Ratchet Effect

From Joel Fox:
  The mechanical device called a "ratchet" lends its name to many phenomena that are not mechanical.  It refers to any situation in which a force in one direction causes a movement in that direction while a compensating force in the opposite direction causes a lesser movement in that direction.  The net effect is a drift in the less resistant direction.  A political example, credited to Margret Thatcher, is "When the Left gets power, she said, they drive everything Left; when the Right gets power, they slow the Leftward drive, perhaps even halt it for a spell; but nothing ever gets moved to the Right."  In the mechanical device, a part called a "pawl" jams the works and provides resistance to motion in one direction, leaving it free to move in the opposite direction.  Our intellectual objective should be to find the pawl in each situation in order to learn what causes the machine to function.

  For a while I lived in France, a country which is about as socialist as you can get.  It was a period during which a conservative government had been voted into power because of a fiscal crisis.  The new government tried to institute reforms; however, a mechanism existed which served as a pawl to prevent the reform from actually occurring.  Students and union members who would lose in the short term, took to the streets to oppose the reforms by blocking traffic and stalling the metro.  After weeks of painful disruption, the government and general public gave up on the reforms.  In other words, the student-union groups acted as a pawl to prevent the society from moving to the right, because of the benefits that accrued to them in a leftist society, despite the democratically expressed will of the people to reform.
  Another example of a ratchet effect is the well known "wage-price spiral."  In a low unemployment situation, wage increments can be demanded which are not merited by increases in productivity.  As a consequence, management must raise prices.  If the situation is widespread, inflation occurs and labor demands higher wages to make up for the loss in buying power.  The cycle starts again.  In our lifetime one has never seen a deflationary wage-price spiral. Hence, there is a ratchet effect.  The pawl which blocks the lowering of wages accompanied by deflation is simply human nature.  Not since the early unionization days has one witnessed the violence of management troops against union strikes and violence.  This causes the lack of symmetry required by a ratchet.   
   Another example of the ratchet effect was the battle between the Soviet Union and the Free World. The Soviets expressed their intention to fight "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."  While the Soviets maintained a policy of moving their program forward at every opportunity, the West's posture was one of resistance.  Thus we have a classical situation of ratchet effect in which the West could  only lose in the long run unless other powerful factors intervened (which obviously happened).

Time to fiddle

 [from Joel]  Well, I've had enough.  I think that Plato was right.  There is an inevitable transformation of democracy into tyranny.  Democracy is unstable.  This last presidential election seems to have been a turning point.  Obama has had more strikes against him than any president preceding him (even Nixon), yet victory ensued.  Despite his failings in delivery on campaign promises, abuse of power, incompetence in foreign affairs, slow reaction to emergencies, lack of transparency and open-mike gafs, he pooled his 47% and party loyalists into a victory.  Republicans are unlikely in the future to find more favorable opportunity to retake the White House.  As Plato pointed out, the general population becomes corrupted by the goodies that they receive and are not likely to vote for a candidate that promises hardship and hard work.  I've opted out in the sense that I won't try to convince young people that their future is at risk.  Nor does it even make sense to follow the news.  Qué sera, sera.  I think I'll take up golf and learn to drink good wine while I play my fiddle..

Global Warming Predictions FAR Too High

The animated graphic above is based on a figure from the most recent draft Assessment Report (AR5), currently under review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The AR5 draft has been leaked by a reviewer, see  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/ 

The graphic is based on Figure 1-4 from the AR5 draft document and it clearly indicates something is and has been seriously wrong with the analysis methodology and computer models utilized by the IPCC researchers. It turns out that ALL FOUR IPCC reports, from 1990 to 2007 have seriously over-stated likely Global Warming, by factors of  TWO to FIVE. When actual observations made over a period of up to 22 years substantially contradict predictions based on a given climate theory, that theory must be modified or discarded completely.

The animation shows the central estimates of Global Warming from 1990 to 2012, from the First Assessment Report (FAR), the Second (SAR), the Third (TAR), and the Fourth (AR4). They are all high by a factor of two to three.

