I am trying a few religious tests (and getting my expected results) on-line and here they are by rank:
1. http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx is an amazing test and everyone should try it, especially the most religious. If you want to do just one, do this one. If you don't want to give them your e-mail, it is duplicated at: http://www.selectsmart.com/PRO/myreligion.php with the same questions and results.
2. http://www.gotoquiz.com/cat/religious-quizzes.html Try on different religions you don't know a lot about (or belong to) and see if they truly do fit your beliefs.
http://quizfarm.com/quizzes/Religion/Connacht/which-is-the-right-religion-for-you-new-version/ is pretty simple, and I'd do the other ones. It doesn't have a lot of responses and I felt it was limited.
I feel that those two tests are probably all you will need to make the right decision to be honest.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Political tests
Here is a list of political tests I have tried on-line, and their advantages along with disadvantages.
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html is better than the Political Compass in my opinion, I feel like it has a little more accuracy for the social spectrum (at least for the way I filled it out) but also includes a scale for opinions in foreign policy and government/cultural cooperation. It is extremely accurate. If you want to do just one quiz, I would say this is the one to do of the ones I have done.
www.selectsmart.com is a very well designed quiz. I like how it has third parties included in the list. This is the second-best quiz and the questions are well written making it very accurate. Combined with gotoquiz this is an extremely powerful combination.
The Political Compass a real internet classic is still really great. An oldie but a goodie. It isn't accurate as the preceding two but still is useful to see where you stand with great political figures.
http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/xpolitics/start.asp is a good representation and the advantage is you can see your results in the end (which I like so I can look for inconsistencies), one thing I don't like is it labels progressivism as liberalism (which liberalism? Liberal is a very bland term in political philosophy without consensus in the definition) but more importantly labels authoritarianism as populism (which are two completely different things).
www.bestpoliticalquiz.com is good, and I like the display at the end. It is very representative of reality on how those five different political issues are different and you can be and economic socialist and a libertarian (Sweden for example) or an economic libertarian and a social fascist (Soviet Union) or any mixture of the five measures. It could use a few more questions to be more accurate.
If you don't want a long quiz but want a quick way to check your alignment, the World's Smallest Political Quiz is a fun tool, though not as accurate because it has so few questions. It does however cover the major issues.
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html is better than the Political Compass in my opinion, I feel like it has a little more accuracy for the social spectrum (at least for the way I filled it out) but also includes a scale for opinions in foreign policy and government/cultural cooperation. It is extremely accurate. If you want to do just one quiz, I would say this is the one to do of the ones I have done.
www.selectsmart.com is a very well designed quiz. I like how it has third parties included in the list. This is the second-best quiz and the questions are well written making it very accurate. Combined with gotoquiz this is an extremely powerful combination.
The Political Compass a real internet classic is still really great. An oldie but a goodie. It isn't accurate as the preceding two but still is useful to see where you stand with great political figures.
http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/xpolitics/start.asp is a good representation and the advantage is you can see your results in the end (which I like so I can look for inconsistencies), one thing I don't like is it labels progressivism as liberalism (which liberalism? Liberal is a very bland term in political philosophy without consensus in the definition) but more importantly labels authoritarianism as populism (which are two completely different things).
www.bestpoliticalquiz.com is good, and I like the display at the end. It is very representative of reality on how those five different political issues are different and you can be and economic socialist and a libertarian (Sweden for example) or an economic libertarian and a social fascist (Soviet Union) or any mixture of the five measures. It could use a few more questions to be more accurate.
If you don't want a long quiz but want a quick way to check your alignment, the World's Smallest Political Quiz is a fun tool, though not as accurate because it has so few questions. It does however cover the major issues.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
The "End The Fed" People
For the past few years there has been a lot of talk about ending the Federal Reserve and going to a system where the government doesn't print the American dollars. People make a lot of outrageous claims, and most of this is spearheaded by Ron Paul's constant tirade against the government's involvement in anything but abortion and marriage. He has a lot of support from Occupiers, many of which don't know his true votes. on http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/ you can see where he has voted. I recommend looking at his votes HR 359, HR 2, HR 4437, HR 2745, and most importantly H J Res 64, and H J Res 58, to see how they match up on his rhetoric. He has a mixed record. I included this because he is the patron saint of the private currency movement.
The following arguments people in favor of ending the Federal Reserve say include the following:
1. It is a fiat currency and they want it to be backed up by gold, claiming this would be better.
2. After the Great Depression and now they are claiming it creates depressions.
3. They think that a private bank, which probably would end up being Bank of America or Goldman Sachs, would do a better job. That is who did it the last time we had a private currency! Government contractors, mostly banks.
4. The Federal Reserve is the sole cause of inflation (The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard)
Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, the Tea Party, and the Austrian school of economics are the people who are most famous in criticizing the Federal Reserve. Currently, it would take 9.5 billion grams of gold to back up the American GDP, Fort Knox holds a mere 147 million grams, meaning to back up every American dollar we would need 90 times the current amount of bullion the American government has. Currently Fort Knox holds 2% of the world's known gold, that would mean we would need 180% of the proven gold reserves, which is impossible. Remember, Milton Friedman (who hated the Federal Reserve) proposed that the Federal Reserve should increase the amount of money in the economy by a certain predetermined amount every year regardless of how the economy is doing. This is known as his k-percent rule. If he wanted to prevent inflation, according to a monetarist approach this is the exact opposite of what their other beliefs would predict (To be transparent, I am Keynesian). Perhaps the most important part to the whole argument is that if the government didn't print money, someone else would have to. The answer would be who it was before, private banks, Bank of America, Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup would be the most likely contenders and there would be no Congressional oversight.
The argument that the Federal Reserve is the sole cause of inflation leaves out the influence of the energy industry. Everything in the economy requires energy to run and this is oil for transportation. With the vast majority of the world's oil controlled by a handful of corporations, they have formed a cartel, known as OPEC, since they have formed a cartel they can negotiate what the price is going to be among themselves and squash any competition. If the price of shipping increases, everything else increases because everything needs to be shipped to get to where it will be sold, whether it is across town or across an ocean. If the price of oil is highjacked (which of course has never happened, sarcasm) than naturally the cost of shipping will rise and the cost of everything that is shipped (which is everything) will follow. At this point, putting more money in the economy to increase the amount of money regular people have won't stop the price inflation from the cartel. The Federal Reserve hasn't caused this, and there is very little they can do to stop it short of the Federal Government investing into renewable energy to give competition to this powerful cartel. President Carter tried to do that, but then we elected Ronald Reagan and the movement for energy independence went to the background of our political sphere. (Cold but true.) In fact, over the past 100 years (since the Federal Reserve was founded, 1912) the times with the highest inflation were in the 1970s and the 2000s. What immediately preceded both of them was a massive increase in the oil price. No action from the Fed here!
