Years ago biofuel was viewed as the next step in reducing transport based emissions, but during recent years the principle feed source for biofuels, foods like corn, beats and sugar cane, have taken a beating with regards to how effective they are at actually reducing emissions. Currently very few individuals continue to believe that food-based feed sources should be pursued for expansion (of course this reality has not prevented the agricultural lobby from pushing for ethanol quotas from corn and other food sources). The loss of momentum for food-based sources appeared to open the door for algae feed sources to carry the biofuel banner. However, research has suggested that costs and environmental damage associated with algae feed sources could also eliminate its viability as a transportation alternative.1
To combat these detriments some within the algae biofuel community have suggested that co-localization is a necessary step to ensuring both profitability as well as the environmental footprint. Co-localization is viewed as important to the algae-based biofuel sector because while algae only requires water, CO2 and an energy source (typically sunlight) as inputs to produce the oils necessary for biofuels, efficiency rates are viewed as too low for large-scale production. Depending on the exact methodology of production adding additional elements like phosphorous and/or nitrogen increase yield rates. The process of co-localization is designed to take advantage of waste products from other industries like CO2 from coal plants, nitrogen run-off from certain agricultural process or wastewater from water treatment facilities and divert those elements to algae biofuel production at a reduced cost. Not only does this recycling reduce costs by lowering input costs it also reduces environmental waste as most of these byproducts from their associated industries are toxic and freely disrupt the local environment. Initially such a system design seems very effective and should be utilized whenever possible, however, there is an important consideration that must be taken into account, one which typically seems to be ignored in most analysis.
One must not forget that the original purpose of producing biofuels is to provide an alternative to oil or (if ever possible natural gas) as a transportation energy source in order to reduce carbon emissions. The reduction of transportation carbon emissions is only a part of the equation other emission reductions will be required to ensure the relevance of the transport reductions. Taking this reality into account demands that co-localization not only addresses the present, but also the future. For example while co-localization within a coal plant may appear attractive, the coal plant will need to be retired much earlier versus its natural time-derived retirement. Therefore, if production of the algae biofuel comes to rely on the byproduct feed from a coal plant or other heavy emission generating industry as an input stream the closure of said plant would create a production shortfall. This production shortfall would increase biofuel costs to both the company and the public as well as create inefficiencies in the transport infrastructure. Thus, individuals need to take into consideration the timeline associated with the elimination of the input providing industry.
The value of co-localizing heavily decreases if improper longevities are calculated both from a standpoint of corporate profits and societal efficiency. Therefore, it may be more practical for proponents of co-localizing to actually construct ‘biofuel parks’ that incorporate both biofuel culturing/processing centers along with a secondary industry built over a similar timeframe that would have an associated longevity period. While the initial capital costs would be higher it would guarantee both present and future synergy. Overall it is important that those individuals looking to reduce costs through co-localizing algae-based biofuel production take into consideration how those other facilities will change with time.
==
1. Clarens, et, Al. "Environmental Life Cycle Comparison of Algae to Other Bioenergy Feedstocks." Environmental Science & Technology. 434-924-7966.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
Cooperation vs. Competition
One of the important questions of the future is the application of cooperation vs. competition in society. While competition has been widely praised, it is largely a myth that competition is good for the species as a whole. Competition, like fear, is only useful in an illogical and idle society that cannot reasonably identify way to advance society and evolve as individuals. Cooperation is better able to harness differing viewpoints and strategies to create scenarios where groups of individuals become greater than the sum of their parts and are able to accomplish things otherwise unattainable.
Competition is imbedded into our society because it is one of the principle tenants of capitalism. It is not necessarily a bad thing for it can act as a driving force for technological advancement and as a means to control overzealous profiteers. Unfortunately these benefits of competition are only benefits in the context of a fragmented society. For instance in a society where people are self-motivated and have the necessary foresight to reasonably prepare for potential problems competition loses its benefits vs. the application of cooperation. When cooperating with another individual and/or group the primary goal is to create a situation where all parties benefit in a greater capacity than either side would benefit if operating alone. This benefit typically embodies either an increase in capital acquisition (increasing profit or lowering costs) or the development of a new product or technique.
The act of cooperation eliminates the need to utilize competition to control profiteers because all sides are benefiting from the partnership and continuation of the partnership will create greater long-term gain than any potential short-term gain created from deviation. Most entities that engage in cooperation will typically have multiple dealings with one another, thus creating the avenue for greater mutual gain. Unfortunately human nature tends to avoid viewing future interactions in favor for present interaction, thus making cooperation a potentially dangerous investment if parties do not consider the long-term benefits. Therefore, to further neutralize short-term gain constructs, one side can punish those looking for only short-term gain by ending the relationship and collaborating with another party or in multiple groups networks simply remove the offending network. In such a strategy one isolates the offending party weakening them to the point where their ‘competitive’ mindset ceases to be useful.
For instance take the popular Prisoner's Dilemma scenario. Recalling the situation two suspects are in separate rooms being questioned regarding their involvement in a particular crime. Each suspect has one of two options: claim innocence or guilt. If both claim to be innocent then both receive 3 years in jail. If both claim to be guilty then both receive 1 year in jail. If one claims innocence and the other claims guilt then the one declaring innocence goes free and the one declaring guilt goes to jail for 10 years.
When viewing the Prisoner's Dilemma using Nash Equilibriums, a compellation component to capitalism frequently used in global trade where each participant strives for the best individual outcome assuming that all other participating individuals are doing the same, each prisoner should pled innocent because the best that can happen is gaining freedom and the worst that can happen is 3 years in jail. In a Nash Equilibrium example if a prisoner pleads guilty the best outcome is 1 year in jail and the worst outcome is 10 years in jail, initially pleading guilty clearly appears inferior to claiming innocence. Of course under Nash Equilibriums each prisoner will receive 3 years in jail because both will claim innocence. Unfortunately for the prisoners if each plead guilty they would only receive 1 year in jail, a 67% reduction in their Nashian sentence. So if the prisoners would adjust their strategy from taking an action that is solely in the best interest for themselves to taking an action that is in the best interest for the group both prisoners come out ahead.
The biggest problem with cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma is that both prisoners have to accept 1 year in jail because it would be easy for one prisoner to screw over the other prisoner and stick him with a 10-year sentence while obtaining freedom for himself. Of course this problem would not be a concern if both prisoners act in a logical fashion and abide by their previous cooperation agreement. Overall that is the key to cooperation, especially in situations where repeated interaction is improbable, is to have faith in the other individuals/groups remembering that everybody gains more when everybody looks out for one another rather than going at it alone.
