I occasion to sit around and think up ideas.
I mentally pan the issues of the day and try to discover interesting ways to contribute to the solutions to the problems that they represent. Wait, that means that there are no problems, only issues. Well, there are no issues, only solutions.
The subject of ecology has given way to environmental awareness, which in turn has introduced us to specific issues like ozone layer depletion, deforestation and desertification, global warming, waste, and a myriad of other not the lesser but just as important issues like unemployment, homelessness and poverty.
Lest I feel the burden that all of this world's imperfections begs to heap upon my shoulders if I let them, I tend to gravitate to more interesting and less affectatious notions dealing with matters personal and consumerist. Creations that might yet contribute to the betterment of our individual lives. I guess that's where the money is.
Say, for example, that your cell phone is handy but you're doing business online and even a quick search for where the ringing is coming from, when it finally reveals its whereabouts, just sends you up the wall. What if the caller is as impatient as you - and stops trying just as you grab the phone, or you make it almost in time but the phone is upside down in your hand and it stops ringing just after you have deftly turned it right side up? So.. what if the mouse you're using is really just an iPhone that serves double duty as a wireless mouse with the press of a key, but still takes calls? Just an idea.
Legitimate though these preoccupations of mine be, they never completely drag me away from the more important possibilities for the resolution of matters affecting us in annoying ways. Like the economy, for instance. I think that it might be possible to impact economic growth positively while bringing a large number of financially challenged people out of their frustrating existence.
I am thinking of the surprisingly many who answer the question, "Do you have a bank account?" with the negative. The reason is that one needs a picture identification card like a driver's license. In fact, I know of one who could not open a bank account because she had no driver's license. Obtaining one has become more difficult over the years. Driver education is one economic experiment that still profits from the inadequacy of economics.
But every bank should have a facility for providing a personal bank account picture ID card to anyone who needed to open a bank account but otherwise could not for reasons stated. The card would come with privileges and restrictions, such as the ability to save money, write cheques, make debit card purchases, and use the investing strategy services offered by the bank, and most importantly, to establish one's credibility as a sound and frugal money manager. There is no argument for denying this feasibility, since the same level of security exists with the common debit card.
Just an idea.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Ideas, ideas.. .. and solutions.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Thoughts on god and the economy
Here’s what I see happening in the world today, and how I might resolve things if I were boss.
The old system of an elite rulership overlording its minions is folding over onto itself and consuming it.
Unfortunately, that “elite rulership” is slow to catch up. Most are not – give them credit – but some are. The real problem is that the governments of this world have more or less configured themselves around an old system which pays lip service to the elite while it continues to exploit the working classes. That was a way that worked once for the sake of progress and economic growth, often unbeknownst to the elite, but not anymore. In one manifestation, this results in massive government employment which has been largely responsible for creating a definable middle class.
Wars have been fought for personal gain at the expense of others. Case in point - Russia has made war for no other reason than to acquire tasty produce which it did not have, resulting in a dearth of that produce wherever they campaigned for them - the Balkans, actually, and Afghanistan. The Russians are not to be blamed. They are just an example.
The current global economic situation can best be resolved by way of a paradigm shift of such proportions as cannot be readily appreciated.
By way of example, the common belief in a god who existed before anything else, and who created the Universe, is not just untenable, it is ludicrous. The point is, that so long as people have something to believe in which can never be verified or proved, then they continue to be happy to believe in it, and all is fine and dandy. When truth is realized, as a rule, people are happy to believe in it until they bore of it, and then move on to something else. My guess is that no-one who believes in this god will ever be unreconciled. Therein lies a great example of paradox theory.
That does not mean that god does not exist.
According to my education, humankind is made in the image of a god in which he or she is compelled to believe. But my range of perception is limited to a very narrow range of all the frequencies within the bandwidth of that spectrum which encompasses all. In fact, the perception of my visible optical range comprises just a small sliver of the entire optical spectrum. Even birds see more than I do. The same applies to my other four senses.
The concept of ‘other dimensions’ of reality must be appreciated within a rational context of limitations. There is no possibility of other dimensions existing with their own three dimensions of being, any more than there are any “other universes out there”. That makes no sense. The concept of other dimensions should be construed as the addition of parameters to the practical dimensional realm of this one three dimensional reality wherein creation has become manifest, because it is the only one in which it can manifest.
Therefore: the fact that a spiritual realm exists cannot be doubted by virtue of all the recorded experiences which provide the genuine proof of its existence, including my very own experiences. I must conclude that, within the entire spectrum of being, the spiritual realm co-exists with this physical realm wherein we find ourselves, which in totality constitutes reality.
As I see it, the lord of that higher spiritual realm - or god, as we have come to know him - is a very highly evolved and almost inconceivably complex being whose evolution predates ours by many millions, perhaps billions of years, and who has found a way to evict the physical limitations of his corporeal being, yet retain the identity of the self which is his spirit, and who has learned how to maintain it for perpetuity. That is a paramount technological achievement.