So, that leaves the only other part is what they leave out. Many people look at it and say they cause inflation by randomly increasing the money supply without bounds, in fact, no. There is no basis to that in real life. The Federal Reserve also destroys old bills to counterbalance the printing of new bills, which means the impact on inflation is negligible with this system in place. This is usually not reported when the media talks about the federal reserve and when I talk to critics they usually don't know about this and think I am lying, which I am not.
So, I have defeated all four arguments that are usually used against the Federal Reserve. Now, I wish to bring the points I have on why the Federal Reserve is a necessity for economic stability.
1. With only one printer of money there can be control in a steady monetary economy. With private contractors no such mechanism can exist.
2. The rate of severe recessions is currently 1 per 50 years, between the closing of the second national bank and opening of the Federal Reserve it was 1 per 7 years, there were two recessions in 1896 alone!
3. If you use gold as a basis for currency than that becomes a basis and if the value of gold rapidly decreases the value of your money will follow.
4. There is simply not enough gold in the world to back up the dollar's value. There is currently a proven reserve of about 8 billion ounces of gold available in the world (calculated by the amount held by the Federal Reserve 161 million which is 2% of the known reserves), and if we used a two metal system as was proposed by Bryan in the 1890s we could have, assuming that we had all the world's gold (literally) in Fort Knox it would equal $12.7 trillion at current exchange rates which would fall short of our GDP by over $3 trillion meaning we would need at least a bimetallic system if we were going to back the American dollar up with a precious metal. $3 trillion is the equivalent of 110 billion ounces of silver. It just isn't possible to use a gold standard, or bimetallic standard. It is not going to work. The gold just doesn't exist.
If we were going to take a lot of money out of the economy, well, that would mean deflation. That would mean increasing everybody's taxes and taking the money out of the economy instead of spending it on government programs and putting it back in the economy. This probably would not be done equitably given our recent political history. Prices would have to drop immediately or our standard of living would rapidly decrease. Personally, I would move all my money to other currencies to protect my wealth, and other people will do the same. Divestment from America, divestment from Greece isn't looking there. (See my previous post) There you go, the American dollar just got the amount of money it needs to switch to the gold standard! Unfortunately the American economy just shaunk by $3 trillion dollars and our GDP per capita by over $10,000. By decreasing the supply of money, the opposite of a rapid increase of money should happen, and since increasing the supply curve will decrease the value of the dollar and prices will increase, by decreasing the supply curve prices will increase the value of the dollar and prices should decrease. I say should because I am not completely convinced it will. If some major corporation (oh, I don't know, let's say OPEC) that has a major influence on the economy decided to not decrease their prices, the prices will not decrease. Given the leverage the oil companies have on the economy I highly doubt that they would decrease their prices so rapidly across the country if they had no interest, and I can't see any reason why they would. This would mean prices for other goods will not come down because of the cost of shipping as much as they would need to if this was actually done, but I highly doubt this is likely. It would require every business to decrease their prices in order for this to happen, and because of market forces I predict individuals wanting to get ahead will prevent such a decrease in prices. So this means less money in people's pockets, and similar prices. I believe we call this situation a depression. It would take a long time for the prices to balance out and I don't see that happening in a timely manner. After that point private corporations (namely big banks) will have complete control over the money supply and probably not just one company but several, and the thing that supply-side economists tend to support, a privatization of the money system, will prove how an oversupply of money can hurt an economy by destroying the value of the dollar. That is not an option for the United States or the rest of the world. Currently, the times our country has seen rapid inflation is correlated not to actions by the Federal Reserve, but by actions by the oil industry, and only the oil industry. I don't think the risks are worth the proposed benefits that they claim, and the history of when we privatized our currency leads me to believe that there won't be benefits, but we will see issues in the overproduction of money to increase the value of the private banks that will print our money. Without caring about the long-term implications to their decisions.
This is why I support the Federal Reserve.
This is also one reason why I am voting OBAMA 2012.
The following arguments people in favor of ending the Federal Reserve say include the following:
1. It is a fiat currency and they want it to be backed up by gold, claiming this would be better.
2. After the Great Depression and now they are claiming it creates depressions.
3. They think that a private bank, which probably would end up being Bank of America or Goldman Sachs, would do a better job. That is who did it the last time we had a private currency! Government contractors, mostly banks.
4. The Federal Reserve is the sole cause of inflation (The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard)
Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, the Tea Party, and the Austrian school of economics are the people who are most famous in criticizing the Federal Reserve. Currently, it would take 9.5 billion grams of gold to back up the American GDP, Fort Knox holds a mere 147 million grams, meaning to back up every American dollar we would need 90 times the current amount of bullion the American government has. Currently Fort Knox holds 2% of the world's known gold, that would mean we would need 180% of the proven gold reserves, which is impossible. Remember, Milton Friedman (who hated the Federal Reserve) proposed that the Federal Reserve should increase the amount of money in the economy by a certain predetermined amount every year regardless of how the economy is doing. This is known as his k-percent rule. If he wanted to prevent inflation, according to a monetarist approach this is the exact opposite of what their other beliefs would predict (To be transparent, I am Keynesian). Perhaps the most important part to the whole argument is that if the government didn't print money, someone else would have to. The answer would be who it was before, private banks, Bank of America, Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup would be the most likely contenders and there would be no Congressional oversight.
The argument that the Federal Reserve is the sole cause of inflation leaves out the influence of the energy industry. Everything in the economy requires energy to run and this is oil for transportation. With the vast majority of the world's oil controlled by a handful of corporations, they have formed a cartel, known as OPEC, since they have formed a cartel they can negotiate what the price is going to be among themselves and squash any competition. If the price of shipping increases, everything else increases because everything needs to be shipped to get to where it will be sold, whether it is across town or across an ocean. If the price of oil is highjacked (which of course has never happened, sarcasm) than naturally the cost of shipping will rise and the cost of everything that is shipped (which is everything) will follow. At this point, putting more money in the economy to increase the amount of money regular people have won't stop the price inflation from the cartel. The Federal Reserve hasn't caused this, and there is very little they can do to stop it short of the Federal Government investing into renewable energy to give competition to this powerful cartel. President Carter tried to do that, but then we elected Ronald Reagan and the movement for energy independence went to the background of our political sphere. (Cold but true.) In fact, over the past 100 years (since the Federal Reserve was founded, 1912) the times with the highest inflation were in the 1970s and the 2000s. What immediately preceded both of them was a massive increase in the oil price. No action from the Fed here!
So, that leaves the only other part is what they leave out. Many people look at it and say they cause inflation by randomly increasing the money supply without bounds, in fact, no. There is no basis to that in real life. The Federal Reserve also destroys old bills to counterbalance the printing of new bills, which means the impact on inflation is negligible with this system in place. This is usually not reported when the media talks about the federal reserve and when I talk to critics they usually don't know about this and think I am lying, which I am not.
So, I have defeated all four arguments that are usually used against the Federal Reserve. Now, I wish to bring the points I have on why the Federal Reserve is a necessity for economic stability.
1. With only one printer of money there can be control in a steady monetary economy. With private contractors no such mechanism can exist.