Another example utilizing competition versus cooperation is an example that can be called the cash question. Consider the situation where two individuals are walking down the street (Person A and Person B) when another individual approaches them and offers Person A a choice; this individual would give Person A 5 dollars and Person B 3 dollars or he would give Person A 11 dollars and steal 4 dollars from Person B. What should Person A do? Competition indicates that the second selection should be made where cooperation indicates that the first selection should be made. If each of these situations were made in a vacuum it would be difficult to argue against the second option if one excluded any morality issues (taking money from another individual to increase your level of gain). However, when dealing with people in real life rarely is a situation like this conducted in a vacuum. Each decision one makes bolsters an aspect of your personality where other individuals will either respond positively or negatively to the new aspect and may change their overall opinion of an individual’s character.
From an interpersonal psychological issue when both participants gain, the non-active participant will have greater respect for the active participant and should be more likely to select a mutually beneficial option when he/she is the active participant. Remember it is likely that there will be multiple times when similar situations arise, not in the same context, but similar gain-gain vs. gain-lose outcomes. In this situations Person A will not always be making the selection. Therefore, because these situations do not occur in a vacuum the long-term gain is enhanced when considering less short-term gain. For instance if the situation arose 10 times with each participant selecting 5 times and each participant selecting the same choice as the last participant if parties compete with each other the overall gain for both participants would be + 35 dollars. If parties choose to cooperate the overall gain for both participants would be + 40 dollars. Of course one could try to sneak in a couple of short-term decisions in attempt to maximize their gain, but such a tactic would more than likely not go unpunished over multiple selections and result is greater loss for both parties.
Of course it is easy to cooperate with another party if gains are greater when working together than working apart. What is to be done if one side can gain more by shunning not only cooperation, but hurting another party? One could point out that if the net gain in the first option is greater than the net gain in the second option after one full turn in the above game, it would make financial sense to select the first option (assume the payoff was not 11 dollars, but instead 13 dollars). Unfortunately this is true, but somewhat dishonorable to punish the second individual solely because you want to acquire more even if you are not in competition with the second individual. The nature of human greed is the principle element that needs to be combated when striving for more cooperative relationships between humans over the present strategy of competition.
Initially it is difficult to comprehend why people are greedy for it appears to be in the best interest of individuals to support others around them in order to build a stronger community. The continuing relevance of greed can be rationalized in one of two ways. First, when human beings first evolved they were typically divided into a vast number of nomadic tribes with sparse populations. Although these individuals were in groups, the group existed primarily as a safety mechanism, protection from other nomadic tribes and wild animals in line with the old saying "Safety in Numbers". The irony of the situation was that looking at group dynamics, most tribe members acquired material and resources for themselves and their mates instead of distributing among the group in order to make the entire tribe stronger, a strategy that would go further in protecting all members. The reason behind such behavior was to improve their standing/power within the group. So the nature of greed could be thought of as evolutionary because even at an early age humans tended to hoard resources for purposes of increasing power instead of freely distributing them among their fellow members.
The second reason for developing greed through the accumulation and eventual hoarding of resources could be derived from mating dynamics for it is common behavior that in early human history females looked to mate with males who they believed could provide the most stable environment for raising young and provide the necessary support for survival. An important factor in providing this level of security comes from resource acquisition where in some way one could state that the number of resources one has is proportional to the ability provide these desired characteristics. Therefore, if one shared resources with the community, that particular individual would lose some level of attraction to the available females while enhancing the attractiveness of other males.
The above reasoning may help to explain the evolutionary rational behind male greed, but what about females? Females are a little more difficult to characterize because the roles assigned to them by society have only recently changed. For instance in the early years of nomadic tribes the principle role of females entailed raising children and once-in-a-while foraging for food. Back then there was little time to acquire resources for survival because other less able entities (children) were dependent on these females for survival, thus part of the reason females sought out males with large amounts of resources. In modern times, although females are still largely regarded as the primary caregiver in the family community, they now are not stereotypically tied to such a role. Therefore, now the acquisition of resources by one's own hand is a legitimate reality. So now females do not need to rely largely on the resources acquired by males in order to support a family and can now use resources to enhance social status and standing.
The nature of greed does have an evolutionary tinge, but the origins of these tendencies stem from a disjointed social structure. Now there is a more cohesive social structure and community where cooperation is easier and more beneficial. Although the evolutionary tendencies towards mating may remain, they should not be principally responsible for the level of greed that still seems to persist in society. The reason for greed can then be characterized by the first ‘evolutionary’ element, simple vanity and insecurity disguised as self-confidence and self-worth.
Unfortunately in modern society many people are not strong enough to stand on their own two feet when it comes to creating a level of positive and healthy self-worth and confidence. In essence certain people need to regard themselves as better than other people to feel good about themselves. Realistically as long as people hold this attitude a classless society can never exist because people will always be striving to prove to themselves that they are better than someone else and competition will continue to suppress genuine cooperation. One of the best ways in the current society to move up in social structure or class is to acquire more material possessions than most people and to acquire material possessions one needs money, thus greed and acquisition of money becomes a top priority.
What can be done about this psychological deficiency that catalyzes greed? In an ideal world one could recommend that the sense of emptiness and despair produced by feelings of inadequacy can be remedied by encouraging strong relationships between individuals and developing significant and realistic goals to accomplish. One could assume that this strategy would create a sense of meaning in life eliminating the drive to accumulate wealth as a means to establish meaning and worthiness. Unfortunately this does not appear to be the case else more people in this world would be happy and there would be fewer detrimental actions. So why does this strategy not work? Two options are available to explain this circumstance. First, individuals are not aware of the potential of this strategy to eliminate their emptiness. Second, the strategy is unsuccessful for a particular individual because he/she believes that amassing material objects is a faster and more thorough way to obtain self-worth. Neither reason is acceptable because the status quo is unacceptable, thus it must change.
Competition is imbedded into our society because it is one of the principle tenants of capitalism. It is not necessarily a bad thing for it can act as a driving force for technological advancement and as a means to control overzealous profiteers. Unfortunately these benefits of competition are only benefits in the context of a fragmented society. For instance in a society where people are self-motivated and have the necessary foresight to reasonably prepare for potential problems competition loses its benefits vs. the application of cooperation. When cooperating with another individual and/or group the primary goal is to create a situation where all parties benefit in a greater capacity than either side would benefit if operating alone. This benefit typically embodies either an increase in capital acquisition (increasing profit or lowering costs) or the development of a new product or technique.