Actual Global Warming, from 1990 to 2012 (indicated by black bars in the base graphic) amounts to between 0.12 to 0.16˚C (indicated by the black arrow in the animation),  yet the central predictions from the four reports (indicated by the colored arrows in the animation) range from 0.3˚C to 0.5˚C.

The colored bands in the base IPCC graphic indicate the range of uncertainty above and below the central predictions claimed by the IPCC when they issued the assessment reports. Please note that the colored bands, wide as they are, do not go low enough to contain the actual observations for Global Temperature reported by the IPCC for 2012.

The colored bands indicating IPCC 2012 predictions extend above the 1990 Global Temperature by as much as 1.04˚C. Even the minimum range of uncertainty bands for 2012 are above 1990 by 0.51˚C, which is nearly five times the actual measured 2012 warming of 0.12 to 0.16˚C.

Thus, the IPCC predictions have errors that are multiples of what they thought they were predicting!

The final AR5 has not yet been issued, and it is uncertain if the above base graphic will make it through the final cut due to its honesty. We shall see.

Ira Glickstein

Political Conservatives Give Thanks

The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth
by Jennie A. Brownscombe. (1914) A mythologized painting showing Plymouth settlers feasting with Plains Indians.



[From Billlifka] The Presidential Election is Over. Now What?

As Thanksgiving Day, 2012 approaches, some followers of the political scene will give fervent thanks while others remain mired in the gloom that follows a defeat of their chosen standard bearer. A majority doesn’t give a damn one way or the other. Arguably, the latter group has it most wrong. The election results will make a huge difference in their lives and the younger they are, the more difference will they experience. One hopes they will remain happily in ignorance to celebrate with those whose candidates won, at least for Thanksgiving.

Downcast political Conservatives are the focus of this essay. May it help them reflect on the blessings that still remain, those which could return and the role citizens could play in causing a return. Some are moving from the United States and others are checking the possibilities of their doing so. Many who are less financially well off and more combative are promoting secession proposals. There are worse reactions but, also, better ones that provide more personal satisfaction and a likelihood of success. First, one might recall the blessings that remain.

60% of state governors are Republican. Typically, they’re not at the rightmost limit of the political spectrum but they’re far removed from the other limit, especially on Constitutional issues and fiscal constraint. (Thank you for this blessing.) A majority of the U.S. House of Representatives is Republican with such members sharing the values of the Republican governors. (Thank you for this blessing.) Like the title of their organization, legislators in the lower House are the most representative of high officials with the roots of their constituents closest to them. That these governors and representatives remain seated suggests a very different “mandate” than that brandished by the president and his cohorts. (Thank you for this blessing.)

The U.S. Constitution remains the fundamental law of the country. (Thank you for this blessing.) It’s being weakened and disregarded, but it’s there. When Obama appoints more Supreme Court justices, major damage will be inflicted, no doubt. That won’t happen without loud protests from a minority in the senate that might draw attention to real issues rather than flaky debating points of the campaign. (If so, we will give thanks for that blessing.) The economy remains weak and it may “go south” again if Obama plays political games in “fiscal cliff” bargaining in December or in a resumption of his regulatory and redistribution extremes in his first term. Consequences of these could reach catastrophic proportions and Americans of all economic levels would suffer immensely, especially those at the lowest levels. On the other hand, that might awaken citizens to the dangers of big government moving the nation away from individual freedom and a market economy. (If so, we will give thanks for that blessing.)

If more citizens remember to whom we are giving thanks there may come a time when religion will be on the rise rather than on a decline. People have a way of turning to God when in trouble. (If that happens, we will give thanks for the blessing.) Republicans have two years to get their act together. There’s not much wrong with their platform, if they stick to high impact matters. They must learn how to talk to Hispanics and young women. They must jettison the few really dumb candidates who somehow get on the ballot. They must set aside petty squabbles. It’ll take great effort but it’s possible. (If it happens, we will give thanks for the blessing.)

billlifka

Go and Do the Right Thing - VOTE

You are on the Board of Directors of a large enterprise in severe financial trouble. Will you vote to stick with the current executive team or hire a new one?