2. The rate of severe recessions is currently 1 per 50 years, between the closing of the second national bank and opening of the Federal Reserve it was 1 per 7 years, there were two recessions in 1896 alone!
3. If you use gold as a basis for currency than that becomes a basis and if the value of gold rapidly decreases the value of your money will follow.
4. There is simply not enough gold in the world to back up the dollar's value. There is currently a proven reserve of about 8 billion ounces of gold available in the world (calculated by the amount held by the Federal Reserve 161 million which is 2% of the known reserves), and if we used a two metal system as was proposed by Bryan in the 1890s we could have, assuming that we had all the world's gold (literally) in Fort Knox it would equal $12.7 trillion at current exchange rates which would fall short of our GDP by over $3 trillion meaning we would need at least a bimetallic system if we were going to back the American dollar up with a precious metal. $3 trillion is the equivalent of 110 billion ounces of silver. It just isn't possible to use a gold standard, or bimetallic standard. It is not going to work. The gold just doesn't exist.
If we were going to take a lot of money out of the economy, well, that would mean deflation. That would mean increasing everybody's taxes and taking the money out of the economy instead of spending it on government programs and putting it back in the economy. This probably would not be done equitably given our recent political history. Prices would have to drop immediately or our standard of living would rapidly decrease. Personally, I would move all my money to other currencies to protect my wealth, and other people will do the same. Divestment from America, divestment from Greece isn't looking there. (See my previous post) There you go, the American dollar just got the amount of money it needs to switch to the gold standard! Unfortunately the American economy just shaunk by $3 trillion dollars and our GDP per capita by over $10,000. By decreasing the supply of money, the opposite of a rapid increase of money should happen, and since increasing the supply curve will decrease the value of the dollar and prices will increase, by decreasing the supply curve prices will increase the value of the dollar and prices should decrease. I say should because I am not completely convinced it will. If some major corporation (oh, I don't know, let's say OPEC) that has a major influence on the economy decided to not decrease their prices, the prices will not decrease. Given the leverage the oil companies have on the economy I highly doubt that they would decrease their prices so rapidly across the country if they had no interest, and I can't see any reason why they would. This would mean prices for other goods will not come down because of the cost of shipping as much as they would need to if this was actually done, but I highly doubt this is likely. It would require every business to decrease their prices in order for this to happen, and because of market forces I predict individuals wanting to get ahead will prevent such a decrease in prices. So this means less money in people's pockets, and similar prices. I believe we call this situation a depression. It would take a long time for the prices to balance out and I don't see that happening in a timely manner. After that point private corporations (namely big banks) will have complete control over the money supply and probably not just one company but several, and the thing that supply-side economists tend to support, a privatization of the money system, will prove how an oversupply of money can hurt an economy by destroying the value of the dollar. That is not an option for the United States or the rest of the world. Currently, the times our country has seen rapid inflation is correlated not to actions by the Federal Reserve, but by actions by the oil industry, and only the oil industry. I don't think the risks are worth the proposed benefits that they claim, and the history of when we privatized our currency leads me to believe that there won't be benefits, but we will see issues in the overproduction of money to increase the value of the private banks that will print our money. Without caring about the long-term implications to their decisions.
This is why I support the Federal Reserve.
This is also one reason why I am voting OBAMA 2012.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Unemployment reports
I finished my statistics course three weeks ago and got a B+ in my class and learned how reports can be skewed and how to make a good analysis of data. I am reading a lot about unemployment today because June's numbers came out, I want to make a few points on how their analysis is invalid.
The unemployment report every month is merely a first draft. It takes three months to get the full picture as the forms that people sign for employment continue to come in. Assuming the economy is failing when you see the unemployment rate stays the same is just false. You need to see the historical trends when you look at the data, and a few things become clear on how irresponsible people are being.
1. Look at the trends for that month. There is one large trend in unemployment that people always leave out, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment increases and decreases twice every year except for one year in the past 20 years this has been the case, that year was 2008 when our housing market went belly up and the stock market crashed. The peaks are reliably in June and January, right before summer hiring and right after Christmas shopping. The low points are reliably October and April. We are still seeing this. www.google.com/publicdata gives you the raw information.
2. Skew is common in reports. People will look at the short-term, and show charts of just Obama's presidency. When you spread the graph out it makes our job growth look more flat, and you have no comparison with previous downturns, like the one that lasted across the majority of Ronald Reagan's first term. If you look at the long-term trends you can compare the slope with previous downturns which helps understand if this is unusual.
3. Without long-term trends you can't see the comparative slope difference between different downturns. Once you have this perspective you can see that using seasonally adjusted data to make it easier to find the low and high points that this recovery is going faster than the recession at the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency. It took 29 months (2 years, 5 months) for unemployment to drop 2% in these past two years, however, during the recession that followed the 2000 bust it took 72 months (3 years, 4 months) for unemployment to drop 2%. The 1992 bust took 16 months (1 year, 4 months) to drop 2%. The Reagan bust of 1982 took 10 months to drop 2% which was correlated with crashing oil prices. So, looking at this we can see this is an average recession in terms of recovery, and there is nothing to really panic about as long as we don't get the easy access to credit that brought the housing bubble. The thing that is truly slowing the economy down is that no one is focusing on how to get unemployment to drop and immediately start panicking. The media is saying it is our "new normal" with no evidence to back it up, but a lot of evidence on the unemployment graph to support that this is just a normal recession because they do not compare it to previous recessions, because that creates hope.
When people see these reports people get frustrated and people spend and hire less, there is a gigantic mood over the American public right now, and the blame has to go to the media. The brokers on the stock market start selling everything when the report isn't as good as they want and this doesn't help the economy. We have seen no major improvement in infrastructure (aka job growth) because the stimulus bill was weak, and people just are not hiring right now at the desired rate, but at the historical rate in the past.
Those are the current statistical errors that the media has been committing over and over again over the past few years.
The unemployment report every month is merely a first draft. It takes three months to get the full picture as the forms that people sign for employment continue to come in. Assuming the economy is failing when you see the unemployment rate stays the same is just false. You need to see the historical trends when you look at the data, and a few things become clear on how irresponsible people are being.
1. Look at the trends for that month. There is one large trend in unemployment that people always leave out, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment increases and decreases twice every year except for one year in the past 20 years this has been the case, that year was 2008 when our housing market went belly up and the stock market crashed. The peaks are reliably in June and January, right before summer hiring and right after Christmas shopping. The low points are reliably October and April. We are still seeing this. www.google.com/publicdata gives you the raw information.
2. Skew is common in reports. People will look at the short-term, and show charts of just Obama's presidency. When you spread the graph out it makes our job growth look more flat, and you have no comparison with previous downturns, like the one that lasted across the majority of Ronald Reagan's first term. If you look at the long-term trends you can compare the slope with previous downturns which helps understand if this is unusual.