The act of cooperation eliminates the need to utilize competition to control profiteers because all sides are benefiting from the partnership and continuation of the partnership will create greater long-term gain than any potential short-term gain created from deviation. Most entities that engage in cooperation will typically have multiple dealings with one another, thus creating the avenue for greater mutual gain. Unfortunately human nature tends to avoid viewing future interactions in favor for present interaction, thus making cooperation a potentially dangerous investment if parties do not consider the long-term benefits. Therefore, to further neutralize short-term gain constructs, one side can punish those looking for only short-term gain by ending the relationship and collaborating with another party or in multiple groups networks simply remove the offending network. In such a strategy one isolates the offending party weakening them to the point where their ‘competitive’ mindset ceases to be useful.
For instance take the popular Prisoner's Dilemma scenario. Recalling the situation two suspects are in separate rooms being questioned regarding their involvement in a particular crime. Each suspect has one of two options: claim innocence or guilt. If both claim to be innocent then both receive 3 years in jail. If both claim to be guilty then both receive 1 year in jail. If one claims innocence and the other claims guilt then the one declaring innocence goes free and the one declaring guilt goes to jail for 10 years.
When viewing the Prisoner's Dilemma using Nash Equilibriums, a compellation component to capitalism frequently used in global trade where each participant strives for the best individual outcome assuming that all other participating individuals are doing the same, each prisoner should pled innocent because the best that can happen is gaining freedom and the worst that can happen is 3 years in jail. In a Nash Equilibrium example if a prisoner pleads guilty the best outcome is 1 year in jail and the worst outcome is 10 years in jail, initially pleading guilty clearly appears inferior to claiming innocence. Of course under Nash Equilibriums each prisoner will receive 3 years in jail because both will claim innocence. Unfortunately for the prisoners if each plead guilty they would only receive 1 year in jail, a 67% reduction in their Nashian sentence. So if the prisoners would adjust their strategy from taking an action that is solely in the best interest for themselves to taking an action that is in the best interest for the group both prisoners come out ahead.
The biggest problem with cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma is that both prisoners have to accept 1 year in jail because it would be easy for one prisoner to screw over the other prisoner and stick him with a 10-year sentence while obtaining freedom for himself. Of course this problem would not be a concern if both prisoners act in a logical fashion and abide by their previous cooperation agreement. Overall that is the key to cooperation, especially in situations where repeated interaction is improbable, is to have faith in the other individuals/groups remembering that everybody gains more when everybody looks out for one another rather than going at it alone.
Another example utilizing competition versus cooperation is an example that can be called the cash question. Consider the situation where two individuals are walking down the street (Person A and Person B) when another individual approaches them and offers Person A a choice; this individual would give Person A 5 dollars and Person B 3 dollars or he would give Person A 11 dollars and steal 4 dollars from Person B. What should Person A do? Competition indicates that the second selection should be made where cooperation indicates that the first selection should be made. If each of these situations were made in a vacuum it would be difficult to argue against the second option if one excluded any morality issues (taking money from another individual to increase your level of gain). However, when dealing with people in real life rarely is a situation like this conducted in a vacuum. Each decision one makes bolsters an aspect of your personality where other individuals will either respond positively or negatively to the new aspect and may change their overall opinion of an individual’s character.
From an interpersonal psychological issue when both participants gain, the non-active participant will have greater respect for the active participant and should be more likely to select a mutually beneficial option when he/she is the active participant. Remember it is likely that there will be multiple times when similar situations arise, not in the same context, but similar gain-gain vs. gain-lose outcomes. In this situations Person A will not always be making the selection. Therefore, because these situations do not occur in a vacuum the long-term gain is enhanced when considering less short-term gain. For instance if the situation arose 10 times with each participant selecting 5 times and each participant selecting the same choice as the last participant if parties compete with each other the overall gain for both participants would be + 35 dollars. If parties choose to cooperate the overall gain for both participants would be + 40 dollars. Of course one could try to sneak in a couple of short-term decisions in attempt to maximize their gain, but such a tactic would more than likely not go unpunished over multiple selections and result is greater loss for both parties.
Of course it is easy to cooperate with another party if gains are greater when working together than working apart. What is to be done if one side can gain more by shunning not only cooperation, but hurting another party? One could point out that if the net gain in the first option is greater than the net gain in the second option after one full turn in the above game, it would make financial sense to select the first option (assume the payoff was not 11 dollars, but instead 13 dollars). Unfortunately this is true, but somewhat dishonorable to punish the second individual solely because you want to acquire more even if you are not in competition with the second individual. The nature of human greed is the principle element that needs to be combated when striving for more cooperative relationships between humans over the present strategy of competition.
Initially it is difficult to comprehend why people are greedy for it appears to be in the best interest of individuals to support others around them in order to build a stronger community. The continuing relevance of greed can be rationalized in one of two ways. First, when human beings first evolved they were typically divided into a vast number of nomadic tribes with sparse populations. Although these individuals were in groups, the group existed primarily as a safety mechanism, protection from other nomadic tribes and wild animals in line with the old saying "Safety in Numbers". The irony of the situation was that looking at group dynamics, most tribe members acquired material and resources for themselves and their mates instead of distributing among the group in order to make the entire tribe stronger, a strategy that would go further in protecting all members. The reason behind such behavior was to improve their standing/power within the group. So the nature of greed could be thought of as evolutionary because even at an early age humans tended to hoard resources for purposes of increasing power instead of freely distributing them among their fellow members.
The second reason for developing greed through the accumulation and eventual hoarding of resources could be derived from mating dynamics for it is common behavior that in early human history females looked to mate with males who they believed could provide the most stable environment for raising young and provide the necessary support for survival. An important factor in providing this level of security comes from resource acquisition where in some way one could state that the number of resources one has is proportional to the ability provide these desired characteristics. Therefore, if one shared resources with the community, that particular individual would lose some level of attraction to the available females while enhancing the attractiveness of other males.
