Silent Emptiness

Charles Ponzi - after whom "Ponzi scheme" was named - convinced people to invest in postage stamps. This plan was widely criticized, because it promised profits, when in fact all it did was pay off early investors with a fraction of the money put into the scheme by newer investors. These days, anyone who isn't self-deceived recognizes that this is the entire basis for Social Security, and increasingly all government spending. The entire idea behind the national debt is that someone will pay it off later - someone who must be a lot smarter than we are today, or perhaps a lot harder working, or perhaps just really stupid to pay off such a huge debt without having ever gotten any benefits and having no realistic chance of ever getting such benefits themself. So ultimately, as no one seems willing to admit, the debt will be retired in one of two ways - repudiation, or inflation. Probably a combination - inflation to reduce the value, then some complex "currency re-valuat...

A replacement for the "strike" is needed. It's a crude and destructive tactic, for all sides: workers lose wages, employers lose sales and profits and market share to competitors, customers are inconvenienced, suppliers may go broke, governments lose tax revenues, etc. The long term harm a strike causes both sides creates anger that gets in the way of negotiating and considering the other side's point of view. An alternative would be to keep the factories or services rolling - but workers would not be paid, and 100% of income from sales of products and services would go into an escrow account, out of the control of both sides, and neither side could borrow against its value. It's easily "tweaked" to balance the incentives on both sides and encourage fast resolution. Perhaps after two weeks, all profits must be donated to charity, along with 10% of escrowed wages. Both sides might be required to put up a "good faith" bond, that they'd sacrif...

For Iraq, the Democrats need a position other than "Stay the Course, reluctantly" - that's too near the Republican's position. They can't do "Cut and Run" - the Republicans have already positioned that as cowardly - and it'd probably be stupid in terms of the disaster it'd be for Iraqis as well. Also - the Democrats need to stake out a position that appeals to the military (and their families) to pull over some of the conservative and moderate voters. My recommendation - US troops to pull out of all cities/towns, but stay in Iraq, ready to move in if the Iraqis can't hack it. Still provide training and material support - just outside the urban areas. What does that accomplish? Well, we stop creating new terrorists/insurgents by killing civilians, for one thing. Iraqis will have less sympathy for insurgents blowing things up in the city - hopefully that'll mean a lower level of violence around civilians and against the police. And of cours...