3. Without long-term trends you can't see the comparative slope difference between different downturns. Once you have this perspective you can see that using seasonally adjusted data to make it easier to find the low and high points that this recovery is going faster than the recession at the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency. It took 29 months (2 years, 5 months) for unemployment to drop 2% in these past two years, however, during the recession that followed the 2000 bust it took 72 months (3 years, 4 months) for unemployment to drop 2%. The 1992 bust took 16 months (1 year, 4 months) to drop 2%. The Reagan bust of 1982 took 10 months to drop 2% which was correlated with crashing oil prices. So, looking at this we can see this is an average recession in terms of recovery, and there is nothing to really panic about as long as we don't get the easy access to credit that brought the housing bubble. The thing that is truly slowing the economy down is that no one is focusing on how to get unemployment to drop and immediately start panicking. The media is saying it is our "new normal" with no evidence to back it up, but a lot of evidence on the unemployment graph to support that this is just a normal recession because they do not compare it to previous recessions, because that creates hope.
When people see these reports people get frustrated and people spend and hire less, there is a gigantic mood over the American public right now, and the blame has to go to the media. The brokers on the stock market start selling everything when the report isn't as good as they want and this doesn't help the economy. We have seen no major improvement in infrastructure (aka job growth) because the stimulus bill was weak, and people just are not hiring right now at the desired rate, but at the historical rate in the past.
Those are the current statistical errors that the media has been committing over and over again over the past few years.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Greece, the majority's story and the real story
I was reading the news and saw this article: http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/europe/why-greeks-voted-way-they-did
The part that stuck out to me was "Greeks don't like being told what to do." which gives the false impression that Germany is forcing the post-Lisbon Treaty rules down Greece's throat like some sort of new Roman Empire, only now based in Brussels. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, for something like the Lisbon Treaty to come into effect, every member nation needs to affirm it through a national referendum. Greece did this with an overwhelming majority affirming their support to the European Union and a system closer to the Nationalist US Constitution than the pitifully Federalist Articles of Confederation which failed in our own history. That is myth number 1.
So, there is absolutely no doubt in any intelligent person's mind that Greece's economy is collapsing. Here is a report I wrote for myself based on real-world statistics to cover the scope of this problem, and the rest of my conclusions based on the evidence.
The Statistics
Current claims of Greece that are widespread on global media are “Their debt is killing their economy”, “The Euro is killing Greece”, among others. The same is being said about Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Let’s see if the facts fit this theory.
Statistic 1
The highest indebted nations in the world, Public debt as a percent of GDP are the following: (IMF, 2011 via Google data) (all countries with >100% GDP in debt plus one)
For comparison, Libya has no debt.
Statistic 2
The real GDP growth of the preceding 13 countries. (CIA, World Factbook 2011)
Libya has a GDP growth rate of 10.6%. (International Monetary Fund, 2010) Not far ahead of Eritrea.
The 10 fastest growing economies in the world (CIA, World Factbook 2011)
Libya is not included in this, but would be ahead of Sri Lanka in 2010, in 2011 its growth shrunk considerably. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12523038 )
Statistic 3
Unemployment of the 13 most indebted nations if available, along with their trend. (IMF and Eurostat 2012, from Google data)
Libya had an unemployment rate of 30% in 2004, along with an extremely tiny debt by any measure. (CIA World Factbook)
Statistic 4
European nations by size of surplus or deficit (CIA, 2011, USD) Euro nations underlined, EU members italicized.
Libya ($0) (IMF via Google Data)
Statistic 5
Populations and deficit per capita. (Wikipedia which is from each nation’s census data)
Libya $0 (IMF via Google Data)
Remarks
This shows a striking difference from what we will see in the media. Greece is always talked about having such a large deficit, yet they have 1/20th that of the prosperous United Kingdom. This is undisputed among reliable sources. How then does Greece have such a large debt? My hypothesis the marvel of compound interest. If Greece borrows $30 billion a year over fifteen years, and owe 10% on those accounts, then it adds up to $495 billion, and their GDP is about $300 billion, which fits. 160% of $300 billion is $480 billion. The UK on the other hand, has a debt worth 82.5% of their GDP, with a $2.5 trillion GDP is a $2.06 trillion dollar debt, 4.3 times the size of Greece’s debt.
Perhaps all the European Union needs to do is change their rules on the maximum size of public debt and further distress can be diverted. It is in the hands of Merkel and Sarkozy.
It is also hypocrytical for them to talk about Greece when in reality, being such a small country compared to the countries in Europe, their deficit is far smaller than those other nations. The amount the average Greek would add to their taxes to balance the budget is ⅔ that of what every Briton would have to add to their taxes to balance their own budget, but people don’t talk about it. The media doesn’t mention it. Their debt burden is far below Japan, which is really not much higher than it was before the earthquake, the debt burden then was 160% of their GDP, what Greece is now, and their economy despite having a deficit over twice the value of their economy is still relatively strong. Other factors are at play.
If you look at Greece what you see is consumer confidence with Greek banks is in the toilet, while they are not with Germany. This mindset has gone viral across the world, and we are currently seeing a bank run. More than this, it is from people abroad, in other words, divestment. With little to no equity and the government running out of funds due to the bank run, there is no one to bail out these banks and give them equity so that their depositors can continue to receive their interest and lending can continue from the banks. With no equity, this becomes impossible, and this has happened before in the United States. This is the same reason why people looking for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict speak of divesting from Israel, because that strategy in Greece is killing their economy. With less lending power, small businesses are unable to begin (which are one of the major drivers of economic growth in every economy) due to lack of credit, and unemployment rises to almost 20% due to lack of jobs due to lack of credit due to the bank run.
This has happened before in the United States. The bank runs of the pre-Federal Reserve era when the American government contracted the printing of currency to banks saw many bank runs as people were (rightfully) never confident in banks and our domestic economy was weak for over 30 years from the end of Reconstruction to the beginning of the Federal Reserve. If we (America) wanted to see our number one trading partner in terms of gross value of goods stay up, we would use our influence to work with brokering a solution between the Europeans and find an answer. If Europe goes, the rest of the world goes. If the European Union were a nation they would have the largest GDP in the world, and have trade with practically (if not literally) every nation in the world. They must not fall.
The solution needs to include breaking a deal that Europe will reanalyze their banking system and merge their banking deposit insurance mechanisms on a union level to prevent future problems. The Greeks need to pay slightly more in taxes, to decrease the amount they will soon need to pay to the people who bought Greek bonds around the world, and then they can spend more on education and health care, or pay less in taxes. Nevertheless, confidence in Greece must be restored. There is no option in this.