The above reasoning may help to explain the evolutionary rational behind male greed, but what about females? Females are a little more difficult to characterize because the roles assigned to them by society have only recently changed. For instance in the early years of nomadic tribes the principle role of females entailed raising children and once-in-a-while foraging for food. Back then there was little time to acquire resources for survival because other less able entities (children) were dependent on these females for survival, thus part of the reason females sought out males with large amounts of resources. In modern times, although females are still largely regarded as the primary caregiver in the family community, they now are not stereotypically tied to such a role. Therefore, now the acquisition of resources by one's own hand is a legitimate reality. So now females do not need to rely largely on the resources acquired by males in order to support a family and can now use resources to enhance social status and standing.
The nature of greed does have an evolutionary tinge, but the origins of these tendencies stem from a disjointed social structure. Now there is a more cohesive social structure and community where cooperation is easier and more beneficial. Although the evolutionary tendencies towards mating may remain, they should not be principally responsible for the level of greed that still seems to persist in society. The reason for greed can then be characterized by the first ‘evolutionary’ element, simple vanity and insecurity disguised as self-confidence and self-worth.
Unfortunately in modern society many people are not strong enough to stand on their own two feet when it comes to creating a level of positive and healthy self-worth and confidence. In essence certain people need to regard themselves as better than other people to feel good about themselves. Realistically as long as people hold this attitude a classless society can never exist because people will always be striving to prove to themselves that they are better than someone else and competition will continue to suppress genuine cooperation. One of the best ways in the current society to move up in social structure or class is to acquire more material possessions than most people and to acquire material possessions one needs money, thus greed and acquisition of money becomes a top priority.
What can be done about this psychological deficiency that catalyzes greed? In an ideal world one could recommend that the sense of emptiness and despair produced by feelings of inadequacy can be remedied by encouraging strong relationships between individuals and developing significant and realistic goals to accomplish. One could assume that this strategy would create a sense of meaning in life eliminating the drive to accumulate wealth as a means to establish meaning and worthiness. Unfortunately this does not appear to be the case else more people in this world would be happy and there would be fewer detrimental actions. So why does this strategy not work? Two options are available to explain this circumstance. First, individuals are not aware of the potential of this strategy to eliminate their emptiness. Second, the strategy is unsuccessful for a particular individual because he/she believes that amassing material objects is a faster and more thorough way to obtain self-worth. Neither reason is acceptable because the status quo is unacceptable, thus it must change.
Friday, January 27, 2012
A Brief Discussion about Leadership
It can be said that the world is divided into leaders and followers. There are significant differences between good followers and bad followers, but the general understanding of a follower is well defined and accepted. Creating a consensus on what actions and characteristics typically define a leader is more difficult for there are a variety of opinions regarding essential leadership traits. Leaders are largely defined by their actions in groups and how those actions influence the dynamics of a group. One of the key attributes of a good leader is the optimization of the work environment, both from a personnel and a resource perspective.
Focusing first on the personnel aspect. It is not a leader’s job to promote harmony in the group; while harmony would be nice, the primary obligation of a leader is to make sure that Person A and Person B do their respective jobs. This duty can be more difficult if Person A and Person B do not like each other, but have to work together because their skills and expertise will produce better results. Thus it is a leader’s job to ensure that the disharmony and dislike between Person A and Person B does not interfere with their job performance. What happens if either Person A or Person B allows his/her personal feelings to influence performance? Such a situation is unfortunately complicated because the easiest solution is to remove the individual that is deemed less important (assume Person A for this scenario) from the team and bring in an individual with similar skills (Person A’). Using this strategy the job the released person was responsible for and the remaining individual (Person B) should increase in efficiency with little lost time or resources.
There are two obstacles with the easiest solution: it is frequently only useful in the short-term and it is questionable whether or not a Person A’ exists at the company in question. Person A was assigned to that particular team for a reason, more than likely because he/she was the best individual with the particular skill set, so if Person A’ even exists he/she will be inferior in skill at some significant level else Person A’ would have been assigned to the team in the first place. Therefore, the benefit of Person A’s dismissal must be weighed against the time and resources lost versus the gain of a productive Person A over the Person A’. In short the leader has to consider many cost-benefit questions on a theoretical level as noted below:
- What is the difference in skill level between Person A and Person A’ under normal working conditions?
- Are there skills and/or knowledge that Person A has that Person A’ does not? If so how relevant are they to the task at hand and how long would it take Person A’ to close the gap?
- What is the production drop-off from Person A when working with Person B and visa-versa?
- What would be the production change in both Person A’ and Person B when working together?
- What would be the time and resource expenditure when attempting to reconcile the differences between Person A and Person B?
- How many more projects would it be useful to have Person A and Person B work together (for skill set purposes)?
So although a leader is not obligated to play psychologist between Person A and Person B, he/she might have to for the benefit of the current project or future projects. Clearly the best way to neutralize these ill feelings would be to keep Person A and Person B segregated from each other. If they have to work together it is best to make it clear to both of them that the primary goal is the success of the project, how they feel about each other is irrelevant as success benefits both while failure would hurt both. This approach is necessary in most instances because typically when two people do not like each other to the point that it hurts productivity, that dislike is deep seated and the leader does not the time or resources to understand its origins and whatever may rectify it.
One of the more interesting questions regarding optimization of performance in a group is should the leader lead by example or act through delegation of duties? Leading by example seems to be the buzz phrase for leadership as it is frequently uttered in the business, political and entertainment world. The chief strength of leading by example is characterized by an increase in drive and motivation of other team members for witnessing the leader work directly ‘in the trenches’ to accomplish the goal typically enhances their own will to accomplish the goal.
An interesting element to this motivation enhancement is not any potential increase in motivate, but ensuring no decrease in motivation. Naturally any individual on a team should be instinctively motivated to accomplish the goal regardless of outside factors; however, in certain instances a weak and idle leader can foster deterioration in both confidence and willingness to work amongst team members creating an environment of inefficiency, jealousy and possible strife. Many people will attest that it is difficult to follow a leader who does not appear to do anything. Therefore, avoiding this drop-off in productivity is the primary issue for a leader to take an active role in achieving the goal.
Two main concerns stem from this type of leadership strategy. First, a strong and effective leader can instill complacency in other members of the team. Some individuals may allow a strong leader to perform much of the work either because they are just lazy or lack confidence in their own ability. With this potential outcome it is important for a leader to ensure that other team members are consistently being prodded for their input and are given significant tasks with realistic timetables.