THE CURRENT EXECUTIVE TEAM

The current team admittedly inherited a tough situation four years ago, but all they have done is spend more than they could ever take in on schemes that are not economically viable. They wasted our money rewarding their cronies with “stimulus” schemes that have not panned out.

The leader of the current team is a charming and engaging speaker who had no leadership or economic experience when he took office, and does not seem to have learned anything in those departments in the past four years. He has sold us a bill of goods of “hope and change” and all he can promise is four more years of the same.

His sidekick has no visible qualifications except having fed at the political table for decades (which explains his “gravitas”). He seems to stick his foot in his mouth whenever he opens it (which explains his clean feet and dirty mouth).
 

THE ALTERNATIVE NEW TEAM

The new team under consideration offers an alternative vision based on solid business principles and demonstrated leadership and achievement.

Sadly, when it comes to campaigning, the leader of the new team  is a bit lacking in the charm department. He sometimes gets into trouble for speaking the plain truth directly and in clear language. However, he is an experienced executive with tremendous business and leadership knowledge and a sterling record of success in turning troubled enterprises around.

His sidekick is a bit of a “policy wonk” with a great deal of legislative experience. He may be the only lawmaker who has actually read and understood most of the bills he supported or opposed. He has detailed knowledge of the budget but also the ability to explain it in plain language we ordinary people can understand.

The new team has an economic plan that is admittedly a bit painful, but it is the only hope (short of Divine Intervention) of getting our enterprise out of the ditch and back on the highway to progress towards economic viability.

It is your choice. Now, go and do the right thing! VOTE!

Ira Glickstein

PS: If you liked the above, you may also be interested in:
The Problem with High Intellect Twits (HITwits)
Affordable Food Care Act
Uncle Sam's Illness
Once I was Young and a Democrat
VP Candidate Paul Ryan Talks Medicare at The Villages, FL
 

Uncle Sam's Illness

"Dr. Mitt", Uncle Sam, and "Dr. Barry"
A Responsible Approach vs Hopey Changey Happy Pills

[from billlifka[ I have a deceased uncle (let’s call him Sam) who was a heavy smoker. He was feeling poorly and a doctor diagnosed his condition as an advanced case of lung cancer. Sam didn’t want to hear that so he went to several other doctors who delivered the same verdict, along with the prognosis of an early, painful death.

 

One of these, Doctor Mitt, was quite experienced in the field and had cured many cancer patients before. He promised Sam that he could be cured if he were willing to undergo treatment that would be very uncomfortable for a time but would return him to robust health as he had enjoyed before he became addicted to smoking. The treatment would require that Sam cease smoking immediately and submit to chemotherapy and radiation. His hair would fall out, temporarily, he’d be extremely nauseous most of the time and he’d lose much weight. On the other hand, Dr. Mitt would prescribe modest doses of pain killers and a special diet of food and food supplements that would build up Sam’s total body to offset much of the damage to the localized cancer area.

 

Sam considered this advice but sought an easier solution. 

In all professions, there are practitioners who tell their clients what they want to hear. Usually, they are successful in their practices since most humans want to hear what they want to hear. And so it was that Sam was able to find other doctors who told him just the opposite of what Dr. Mitt and others of his persuasion had told him.

 

Principal among these was Dr. Barry who was a glib, handsome devil who was very popular with his patients, especially the ladies. Dr. Barry said all that discomfiture was unnecessary and, most likely, was bad; even a little bit of suffering caused patients to lose hope and hope was known to be the best medicine for any kind of ailment. Giving up smoking, according to Dr. Barry, was also bad; resultant unhappiness was another cause of the loss of hope. He prescribed stronger pain killers that produced a euphoric feeling in Sam for several months. 