The current path they are following is austerity, to put as many government employees as they can on unemployment insurance (how much money will this really save?) and cut back on services. Through this policy of unemploying people Greece is seeing an unemployment of over 20% and growing. Before austerity began in 2009 their unemployment was on par with the average of the European Union. In fact, before austerity, Greece’s unemployment had been below Germany for four years! (Google Data) Austerity changed all that by firing government workers. Once the government workers are all fired, they don’t have as much purchasing power and the private sector loses revenue. The current neoconservatives in Europe and the United States use the same policy with deficits. Here is the question to show why this policy has never worked (The recession in the beginning of the Reagan years was due to skyrocketing oil prices that shocked the economy):
The answers to the questions:
Notice the similarity of these two questions, they are the same question, all I changed was which sector is getting less workers. Every good businessman will have the same answer to question 1, (there are two correct answers which together can bring a company to the Fortune 500 list) increase revenue or improve marketing, however, while Democrats will continue those answers in Question 2, b and d, Republicans will answer with a and c which are the wrong answers to the first question. Since the questions are practically the same, the answers shouldn’t change. If we look at Greece we see this is the case. Austerity in business and austerity in Government have the same reaction. Higher unemployment, more uncertainty, and collapsing profits for businesses. Just like how the Great Depression began.
If Merkel really wanted to improve the situation in Europe she would convene an emergency session of parliament to discuss solutions with the other nations of the European Union and be bold and fix these current issues. She will do the strategy a businessman would do, to increase revenue and stop laying off workers. It has never worked before, and it isn’t working now. They would switch to a Keynesian model to increase employment to increase government revenue to cover the deficits, increase confidence in investors, rein in the deficit, and keep their economies running. (I wrote this in May, a month before she started moving, basically, I was right.)
The only difference in the root cause of the crisis between Greece and Germany is the level of austerity. That is what the statistics tell us.
The part that stuck out to me was "Greeks don't like being told what to do." which gives the false impression that Germany is forcing the post-Lisbon Treaty rules down Greece's throat like some sort of new Roman Empire, only now based in Brussels. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, for something like the Lisbon Treaty to come into effect, every member nation needs to affirm it through a national referendum. Greece did this with an overwhelming majority affirming their support to the European Union and a system closer to the Nationalist US Constitution than the pitifully Federalist Articles of Confederation which failed in our own history. That is myth number 1.
So, there is absolutely no doubt in any intelligent person's mind that Greece's economy is collapsing. Here is a report I wrote for myself based on real-world statistics to cover the scope of this problem, and the rest of my conclusions based on the evidence.
The “Debt Crisis”
Statistical overview
Part 1The Statistics
Current claims of Greece that are widespread on global media are “Their debt is killing their economy”, “The Euro is killing Greece”, among others. The same is being said about Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Let’s see if the facts fit this theory.
Statistic 1
The highest indebted nations in the world, Public debt as a percent of GDP are the following: (IMF, 2011 via Google data) (all countries with >100% GDP in debt plus one)
- Japan (229.77%)
- Greece (160.81%)
- Saint Kitts and Nevis (153.41%)
- Jamaica (138.98%)
- Lebanon (136.22%)
- Eritrea (133.82%)
- Italy (120.11%)
- Barbados (117.25%)
- Portugal (106.79%)
- Ireland (104.95%)
- United States (102.94%)
- Singapore (100.79%)
- Iceland (99.79%)
For comparison, Libya has no debt.
Statistic 2
The real GDP growth of the preceding 13 countries. (CIA, World Factbook 2011)
- Eritrea 8.2% (#11)
- Singapore 5.3% (#62)
- Iceland 2.4% (#127)
- Barbados 1.8% (#142)
- Saint Kitts and Nevis 1.5% (#151)
- Jamaica 1.5% (#151)
- Lebanon 1.5% (#151)
- United States 1.5% (#151)
- Ireland 1.1% (#162)
- Italy 0.6% (#172)
- Japan -0.5%
- Portugal -2.2% (#182)
- Greece -6%
Libya has a GDP growth rate of 10.6%. (International Monetary Fund, 2010) Not far ahead of Eritrea.
The 10 fastest growing economies in the world (CIA, World Factbook 2011)
- Qatar
- Ghana
- Mongolia
- Turkmenistan
- Iraq
- China
- Papua New Guinea
- Argentina
- Turkey
- Sri Lanka
Libya is not included in this, but would be ahead of Sri Lanka in 2010, in 2011 its growth shrunk considerably. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12523038 )
Statistic 3
Unemployment of the 13 most indebted nations if available, along with their trend. (IMF and Eurostat 2012, from Google data)
- Spain (24.3%)
- Greece (19.37%) at the peak, expected to decrease
- Ireland (14.45%) at the peak, expected to decrease
- Portugal (14.43%) at the peak, expected to decrease
- Jamaica (13%) steady
- Barbados (11%) just past the peak, expected to decrease
- Italy (9.5%) Expected to peak in 2014 at 9.82%, then decrease
- United States (8.16%) peaked in 2010, decreasing
- Iceland (6.3%) Peaked in 2010, decreasing
- Japan (4.5%) steady
- Singapore (2.14%) steady
Libya had an unemployment rate of 30% in 2004, along with an extremely tiny debt by any measure. (CIA World Factbook)
Statistic 4
European nations by size of surplus or deficit (CIA, 2011, USD) Euro nations underlined, EU members italicized.
- United Kingdom (-$202 billion)
- France (-$149 billion)
- Spain (-$130 billion)
- Italy (-$97 billion)
- Netherlands (-$39.1 billion)
- Germany (-$37 billion)
- Greece (-$30 billion)
- Belgium (-$22.3 billion)
- Ireland (-$22 billion)
- Austria (-$14 billion)
- Turkey (-10.4 billion)
- Poland (-$8.3 billion)
- Czech Republic (-$8.1 billion)
- Romania (-$7.8 billion)
- Ukraine (-$6.4 billion)
- Slovakia (-$5.8 billion)
- Slovenia (-$2.2 billion)
- Lithuania (-$2.11 billion)
- Serbia (-$2 billion)
- Cyprus (-$1.62 billion)
- Latvia (-$1.1 billion)
- Finland (-$800 million)
- Georgia (-$660 million)
- Albania (-$465 million)
- Kosovo (-$320 million) unofficial user
- Montenegro (-$200 million) unofficial user
- San Marino (-$58.3 million)
- Luxembourg (-$39 million)
- Monaco (-$3 milllion)
- Vatican City ($13 million)
- Andorra ($14 million)
- Moldova ($24 million)
- Liechtenstein ($83 million)
- Bosnia and Herzegovina ($549 million)
- Belarus ($1 billion)
- Croatia ($2.4 billion)
- Switzerland ($3.4 billion)
- Russia ($6.6 billion)
- Norway ($71 billion)
Statistic 5
Populations and deficit per capita. (Wikipedia which is from each nation’s census data)
- Ireland $4794.85
- United States $4,350
- United Kingdom $3,244.35
- Spain $2754.79
- Greece $2,727.27
- Netherlands $2320.89
- France $2,280.03
- San Marino $1828.33
- Austria $1663.77
- Italy $1598.51
- Cyprus $1473.61
- Slovenia $1073.07
- Slovakia $1065.13
- Czech Republic $766.88
- Lithuania $662.30
- Latvia $496.15
- Germany $451.22
- Romania $409.60
- Montenegro $319.86
- Serbia $280.87
- Poland $217.35
- Kosovo $184.56
- Albania $164.21
- Finland $147.87
- Georgia $147.68
- Ukraine $139.47
- Turkey $139.18
- Monaco $83.37
- Luxembourg $76.61
Remarks
This shows a striking difference from what we will see in the media. Greece is always talked about having such a large deficit, yet they have 1/20th that of the prosperous United Kingdom. This is undisputed among reliable sources. How then does Greece have such a large debt? My hypothesis the marvel of compound interest. If Greece borrows $30 billion a year over fifteen years, and owe 10% on those accounts, then it adds up to $495 billion, and their GDP is about $300 billion, which fits. 160% of $300 billion is $480 billion. The UK on the other hand, has a debt worth 82.5% of their GDP, with a $2.5 trillion GDP is a $2.06 trillion dollar debt, 4.3 times the size of Greece’s debt.