If the leader can take on extra work it is appropriate to do so as long as all other team members have significantly important roles in the progression of the project. Realistically such a strategy should frequently be implemented, but as a neutralizing factor it should merely act as a backup plan as team members should be naturally motivated to succeed and such motivation should not diminish in the presence of a motivated and strong leader. A leader undertaking additional roles is important, but must be tempered with reason for if a leader over-extends in duty, it will have a negative effect in all areas of performance. Over-extension is the second potential drawback of direct active leadership for a leader can misinterpret his/her own superiority and skill based on position or preliminary results, which could accelerate parts of the project before they are ready. Such rapid movement can easily lead to wasted time, resources and damaged confidence among team members, especially if the leader participates in portions of the project outside his/her area of expertise.
Unlike a leader that leads by example who can simply take over the team and literally 'will' it to success, a leader who delegates needs to subtly control the direction of development and how each portion of the project advances. When teams are comprised of confident and competent members, delegation leadership is easy, just make sure everyone stays out of each other's way and slowly funnel information into the overall objective. When teams are comprised of less confident and/or competent individuals, delegation leadership becomes harder because the leader needs to identify relevant yet manageable goals for these members to ensure efficient progress. The main positive in this strategy is that delegation leadership has a tendency to improve the quality of a team faster than leadership by example because the probability of growth by each individual member is greater.
After considering the natural characteristics of the leader, a delegation strategy seems to be superior in situations where a solution will create a large number of new questions that will need to be answered by the same group. The delegation strategy creates a strong and more prepared team to solve the additional problems as long as they remain in the skill sets of those within the team. Leadership by example seems to be superior when striving for an isolated solution that needs to be attained in an accelerated fashion because team unity after the fact is not very important.
Overall the leader must be aware of when to apply one strategy versus the other for maximum results. Maximizing results should be a matter of personal pride for the leader because most people will tend not to care or criticize either strategy as long as the project moves forward in a positive way, but maximum output at lowest cost should always be the goal.
Focusing first on the personnel aspect. It is not a leader’s job to promote harmony in the group; while harmony would be nice, the primary obligation of a leader is to make sure that Person A and Person B do their respective jobs. This duty can be more difficult if Person A and Person B do not like each other, but have to work together because their skills and expertise will produce better results. Thus it is a leader’s job to ensure that the disharmony and dislike between Person A and Person B does not interfere with their job performance. What happens if either Person A or Person B allows his/her personal feelings to influence performance? Such a situation is unfortunately complicated because the easiest solution is to remove the individual that is deemed less important (assume Person A for this scenario) from the team and bring in an individual with similar skills (Person A’). Using this strategy the job the released person was responsible for and the remaining individual (Person B) should increase in efficiency with little lost time or resources.
There are two obstacles with the easiest solution: it is frequently only useful in the short-term and it is questionable whether or not a Person A’ exists at the company in question. Person A was assigned to that particular team for a reason, more than likely because he/she was the best individual with the particular skill set, so if Person A’ even exists he/she will be inferior in skill at some significant level else Person A’ would have been assigned to the team in the first place. Therefore, the benefit of Person A’s dismissal must be weighed against the time and resources lost versus the gain of a productive Person A over the Person A’. In short the leader has to consider many cost-benefit questions on a theoretical level as noted below:
- What is the difference in skill level between Person A and Person A’ under normal working conditions?
- Are there skills and/or knowledge that Person A has that Person A’ does not? If so how relevant are they to the task at hand and how long would it take Person A’ to close the gap?
- What is the production drop-off from Person A when working with Person B and visa-versa?
- What would be the production change in both Person A’ and Person B when working together?
- What would be the time and resource expenditure when attempting to reconcile the differences between Person A and Person B?
- How many more projects would it be useful to have Person A and Person B work together (for skill set purposes)?
So although a leader is not obligated to play psychologist between Person A and Person B, he/she might have to for the benefit of the current project or future projects. Clearly the best way to neutralize these ill feelings would be to keep Person A and Person B segregated from each other. If they have to work together it is best to make it clear to both of them that the primary goal is the success of the project, how they feel about each other is irrelevant as success benefits both while failure would hurt both. This approach is necessary in most instances because typically when two people do not like each other to the point that it hurts productivity, that dislike is deep seated and the leader does not the time or resources to understand its origins and whatever may rectify it.
One of the more interesting questions regarding optimization of performance in a group is should the leader lead by example or act through delegation of duties? Leading by example seems to be the buzz phrase for leadership as it is frequently uttered in the business, political and entertainment world. The chief strength of leading by example is characterized by an increase in drive and motivation of other team members for witnessing the leader work directly ‘in the trenches’ to accomplish the goal typically enhances their own will to accomplish the goal.
An interesting element to this motivation enhancement is not any potential increase in motivate, but ensuring no decrease in motivation. Naturally any individual on a team should be instinctively motivated to accomplish the goal regardless of outside factors; however, in certain instances a weak and idle leader can foster deterioration in both confidence and willingness to work amongst team members creating an environment of inefficiency, jealousy and possible strife. Many people will attest that it is difficult to follow a leader who does not appear to do anything. Therefore, avoiding this drop-off in productivity is the primary issue for a leader to take an active role in achieving the goal.
Two main concerns stem from this type of leadership strategy. First, a strong and effective leader can instill complacency in other members of the team. Some individuals may allow a strong leader to perform much of the work either because they are just lazy or lack confidence in their own ability. With this potential outcome it is important for a leader to ensure that other team members are consistently being prodded for their input and are given significant tasks with realistic timetables.
If the leader can take on extra work it is appropriate to do so as long as all other team members have significantly important roles in the progression of the project. Realistically such a strategy should frequently be implemented, but as a neutralizing factor it should merely act as a backup plan as team members should be naturally motivated to succeed and such motivation should not diminish in the presence of a motivated and strong leader. A leader undertaking additional roles is important, but must be tempered with reason for if a leader over-extends in duty, it will have a negative effect in all areas of performance. Over-extension is the second potential drawback of direct active leadership for a leader can misinterpret his/her own superiority and skill based on position or preliminary results, which could accelerate parts of the project before they are ready. Such rapid movement can easily lead to wasted time, resources and damaged confidence among team members, especially if the leader participates in portions of the project outside his/her area of expertise.