Not many can accept such an adjustment in the thinking of their beliefs. Such is the nature of a paradigm shift. It requires readjustment.
All of which brings me to the point of my discourse on the current global economic situation. As I see it, probably, phase two of the global economic future will see the large institutions that are bailing out the smaller ones over the current crisis fail, by over-extending themselves.
A drastic re-assessment of what we believe in the way that things have been done in the past is called for. It may very well be that a bizarre eclectic mix of all the tried politico-economic systems of the past must be implemented globally - a combination of socialism, capitalism, communism, democratic internationalism – what have you, so that we can guarantee economic security for everyone for perpetuity. All it takes is a bit of sacrifice. We, none of us, can continue to pursue the “American Dream” without a huge trade-off in material losses. Paradox, again.
Monday, January 21, 2008
A comparison of economies
I'll bet that you thought that I was going to compare the economies of the U.S. and Canada, didn't you? At first glance that would not represent a very fair comparison, the Goliath economy of the U.S. to our paltry one-tenth of the population and surrendering half of our daily lives to the cold weather while we do our best Canadian version of living the American dream economy. Not fair at all. So let's direct our attention elsewhere. Let's take Canada and see if we can't make The Netherlands look good by comparison. It's surprising how easy that is. All of the following numbers are up to date and real and taken from the pages of the official CIA website's World Factbook.
vs. 
The total budget of Canada currently sees revenues of $183.5 billions with expenditures of $181.8 billions. Its public debt is 65.4% of GDP and it has a current account balance of $20.56 billions. Its military expenditures account for 1.1% of GDP.
The total budget of The Netherlands currently sees revenues of $304.3 billions with expenditures of $306.5 billions. Its public debt is 50.8% of GDP and it has a current account balance of $50.17 billions. Its military expenditures account for 1.6% of GDP.
Canada exports about $405 billions worth of goods per year and imports about $353.2 billions worth. Canada's GDP falls about $136 billion short of being twice that of The Netherlands' while Holland's population falls about 124,460 shy of half of Canada's population. The Netherlands exports about $413.8 billions worth of goods and imports about $373.8 billions worth of goods. These are relatively healthy trade balances for both countries.
Canada has about 415,573 sq. km. of arable land while The Netherlands has about 154,294 sq. km. of arable land. Each country employs no more than 2% of its labor force in agriculture but it was only a few short years ago that Holland could claim to be the world's third largest exporter of agricultural products after the U.S. and France. Even through the 1970's The Netherlands exported more pork product to Canada than Canada produced.
Even though Canada has 202,080 km of coastline, including all those islands of course, The Netherlands has about 451 km of coastline but surprisingly this does not translate into a fair distribution of sea-going trading vessels in their respective merchant marines. The Netherlands has a total of 558 ships including 29 bulk carriers and 345 cargo vessels while Canada's merchant marine constitutes but 173 ships including 62 bulk carriers and only 10 cargo vessels. When seen in light of those numbers then the trade figures begin to make a little more sense. Economics is about trade.
One would expect Canada to show bigger numbers across the board but that is not the case. As to why that is isn't immediately obvious. Much has to do with the system of government. In Canada we have two essential parties which historically have shared power, the Liberals and the Conservatives. A similar situation exists in the U.S. with the Republicans and the Democrats sharing power. There are additional parties who are slowing eroding the historical trend in Canada but the situation in America is not likely to change any time soon. I am reminded of what Thomas Jefferson said to a colleague after signing the Declaration of Independence, "The one thing I fear the most is the tyranny of a two-party system".
European nations have a vast number of registered political parties and the trend is toward moving away from unilateral representation by only the majority party. The result is that every member of parliament or house is ideally a full partner in the governance of the nation, whereas in Canada or America the ruling party favors only its loyal members, at times leaving close to half of the government virtually impotent. It wouldn't surprise me if that lay at the root of Canada's problems. Every nation would benefit from full participation in government of all of its elected representatives, based on the idea that once the election is over it is over and the concept of opposition politics be held over to the next election campaign so that we can get on with the job of governing the country. The term "loyal opposition" is something of an oxymoron and many gifted talents were never realized because their parties did not win a majority of seats and invariably all the cabinet portfolios were given over to party members.
In a speech given by the Dutch Finance Minister in which he addressed a conference about the Scandinavian model, he stressed that the deciding contributors to economic prosperity lay in productivity and innovation, labour participation and budgetary policy. In other words, a happy people well served by their government produces more because sound fiscal management makes their happiness possible. A happy people's interests are served by their government as a matter of priority. A government cannot have ulterior motives and put its interest ahead of the people's, because that will serve only the interests of the few.