Perhaps all the European Union needs to do is change their rules on the maximum size of public debt and further distress can be diverted. It is in the hands of Merkel and Sarkozy.
It is also hypocrytical for them to talk about Greece when in reality, being such a small country compared to the countries in Europe, their deficit is far smaller than those other nations. The amount the average Greek would add to their taxes to balance the budget is ⅔ that of what every Briton would have to add to their taxes to balance their own budget, but people don’t talk about it. The media doesn’t mention it. Their debt burden is far below Japan, which is really not much higher than it was before the earthquake, the debt burden then was 160% of their GDP, what Greece is now, and their economy despite having a deficit over twice the value of their economy is still relatively strong. Other factors are at play.
If you look at Greece what you see is consumer confidence with Greek banks is in the toilet, while they are not with Germany. This mindset has gone viral across the world, and we are currently seeing a bank run. More than this, it is from people abroad, in other words, divestment. With little to no equity and the government running out of funds due to the bank run, there is no one to bail out these banks and give them equity so that their depositors can continue to receive their interest and lending can continue from the banks. With no equity, this becomes impossible, and this has happened before in the United States. This is the same reason why people looking for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict speak of divesting from Israel, because that strategy in Greece is killing their economy. With less lending power, small businesses are unable to begin (which are one of the major drivers of economic growth in every economy) due to lack of credit, and unemployment rises to almost 20% due to lack of jobs due to lack of credit due to the bank run.
This has happened before in the United States. The bank runs of the pre-Federal Reserve era when the American government contracted the printing of currency to banks saw many bank runs as people were (rightfully) never confident in banks and our domestic economy was weak for over 30 years from the end of Reconstruction to the beginning of the Federal Reserve. If we (America) wanted to see our number one trading partner in terms of gross value of goods stay up, we would use our influence to work with brokering a solution between the Europeans and find an answer. If Europe goes, the rest of the world goes. If the European Union were a nation they would have the largest GDP in the world, and have trade with practically (if not literally) every nation in the world. They must not fall.
The solution needs to include breaking a deal that Europe will reanalyze their banking system and merge their banking deposit insurance mechanisms on a union level to prevent future problems. The Greeks need to pay slightly more in taxes, to decrease the amount they will soon need to pay to the people who bought Greek bonds around the world, and then they can spend more on education and health care, or pay less in taxes. Nevertheless, confidence in Greece must be restored. There is no option in this.
The current path they are following is austerity, to put as many government employees as they can on unemployment insurance (how much money will this really save?) and cut back on services. Through this policy of unemploying people Greece is seeing an unemployment of over 20% and growing. Before austerity began in 2009 their unemployment was on par with the average of the European Union. In fact, before austerity, Greece’s unemployment had been below Germany for four years! (Google Data) Austerity changed all that by firing government workers. Once the government workers are all fired, they don’t have as much purchasing power and the private sector loses revenue. The current neoconservatives in Europe and the United States use the same policy with deficits. Here is the question to show why this policy has never worked (The recession in the beginning of the Reagan years was due to skyrocketing oil prices that shocked the economy):
- You are running a business and are running a deficit. What do you do?
- Cut revenue.
- Find ways to increase revenue.
- Cut spending.
- Find better marketing strategies.
- You are running a government and are running a deficit due to a bad economy. What do you do?
- Cut revenue.
- Find ways to increase revenue.
- Cut spending.
- Use your power to increase the amount of money in the economy to prevent a bank run. Increase employment by hiring temporary government workers to upgrade aging infrastructure.
The answers to the questions:
- You are running a business and are running a deficit. What do you do?
- By cutting revenue your net profit will continue to shrink. You will need to close store fronts and you will lose potential revenue when your market is in better days, at that point you will be beaten by the competition.
- You will get more money and bring your business afloat.
- Your business will shrink. By closing store fronts you will lose potential revenue for when your market turns around.
- By marketing better more people will know about your business and you can get more customers.
- You are running a government and are running a deficit. What do you do?
- By cutting revenue your deficit will expand. You will owe whatever you don’t make now (+ interest) later and need to make extra revenue anywhere from 6 months to 30 years from now.
- By increasing revenue your deficit will shrink.
- By cutting spending you will probably fire a lot of employees who will then move on to unemployment which as the government you will have to pay. Their loss of purchasing power will expand to the private sector through less revenue for businesses. See: Great Depression.
- By decreasing unemployment more people will keep their houses, have purchasing power, and be able to continue to live their lives regularly. With the money continuing to flowing steady, you have the definition of a healthy economy. Businesses will not shrink and employees will have the means to start their own business if they wish. By hedging the bank’s equity they will continue to have money to pay their depositers interest which will mean that the chance of a bank run is diminished greatly.
Notice the similarity of these two questions, they are the same question, all I changed was which sector is getting less workers. Every good businessman will have the same answer to question 1, (there are two correct answers which together can bring a company to the Fortune 500 list) increase revenue or improve marketing, however, while Democrats will continue those answers in Question 2, b and d, Republicans will answer with a and c which are the wrong answers to the first question. Since the questions are practically the same, the answers shouldn’t change. If we look at Greece we see this is the case. Austerity in business and austerity in Government have the same reaction. Higher unemployment, more uncertainty, and collapsing profits for businesses. Just like how the Great Depression began.
If Merkel really wanted to improve the situation in Europe she would convene an emergency session of parliament to discuss solutions with the other nations of the European Union and be bold and fix these current issues. She will do the strategy a businessman would do, to increase revenue and stop laying off workers. It has never worked before, and it isn’t working now. They would switch to a Keynesian model to increase employment to increase government revenue to cover the deficits, increase confidence in investors, rein in the deficit, and keep their economies running. (I wrote this in May, a month before she started moving, basically, I was right.)
The only difference in the root cause of the crisis between Greece and Germany is the level of austerity. That is what the statistics tell us.
Friday, April 20, 2012
An Occupy Declaration
Whereas, the government of the United States has hurt the majority of the people, while benefitting the few who can afford to pay Congress to give them our tax dollars and have them pay less money, the Occupy movement of the United States adopts the following goals as our official platform:
- We stand for Universal Health Care like exists in the vast majority of the "First World"
- We stand for a system that will allow people to access credit and get good deals by changing the way our credit system works.