Unlike a leader that leads by example who can simply take over the team and literally 'will' it to success, a leader who delegates needs to subtly control the direction of development and how each portion of the project advances. When teams are comprised of confident and competent members, delegation leadership is easy, just make sure everyone stays out of each other's way and slowly funnel information into the overall objective. When teams are comprised of less confident and/or competent individuals, delegation leadership becomes harder because the leader needs to identify relevant yet manageable goals for these members to ensure efficient progress. The main positive in this strategy is that delegation leadership has a tendency to improve the quality of a team faster than leadership by example because the probability of growth by each individual member is greater.
After considering the natural characteristics of the leader, a delegation strategy seems to be superior in situations where a solution will create a large number of new questions that will need to be answered by the same group. The delegation strategy creates a strong and more prepared team to solve the additional problems as long as they remain in the skill sets of those within the team. Leadership by example seems to be superior when striving for an isolated solution that needs to be attained in an accelerated fashion because team unity after the fact is not very important.
Overall the leader must be aware of when to apply one strategy versus the other for maximum results. Maximizing results should be a matter of personal pride for the leader because most people will tend not to care or criticize either strategy as long as the project moves forward in a positive way, but maximum output at lowest cost should always be the goal.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Climate Reporting in the Media
Recently climate blogs like Climate Progress and The Daily Climate have lamented the drop in reporting on climate related issues including what they perceive either as an unwillingness or inability to ‘connect the dots’ linking global warming to extreme weather events. The glaring problem with this lamentation is its lack of focus. What exactly do the administrators and commenters on these websites want and how do they propose to accomplish their desires? Initially one could conclude that they want more general stories about global warming, but how would those stories be presented? One option, as they suggest, could be to make a connection between extreme weather events and global warming. However, would this be appropriate?
While only an ignorant individual would conclude that the occurrence probability of extreme weather is unrelated to global warming, the problem with ‘tying’ global warming to extreme weather is that it is scientifically irresponsible to associate the actual occurrence of a given extreme weather event to global warming. Basically one cannot say that the only reason flood x or drought y occurred was solely due to global warming as providing definitive scientific proof for such a claim is nearly impossible. Unfortunately depending on changes in probabilistic magnitudes to associate global warming influence with extreme weather is confusing not just at a lay level, but also at a purely scientific level due to uncertainty.
Based on these elements it seems unlikely that any increase in climate reporting can develop correlations between global warming and a single specific extreme weather event. Therefore, within the confines of extreme weather events expansion of reporting on global warming appears limited to general analysis pieces explaining that the probability of occurrence and magnitude of extreme weather events increases by some unknown variable which increases as the planet warms. Unfortunately these information analysis pieces will more than likely not significantly increase the number of climate related issues discussed in the mainstream media because such a topic changes little with time. Thus multiple presentations of this information over a consistent short timeframe could result in most readers tuning out the information as ‘exactly the same as 5 days ago’ or ‘exactly the same as a report in publication y a week ago’. A number of individuals believe that a similar psychological attitude has handicapped the ability to properly respect the magnitude of detrimental consequences to global warming as a form of ‘doom saying’.
It is difficult to conclude that these individuals are lamenting about a lack of coverage regarding individual climate-related events because such reporting is reactive not proactive. Basically it is difficult to report on a hurricane that has not happened yet. For the most part most media organizations do a respectable job covering single climate based events and as discussed above it is impossible to associate the 100% occurrence of a given event with current climate conditions, thus media organizations cannot do so despite what their detractors may want.
Some could argue that the lack of coverage involves too many lulls for ongoing events. One example could be the 2010-2011 drought in Texas and other parts of the Southwest United States. In some context the drought become so commonplace and part of the general environment that it was no longer interesting to report on in the national media. Therefore, almost by default individuals could start to consider the drought conditions as the new normal despite that fact that they shouldn’t accept that as inevitable. Such a mindset is similar to the frog accepting a slowly and continuously warming frying pan not reacting and escaping until it is too late. While most climate stories are not ‘sexy’, heck it could not be surprising if ‘Jerry Sandusky’ has been mentioned more in the last four months than ‘global warming’ has been mentioned in the last 3 years, it does appear important for media organizations to continue to address the non-normal climate conditions to avoid a general malaise of acceptance.
Unfortunately amid all of the lamentation little productive information is being given with regards to how the media should correct itself. The only refrain is ‘more coverage, more coverage’, but suggestions on how to effectively accomplish this goal are few. While some may argue that blanket coverage (more regardless of quality as long as it acknowledges the reality of global warming and its dangers) is suitable because eventually enough of it should convince people, this strategy is probably not effective. First off as previously mentioned simply increasing the amount of climate stores could result in individuals ‘tuning out’ the stories limiting their effectiveness on combating malaise.
Some would argue that this ‘blanket’ strategy is the same general strategy used by global warming deniers to try to tip public sentiment in their favor and while true there are other factors at work. The strength of the denier argument is in the controversy they create. People inherently are distrustful of ‘guarantees’, especially when they are negative. The guarantee that global warming is real and it will be seriously detrimental allow a better acceptance environment for deniers to make inaccurate to crazy claims about how it is not true. Another advantage for the deniers in this ‘blanket’ strategy is the ability to better maintain variety in the attack. Deniers can challenge various aspects of global warming consequences using different ‘theories’ so other individuals do not become bored. For those trying to demonstrate the validity of global warming this variety is not so widely available as the same 5-6 topics dominate in global warming consequence prediction.
Instead of attempting ‘blanket’ coverage an organized information campaign on specific topics could be a better strategy. In this situation the media outlet would devote a specific amount of time to a given component of global warming over the course of a specific timeframe. For example a newspaper may decide to discuss ocean acidification where they devote a page two space once a day for a week. One of the important elements to such a strategy is to maximize the probability that individuals understand what they are reading. Thus the Monday and Tuesday stories would need to focus on more background information pertaining to the particular topic.
An immediate problem to executing the above strategy would be a lack of interest. As previously mentioned climate science and environmental issues are not sexy or typically short-term dynamic thus providing an incentive would be useful to encourage readership. One strategy to develop incentive would involve having a mini-quiz at the end of the week where individuals who answered 80% of the questions correctly would be entered into a contest to win some form of prize. The medium for the contest would be via the Internet or mail order through the U.S. post office. Environmental organizations could help sponsor these prizes if necessary.
