticize the protest's metarhetoric, or the manner in which it presents its goals and argues for them, as well as its assumptions about the purpose of corporations. But I think I didn't make it clear enough that I wasn't criticizing the movement as a whole or what it stands for. As I've looked at some of the hard data behind it, I've realized that OWS really is onto something. The machine of American capitalism seems to be running down and breaking, so to speak--in need not of replacement, but a tune-up and some new parts. The wealthy have increasingly been finding ways to influence politics to gain more wealth, which gains them more influence... The feedback loop has been escalating for decades and OWS is proof that many people have had enough.

So yes, I would say I agree with OWS's basic message--that the government has become too oligarchic and that corporations need restraint to serve the good of everyone rather than just their executives. I disagree with how the movement is pursuing its goals--it should focus on constructive dialogue and concrete solutions rather than just expressing rage in hopes of getting corporations to magically change their ways. I think it would make more sense for them to protest at Washington (where they have a voice) than Wall Street. (Where they don't, unless they plan on buying stock)

A Modest Proposal to Improve Political Debate

In a bit of the same vein as my previous post, here is a list of word which I think, if banned from public discourse, would tremendously improve the American political conversation, at least in the short term until people come up with new ones.

• Wall Street
• Main Street
• Elite/Elitist
• Fat Cat
• Take America back
• Barack Hussein Obama
• Agenda
• _____gate
• Sarah Palin
• Death panels
• Obamacare
• The 1%

Us Versus Them

If you're been following the news much lately, you've surely heard about the "Occupy Wall Street" protest that's ongoing. Thousands of people are taking to the streets of Manhattan to protest...something or other. I wasn't sure of their goals until I read their statement. A related trend is stories from "The other 99%" from people struggling to get by in life, implicitly contrasted against the luxury the top 1% of America's wealthy presumably live in.

First, a quick aside from what I remember from economics class. Much of the protest is about decrying the perceived selfishness and greed of "Wall Street". (A convenient geographical metaphor for faceless corporations) The OWS statement specifically mentions "corporations which place profit over people, self-interest over justice..." They expect too much from businesses. We expect businesses--and individuals--to act in their own self-interest. The purpose of businesses is, first and foremost, to make money, not to improve their community or the environment or anything. (Unless this is what they're making money for doing)

Obviously there are countless ways for this to go wrong, as we've seen, which is why business needs regulation, so that we can expect corporations to also behave ethically and legally, which is often not the case. But the simple pursuit of profit is to be expected from businesses, not decried. Companies aren't beholden to public opinion but to their stockholders and their profit margin--the best way to make a statement to a corporation isn't a protest, but a boycott.

But that's just a minor correction. What really troubles--even frightens--me is the "us versus them" mentality I see behind both of these protests. It's an incredibly explicit, even objectively decidable division--"us" is the bottom 99% of earners in America, "them" is the top 1%. As history has shown over and over, painting the situation like this is one of the best ways to motivate people. Forget trying to learn and understand the complicated economic truth behind the recession--the super-rich are bleeding this country dry!

Occupy Wall Street is an example of the anger that blaming your problems on an external source can foster. I'm afraid of how ugly having all these disgruntled people in one place could become. If you're concerned about the direction America is going like the OWS protesters, know that positive change can only come if people start thinking rationally, compassionately, and above all, constructively. As one wise Jedi Master said, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Wants vs. Needs

I've often wondered how with technology at levels that would have been unimaginable fifty, much less five hundred years ago, how there seems to be more suffering, scarcity, and hardship in the world than ever before. (At least that's how it seems) Today it occurred to me that the more developed a country is, the more energy it seems to expend pursuing wants rather than needs. So we get the situation of some people literally consuming themselves to death and others dying of starvation. Thoughts on this theory?

The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Well, blagonet, much has happened since I lasted posted. The semester from hell is over! Two days after my last post, I turned in my last group project. It was one of the happiest days of my life. After that the rest of the semester was trivial, though my last algorithms assignment gave me quite a headache. (Asymptotic complexity is quite powerful--a few small changes made a test go from 12 minutes to 2 seconds) I had two finals, both of which were jokes--I barely studied and finished in half the allotted time. Since then I've been enjoying my break, getting reconnected with old friends and God at TCX(!), and playing tons and tons of video games. Steam isn't helping with its ridiculous deals. ($5 each for Knights of the Old Republic and Bioshock?)

But anyway, this isn't a blog about what's going on in my life, it's a blog about what's going on in my brain. And somehow I've gotten into some pretty deep thoughts despite all the Super Mario Galaxy 2. It all started when I noticed an ad on QC for a site called Quibids. It showed some big-name electronics items apparently being sold for deeply discounted prices, with timers counting down the last few seconds until they were sold.

Don't worry, I wasn't tempted to click on any of the auctions--I know a scam when I see one. But I was strangely curious about how it was a scam, so I did some Google-powered research. Apparently Quibids and other such "penny auction" sites allow users to bid in one-cent increments in fast-paced auctions for valuable items, which can result in their being sold for well below retail prices. The auctions have seconds to go, but each bid increases the time remaining. (Reminds me of a speed run challenge in SMG2) That all sounds well and good, except that you don't just make one-cent bids--you have to buy them, often for much more than a cent. And the money you spent on the bids is gone regardless of whether you win the item. I read stories about the nightmare this creates--people intending to try out penny auction sites eventually went away empty-handed after pouring money into an unwinnable auction.

This led to a Wikipedia crawl where I looked up some of the psychological and economic concepts at work, namely the sunk cost fallacy. (Also known as "throwing good money after bad") It refers to peoples' tendency to incorporate past spendings in their decision-making, even though this information is irrelevant. This manifests in many ways: the government feeling "locked in" to a project after pouring millions of dollars into it, even if it wouldn't be worth the remaining cost, Britain and France keeping the Concorde flying after it became economically inviable, or people continuing to fork over money for bids for an item that they probably won't (but might!) win. The only way to win these penny auctions is not to play.

But just Googling "penny auction" got me none of this information immediately. The results fell into three categories: penny auction sites, tips for how to win at penny auctions, and sites that claim to "expose" penny auctions but are actually disguised ads for a site (some disguised as blogs just like this!). It makes me worry about how many people actually believe this hysteria and are pouring their money down the drain hoping to win a $22.54 iPad. The internet seems to amplify just about every negative trait of human nature, and greed is no exception.

So that was an extremely random mental journey and I'm not sure why I wrote any of this. (But that's pretty standard for this blog) Until next time, remember that storing up treasures that won't last isn't very wise, but wasting resources with nothing at all to show for it is just stupid.