- We stand for a system where work is rewarded, and intelligence is paid, but bribery is punished, and those who steal are punished.
- We stand for a system where people can easily get up from being poor to a place where they can be comfortable middle class if they are willing.
- We stand for a system where there is no lobbying of money in Congress, but only by the merits of the lobbyists' arguments. A system where bribery is punishable by imprisonment.
- We stand for a utilitarian economy to improve the United States of America and the world.
- We stand against the status quo where the United States' foreign policy has not benefited the countries we invade but the companies who lobby.
- We stand for a progressive tax structure and a complete overhaul of our tax code to simplify it.
- We stand against anarchy.
- We stand for a Democracy of, by, and for the People where the People vote responsibly.
- We stand for accessible government.
- We stand for just copyright laws.
- We stand for job accessibility to not be determined by your housing status, to end that cycle of poverty where the homeless can't get a job without a home and can't get a home without a job.
- We stand for publicly run and publicly funded elections across the United States.
- We stand for a prison system that focuses on rehabilitation.
- We stand to switch the War on Drugs to a medical fight in the hospitals with a focus on rehabilitation, not incarceration, as opposed to a military war.
- We stand to audit the Department of Defense.
- We stand to continue to insure bank and credit union deposits.
- We will continue to remove our money from financial institutions that do not treat us respectfully.
These are more or less what Occupy stood for in the beginning, and something that if the President of the United States chose to embrace could strengthen our economy in such a way that hasn't been seen since the New Deal.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
A future American Election System with a reasonable amendment
I posted a summary I researched on how the American election currently works on January 4th on this blog, followed by a first analysis on how it should be done. I left a few things out, states can set their own standards on who can vote, people are not automatically registered to vote, and laws are being passed in the Deep South to disenfranchise African Americans and Hispanic Americans who are citizens. This is wrong, but is legal, as Fair Vote points out on their website. This is an updated analysis following further research designed to work better.
I agree with Fair Vote on many issues, but they leave out the most important part of our election system, the primary, so I hope that they can find this and add on how desperatly America needs to fix our primary system with a fair alternative with some similar aspects to what exists in Washington State along with Instant Runoff. Here is my proposed Constitutional Amendment to strike out the following parts of the Constitution:
Article 1, Section 4
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Amendment 12My proposed amendment is as follows.
Fair Election Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Section 1 Candidates for the Presidency, House of Representatives, and Senate will register with the Federal Election Commission no sooner than 18 months prior to the election day and no later than 12 months prior to the election day for those offices. Candidates for the House of Representatives will need 1% of electors in their district to sign on their petition to the Federal Election Commission to become a candidate, candidates for the Senate will need 1% of electors in their state to sign on their petition to the Federal Election Commission to become a candidate, and candidates for the Presidency will need 1% of electors in the country to sign on their petition to the Federal Election Commission to become a candidate. Petitions must be submitted 9 months prior to election day, and the citizens who have met the quota will become candidates and receive their money for their campaigns.
Section 2 Candidates for the Presidency, House of Representatives, and Senate will receive their campaign money from the Federal Election Commission. Candidates may use only this money for the election and may not use their own money or money from private donations. The Federal Election Commission will be fully funded by donations from American citizens. At the end of the election all money that is unused for the campaign will be returned to the Federal Election Commission.
Section 3 The Primary election for the President will end on the 2nd Saturday of August. The candidates will run on a single ballot and the ballot will be the same for every elector. The ballot will be a preferential voting ballot, with the candidate that is the most favored by the elector getting first place, and the candidate with the second favorite getting second place and so on. Electors may vote for up to 6 candidates in order. First place will receive 6 votes, second place will receive 5 votes, and so on until 6th place will receive one vote. The totals will be added up and the five candidates with the most votes will proceed to the General Election. Candidates for every seat of Congress will be elected in the same manner on the same day in their districts. Electors may cast their vote as early as the 2nd Saturday of May. A candidate may step down at any point in the election.
Section 5 The General election for President will end on the 2nd Saturday of November. The five candidates who got the most votes in the primary will be on the same ballot across the country. Electors will rank the candidates one to three with the candidate in first place receiving three votes, the candidate in second place receiving 2 votes, and the candidate in third place receiving 1 vote. The candidate with the most votes will win the election. Electors may cast their vote as early as the 2nd Saturday of October. A candidate may not step down part way through the election.
Section 6 The 2nd Saturday of August and 2nd Saturday of November are national bank holidays.
Section 7 The Vice-President of the United States will be voted alongside the Presidential candidates in the General election.
Section 8 Elector as used in this amendment is defined as an American citizen 18 years of older.
Section 9 Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
As you can see, this is a compilation of several different solutions which are used throughout the world. I have selected one ballot with all the candidates for everyone because it will avoid political parties controlling our system as they do today. They are limited to the amount of money from the FEC because that will prevent them from having multiple loyalties, one to their constituents, one to their investors. I set the election dates on Saturdays lasting for one month because that will allow everyone a chance to vote, and will be convenient for everybody. I got the idea for a multiple month primary from Jonathan Soros' plan, but I felt that a 6 month primary would lead to the same election fatigue that it leads to today, so I cut it down to 3 months which will probably be enough to be convenient for all without feeling like the election lasts forever, plus 3 is nice because it is one quarter of the year. I set the final date on Saturday to increase turnout because when people realize at the end of the season they still haven't voted they can still have a day where they won't have work and won't disrupt a lot of people's schedule, and having it as a national bank holiday will slow down commerce enough that people can focus on voting. I used preferential voting to allow third parties to have a chance, and to allow people who will be divided between candidates to choose one.
It also will allow different sides, liberal, conservative, libertarian, green, to choose the best candidate who represents their philosophy without giving the power to a private election which naturally disenfranchises voters who may lean towards two or more parties. If we had the primary as a one vote without preferential voting than the side with the fewest candidates will dominate the general election. For example, if the Republicans have 10 candidates and the Democrats have 5 candidates with a public one-choice primary than the General election will be dominated by Democrats, because where the Republicans are divided among ten the Democrats have their votes with only 5 candidates of which the candidates with the most votes will almost definitely be Democratic, and the Green, Libertarian, and Constitutional Parties will be locked out. However, if we have preferential voting than the General election will be able to have people representing multiple parties, each side will almost always have a clear favorite who was the first and second choice in most ballots and proceed, and the same in the Democratic candidates. But by having an open party, lets say a Democratic voter said the following logic with the 2008 candidates, "Now, I really like Clinton and Obama,but I prefer Obama, when comparing Clinton to Nader I prefer Nader, and then McKinney (the Green party candidate) comes in third place after Nader with Clinton in fourth, out of the Republican candidates I like Giuliani the best, followed by John McCain in 6th place." Making this person's vote the following:
I agree with Fair Vote on many issues, but they leave out the most important part of our election system, the primary, so I hope that they can find this and add on how desperatly America needs to fix our primary system with a fair alternative with some similar aspects to what exists in Washington State along with Instant Runoff. Here is my proposed Constitutional Amendment to strike out the following parts of the Constitution:
Article 1, Section 4
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Amendment 12My proposed amendment is as follows.