On a related side note while the media can be criticized for not effectively addressing their role in fight the acceptance of a new normal most in the environmental community seem not to go far enough either. The environmental community should not only be pushing the media to lay the groundwork for climate understanding to combat malaise and legitimatize genuine importance, but also to provide a debating forum for solutions. Unfortunately a number of individuals in the environmental community do not want this debate. Most simply want the application of their ‘pet’ solutions and are unwilling to address whether or not those solutions are viable.
For example proponents of solar and wind deployment continuously shy away from addressing possible cost overruns due to lack of storage and intermittence in an energy infrastructure that no longer utilizes fossil fuels. Instead they foolishly or dishonestly report ‘grid parody’ prices for wind and solar relative to fossil fuels in the modern fossil fuel based energy infrastructure, numbers that do not make sense because if wind and solar are going to be a solution they must be incorporated into an infrastructure that does not utilize fossil fuels. In addition these same proponents avoid the question of a possible rare earth shortage which will disallow the economic development of a principally wind/solar energy infrastructure. Thus not only must the attitude of the media change with regards to covering climate issues, but so too must the attitudes of those who claim to be its champions.
Digressing back to the media aspect, the issue that environmentalists should be discussing is not necessarily quantity, but quality and how to deliver that quality. The goal of the media pertaining to climate issues is two-fold: provide enough information over a suitable number of intervals to combat malaise/mitigation of importance and provide that information in a way that actually allow individuals to intelligently participate in discussions regarding solving climate related problems. One possible strategy to aid in accomplishing these goals, which the media has thoroughly been lacking, would be to devote constant time to a given aspect of global warming with quizzes and prizes to increase interest and aid learning and retention. However, some could argue that the ‘blanket’ strategy is still an option. If so those making this argument need to address how to evade the concerns discussed above. Overall regardless of what strategies are utilized the environmental community needs to better outline in specific detail how the mainstream media should present climate information over just complaining about the lack of it.
While only an ignorant individual would conclude that the occurrence probability of extreme weather is unrelated to global warming, the problem with ‘tying’ global warming to extreme weather is that it is scientifically irresponsible to associate the actual occurrence of a given extreme weather event to global warming. Basically one cannot say that the only reason flood x or drought y occurred was solely due to global warming as providing definitive scientific proof for such a claim is nearly impossible. Unfortunately depending on changes in probabilistic magnitudes to associate global warming influence with extreme weather is confusing not just at a lay level, but also at a purely scientific level due to uncertainty.
Based on these elements it seems unlikely that any increase in climate reporting can develop correlations between global warming and a single specific extreme weather event. Therefore, within the confines of extreme weather events expansion of reporting on global warming appears limited to general analysis pieces explaining that the probability of occurrence and magnitude of extreme weather events increases by some unknown variable which increases as the planet warms. Unfortunately these information analysis pieces will more than likely not significantly increase the number of climate related issues discussed in the mainstream media because such a topic changes little with time. Thus multiple presentations of this information over a consistent short timeframe could result in most readers tuning out the information as ‘exactly the same as 5 days ago’ or ‘exactly the same as a report in publication y a week ago’. A number of individuals believe that a similar psychological attitude has handicapped the ability to properly respect the magnitude of detrimental consequences to global warming as a form of ‘doom saying’.
It is difficult to conclude that these individuals are lamenting about a lack of coverage regarding individual climate-related events because such reporting is reactive not proactive. Basically it is difficult to report on a hurricane that has not happened yet. For the most part most media organizations do a respectable job covering single climate based events and as discussed above it is impossible to associate the 100% occurrence of a given event with current climate conditions, thus media organizations cannot do so despite what their detractors may want.
Some could argue that the lack of coverage involves too many lulls for ongoing events. One example could be the 2010-2011 drought in Texas and other parts of the Southwest United States. In some context the drought become so commonplace and part of the general environment that it was no longer interesting to report on in the national media. Therefore, almost by default individuals could start to consider the drought conditions as the new normal despite that fact that they shouldn’t accept that as inevitable. Such a mindset is similar to the frog accepting a slowly and continuously warming frying pan not reacting and escaping until it is too late. While most climate stories are not ‘sexy’, heck it could not be surprising if ‘Jerry Sandusky’ has been mentioned more in the last four months than ‘global warming’ has been mentioned in the last 3 years, it does appear important for media organizations to continue to address the non-normal climate conditions to avoid a general malaise of acceptance.
Unfortunately amid all of the lamentation little productive information is being given with regards to how the media should correct itself. The only refrain is ‘more coverage, more coverage’, but suggestions on how to effectively accomplish this goal are few. While some may argue that blanket coverage (more regardless of quality as long as it acknowledges the reality of global warming and its dangers) is suitable because eventually enough of it should convince people, this strategy is probably not effective. First off as previously mentioned simply increasing the amount of climate stores could result in individuals ‘tuning out’ the stories limiting their effectiveness on combating malaise.
Some would argue that this ‘blanket’ strategy is the same general strategy used by global warming deniers to try to tip public sentiment in their favor and while true there are other factors at work. The strength of the denier argument is in the controversy they create. People inherently are distrustful of ‘guarantees’, especially when they are negative. The guarantee that global warming is real and it will be seriously detrimental allow a better acceptance environment for deniers to make inaccurate to crazy claims about how it is not true. Another advantage for the deniers in this ‘blanket’ strategy is the ability to better maintain variety in the attack. Deniers can challenge various aspects of global warming consequences using different ‘theories’ so other individuals do not become bored. For those trying to demonstrate the validity of global warming this variety is not so widely available as the same 5-6 topics dominate in global warming consequence prediction.
Instead of attempting ‘blanket’ coverage an organized information campaign on specific topics could be a better strategy. In this situation the media outlet would devote a specific amount of time to a given component of global warming over the course of a specific timeframe. For example a newspaper may decide to discuss ocean acidification where they devote a page two space once a day for a week. One of the important elements to such a strategy is to maximize the probability that individuals understand what they are reading. Thus the Monday and Tuesday stories would need to focus on more background information pertaining to the particular topic.
An immediate problem to executing the above strategy would be a lack of interest. As previously mentioned climate science and environmental issues are not sexy or typically short-term dynamic thus providing an incentive would be useful to encourage readership. One strategy to develop incentive would involve having a mini-quiz at the end of the week where individuals who answered 80% of the questions correctly would be entered into a contest to win some form of prize. The medium for the contest would be via the Internet or mail order through the U.S. post office. Environmental organizations could help sponsor these prizes if necessary.