After a few months, the stronger pain killers and the continued smoking didn’t make Sam any better. In fact, his condition steadily worsened and he spent an extremely painful eight months until his early death. To the end he recommended Dr. Barry to friends and associates as a doctor who cared deeply for his patients. 

This is a true story but I’ve changed the names of my uncle and the doctors to protect the guilty and the innocent. You might have noticed the similarity between my real uncle’s story and the on-going story of our Uncle Sam. My uncle’s immediate family members were enablers to him in his choice of a comfortable short term over a successful long term cure. Currently, Americans have the opportunity to enable their Uncle Sam to continue in his rotten habits that feel good in the very short term but will lead to his painful death in the slightly longer term. They have an alternate opportunity to restore him to full health and a long life. Which will it be? 

This analogy may offend some but it’s dead on. Just because one is a lemming doesn’t mean that one must follow one’s leader over a cliff. Many lemmings are credits to their species and have the intelligence to know a cliff is ahead and it’s time to ease themselves to the sides of their pack and not get swept over in the crowd. It will allow their species to survive, which should be high on their list of instincts. Their next step should be to select a leader with more common sense.

 

billlifka                                  

The Problem with High-Intellect Twits (HITwits)

[Added 05 Nov 2014] The posting below, from 2012, may help to explain President Obama's fall from popularity, and the GOP gains in their majority in the US House of Representatives, and newfound majority in the Senate.]

There are four kinds of people in the world:

• High-Intellect Twit - A HITwit is a smart person who excels at some intellectual pursuit and foolishly thinks that makes him or her an expert on everything, despite pitiful lack of experience. These are the most dangerous people to have around, particularly if they use their intellect to rise to high positions and impose their foolish ideas on the rest of us. (Two prime examples of HITwits are sketched above).
• High-Intellect Wise - A HIWise is a smart person who excels in a range of practical pursuits and is serious in his or her outlook on their place in society. These are the best people to have around because they are responsible for most of the great ideas and advances in science, technology, and business, helping to create jobs and the wealth of nations. We need HIWise leaders but, unfortunately, they are often criticized by the main-stream press for telling us painful truths, and they sometimes lack the personal celebrity and warm charm people find attractive.
• Limited-Intellect Wise - A LIWise is a person of average intelligence who is serious about doing the best they can for themselves, their families, and their communities. These dutifully do nearly all the necessary work of the world, are good neighbors and friends, and add tremendous value to the lives of all around them.
• Limited-Intellect Twit - A LITwit is a person of average intelligence who is also foolish. These are pretty much useless in terms of accomplishing anything, but at least they do not cause any trouble beyond requiring public assistance and charity, which they accept gracefully.

Fans of the hilarious Big Bang Theory sitcom will recognize the Dr. Sheldon Cooper character who is portrayed as a brilliant theoretical physicist with an eidetic (photographic) memory. This nearly ideal example of a HITwit knows everything about everything he deems to be important, and continually spouts little known, true but useless information to prove his high opinion of himself. Of course, Sheldon is incapable of actually accomplishing anything of use to human civilization. When he makes what he thinks is a clever joke, he cries "Bazinga!" and when the other characters suggest he may be out of his mind, he says "I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested!"

The second example of a HITwit is a brilliant public speaker who excels at inspirational rationalizations for his failure to deliver on his promise of "Hope and Change". He is so clever and lacking in any real experience in business that he actually believes his own foolish retoric. Despite the failure of trillions of dollars borrowed from the Chinese and wasted by his political allies in big business and big labor and big government to stimulate the economy, he has doubled down on more of the same. His major accomplishment and goal in life is taking money from those who have earned it by hard work and inspired enterprise and doling it out to those who, for whatever reason, have not. If a politician takes money from Peter to pay Paul, he can depend upon Paul's vote. Sadly, many of our fellow citizens are mesmerized by this HITwit's warm and charming personality and mislead by his shameless cheerleaders in the major media. They appear to be buying another four-year boatload of the same old "Hope" hokum he sold them in 2008. When will we ever learn?

That's the problem with HITwits!

Ira Glickstein