Fair Election Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Section 1 Candidates for the Presidency, House of Representatives, and Senate will register with the Federal Election Commission no sooner than 18 months prior to the election day and no later than 12 months prior to the election day for those offices. Candidates for the House of Representatives will need 1% of electors in their district to sign on their petition to the Federal Election Commission to become a candidate, candidates for the Senate will need 1% of electors in their state to sign on their petition to the Federal Election Commission to become a candidate, and candidates for the Presidency will need 1% of electors in the country to sign on their petition to the Federal Election Commission to become a candidate. Petitions must be submitted 9 months prior to election day, and the citizens who have met the quota will become candidates and receive their money for their campaigns.
Section 2 Candidates for the Presidency, House of Representatives, and Senate will receive their campaign money from the Federal Election Commission. Candidates may use only this money for the election and may not use their own money or money from private donations. The Federal Election Commission will be fully funded by donations from American citizens. At the end of the election all money that is unused for the campaign will be returned to the Federal Election Commission.
Section 3 The Primary election for the President will end on the 2nd Saturday of August. The candidates will run on a single ballot and the ballot will be the same for every elector. The ballot will be a preferential voting ballot, with the candidate that is the most favored by the elector getting first place, and the candidate with the second favorite getting second place and so on. Electors may vote for up to 6 candidates in order. First place will receive 6 votes, second place will receive 5 votes, and so on until 6th place will receive one vote. The totals will be added up and the five candidates with the most votes will proceed to the General Election. Candidates for every seat of Congress will be elected in the same manner on the same day in their districts. Electors may cast their vote as early as the 2nd Saturday of May. A candidate may step down at any point in the election.
Section 5 The General election for President will end on the 2nd Saturday of November. The five candidates who got the most votes in the primary will be on the same ballot across the country. Electors will rank the candidates one to three with the candidate in first place receiving three votes, the candidate in second place receiving 2 votes, and the candidate in third place receiving 1 vote. The candidate with the most votes will win the election. Electors may cast their vote as early as the 2nd Saturday of October. A candidate may not step down part way through the election.
Section 6 The 2nd Saturday of August and 2nd Saturday of November are national bank holidays.
Section 7 The Vice-President of the United States will be voted alongside the Presidential candidates in the General election.
Section 8 Elector as used in this amendment is defined as an American citizen 18 years of older.
Section 9 Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
As you can see, this is a compilation of several different solutions which are used throughout the world. I have selected one ballot with all the candidates for everyone because it will avoid political parties controlling our system as they do today. They are limited to the amount of money from the FEC because that will prevent them from having multiple loyalties, one to their constituents, one to their investors. I set the election dates on Saturdays lasting for one month because that will allow everyone a chance to vote, and will be convenient for everybody. I got the idea for a multiple month primary from Jonathan Soros' plan, but I felt that a 6 month primary would lead to the same election fatigue that it leads to today, so I cut it down to 3 months which will probably be enough to be convenient for all without feeling like the election lasts forever, plus 3 is nice because it is one quarter of the year. I set the final date on Saturday to increase turnout because when people realize at the end of the season they still haven't voted they can still have a day where they won't have work and won't disrupt a lot of people's schedule, and having it as a national bank holiday will slow down commerce enough that people can focus on voting. I used preferential voting to allow third parties to have a chance, and to allow people who will be divided between candidates to choose one.
It also will allow different sides, liberal, conservative, libertarian, green, to choose the best candidate who represents their philosophy without giving the power to a private election which naturally disenfranchises voters who may lean towards two or more parties. If we had the primary as a one vote without preferential voting than the side with the fewest candidates will dominate the general election. For example, if the Republicans have 10 candidates and the Democrats have 5 candidates with a public one-choice primary than the General election will be dominated by Democrats, because where the Republicans are divided among ten the Democrats have their votes with only 5 candidates of which the candidates with the most votes will almost definitely be Democratic, and the Green, Libertarian, and Constitutional Parties will be locked out. However, if we have preferential voting than the General election will be able to have people representing multiple parties, each side will almost always have a clear favorite who was the first and second choice in most ballots and proceed, and the same in the Democratic candidates. But by having an open party, lets say a Democratic voter said the following logic with the 2008 candidates, "Now, I really like Clinton and Obama,but I prefer Obama, when comparing Clinton to Nader I prefer Nader, and then McKinney (the Green party candidate) comes in third place after Nader with Clinton in fourth, out of the Republican candidates I like Giuliani the best, followed by John McCain in 6th place." Making this person's vote the following:
- Obama
- Nader (Independent)
- McKinney (Green)
- Clinton
- Giuliani (Republican)
- McCain (Republican)
The Republican would vote the same way, possibly like this:
- McCain
- Giuliani
- Romney
- Barr (Libertarian)
- Baldwin (Constitutional)
- Huckabee
These two hypothetical voters have given their preferred candidates and have chosen the candidates that they think will do the best job, regardless of party. This will allow both ideological sides to choose the people they think do the best job without the side with the fewest candidates winning. We have taken power of selecting candidates away from the 5000 or so appointed delegates to select whoever they want and given it to the 200,000,000 Americans who are eligible to vote. In the end, it won't be about the party, it will be about voter preference and who will do the best job for their country. That is what elections should be about, the country. When it comes to the General election, there is still a need for a two-tier election system even though we have preferential voting in the primary. This is because we will still have two sides with big names, and if one side had given their support more evenly to one side than another, they will lose, even though they have the potential to win the election, having a two-tier system levels the playing field between ideologies. In this hypothetical system in 2008 where the three candidates who won the preferential primary went against each other we probably would have seen the following:
- Obama
- McCain
- Clinton
- Nader
- Romney
Once again we see the same choices that were presented earlier, but with fewer choices which allows different sides to come down to the candidate the ideology prefers without limiting people to party choices, which is fair to everybody. The candidate who got the most votes in the end would win the election and there would be no question as to who the country prefers. In this 2012 Presidential election I expect the following candidates would be on the final ballot using this system. By allowing candidates to step down through the primary it would allow the general election to see more viewpoints represented and allow candidates to focus on the person they think would do the better job. The only question that remains is who the vice-president will be, and by allowing people to step down in the primary to run alongside another candidate in the general gives Americans a chance to see an example of who that person would appoint if he/she were indeed elected President, and has been a major deciding factor in the past because of the accurate test of judgement it presents.
Here you have it, a fully functional non-partisan election which will be constitutional and undebatable. It will allow the American People to be in control of the country and select who we think will be our best President. The election will not be so long that people get bored, or so short that there hasn't been enough of a chance to get the best candidate. The preferential voting will allow voters who are torn between two candidates to still get their best choices there, and represent us, the people, better. By not allowing private donations it will remove the division of loyalties which is poisoning our political process now, just look at how Congress is functioning in both parties and will seriously cut down on corruption. It truly has the potential to let our government be of, by, and for the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)