On a related side note while the media can be criticized for not effectively addressing their role in fight the acceptance of a new normal most in the environmental community seem not to go far enough either. The environmental community should not only be pushing the media to lay the groundwork for climate understanding to combat malaise and legitimatize genuine importance, but also to provide a debating forum for solutions. Unfortunately a number of individuals in the environmental community do not want this debate. Most simply want the application of their ‘pet’ solutions and are unwilling to address whether or not those solutions are viable.
For example proponents of solar and wind deployment continuously shy away from addressing possible cost overruns due to lack of storage and intermittence in an energy infrastructure that no longer utilizes fossil fuels. Instead they foolishly or dishonestly report ‘grid parody’ prices for wind and solar relative to fossil fuels in the modern fossil fuel based energy infrastructure, numbers that do not make sense because if wind and solar are going to be a solution they must be incorporated into an infrastructure that does not utilize fossil fuels. In addition these same proponents avoid the question of a possible rare earth shortage which will disallow the economic development of a principally wind/solar energy infrastructure. Thus not only must the attitude of the media change with regards to covering climate issues, but so too must the attitudes of those who claim to be its champions.
Digressing back to the media aspect, the issue that environmentalists should be discussing is not necessarily quantity, but quality and how to deliver that quality. The goal of the media pertaining to climate issues is two-fold: provide enough information over a suitable number of intervals to combat malaise/mitigation of importance and provide that information in a way that actually allow individuals to intelligently participate in discussions regarding solving climate related problems. One possible strategy to aid in accomplishing these goals, which the media has thoroughly been lacking, would be to devote constant time to a given aspect of global warming with quizzes and prizes to increase interest and aid learning and retention. However, some could argue that the ‘blanket’ strategy is still an option. If so those making this argument need to address how to evade the concerns discussed above. Overall regardless of what strategies are utilized the environmental community needs to better outline in specific detail how the mainstream media should present climate information over just complaining about the lack of it.
Friday, December 30, 2011
The Flaw of the Flat Tax
Paying both federal and state income taxes can be an exasperating and depressing experience. It is easy to understand this dissatisfaction, especially because individuals do not know the precise destination of their tax dollars, instead watching the money vanish into a black hole riddled with waste and misappropriation. Unfortunately the black hole is not even the worst part of the tax system, yet few people seem to either realize the real problems in the tax system or care enough to do something about it.
One of the more popular suggested tax reforms is the elimination of the progressive tax system in favor of a flat tax system where all taxpayers would pay the same percentage of income. Proponents of the flat tax system sing its praises for its simplicity, what they believe as fairness and its ability to acquire more revenue for the federal government than the current progressive system due to a perceived elimination of a vast number of deductions and tax shelter tricks. However, proponents of the flat tax are either misinformed or trying to create a greater advantage for themselves with little concern for others.
Despite numerous studies concluding that flat taxes provide insufficient funds relative to the existing progressive tax system from a methodological standpoint comparing revenue gains from a flat tax system to the current progressive system is silly because the current system is so riddled with immorality and waste that almost any reform will give the appearance of a short-term increase in revenue with favorable assumptions. Therefore, if one were to be reasonable the flat tax system would need to be compared to other reforms in the progressive system and other new systems to gauge the legitimacy of its revenue collection superiority. Simply comparing one reform against the current system without comparing it against other possible reforms diminishes the authenticity of such an analysis. Such a mindset is also questionable in that it is irrational to conclude that there is only one possible alternative to an existing system or solution without careful analysis.
With regards to fairness it is easy to see why proponents of a flat tax system believe such a system is fairer to all parties than the current progressive system. The common flat tax and tax cut battle cry has frequently been ‘why should those that make more money be penalized?’ under the typically bias mindset that those who make a lot of money work harder than those who make less money. Most flat tax supporters appear to believe that the progressive tax system punishes ambition and success, which in turn may discourage individuals from being successful because the more successful they are the less they get. Of course any practical analysis instantly characterizes that complaint as complete and utter bull because first it is irrational to believe that an individual will be less motivated to acquire financial resources simply because they will have to pay more in taxes. Anyone given a choice between pursuing a career where he/she would make 25,000 dollars a year and pay 4,500 in taxes versus make 100,000 dollars and pay 34,000 dollars, would obviously selection the latter option. No reasonable person would elect to only make 20,500 dollars a year instead of 66,000 dollars a year to either ‘stick it to the man’ or because paying 34,000 dollars instead of 4,500 dollars to the government is so distressing that making a net of 45,500 dollars more is immaterial.
Proponents of a flat tax would contend that the above statement misses the point. The very fact that the disparity exists in the tax system at all is what is unfair. If these individuals feel so strongly about ‘rooting’ out unfairness then they should start promoting a communistic economic system. Capitalism is fraught with inequalities and unfairness for gone are the days where individuals can consistently achieve financial success by simply studying hard and working hard. There is indeed still the rare case where an individual pulls him/herself out of poverty to make it big, but in the modernized capitalistic system who you know and what resources you possess have a much more pronounced effect on your success than any drive to work hard. A majority of the individuals that have wealth today definitely took advantage of some of the unfair elements of capitalism to amass their fortunes. How funny it is that most individuals complain about unfair elements that are to their disadvantage, yet say nothing about unfair elements that are to their advantage.
Unfairness in capitalism and the role of the progressive and flat tax is best illustrated in an example. Consider two participants running a 400-meter dash, Runner A and Runner B where Runner A gets to start 100 meters ahead of Runner B (think of this as better connections and greater access to resources largely due to parental connections). The gun is fired, the participants run the race to the best of their ability and Runner A wins easily. Suppose then the timers elect to remove 5 seconds off of Runner B’s time closing the difference between the two times, yet still maintaining an easy victory for Runner A. Those that support a flat tax would cry foul about removing 5 seconds from Runner B’s time, but would remain silent about Runner A’s 100 meter head-start. Replacing the progressive tax with a flat tax would simply be removing one unfair element that favors the poor further stacking the deck in favor of the rich and well connected.
A more conspiracy theorist view of the flat tax could label the system itself as a fiendish negotiating tactic by the super rich. Perhaps one day the masses will realize the actual disparity in the tax rate between those who make 35,000 dollars a year versus those who make 1,000,000 dollars a year is not in their favor, but the favor of the million dollar earner due to government neutering of the IRS and tax loopholes for the rich. Such realization will result in a demand to close tax loopholes for both the individual and corporations reestablishing the genuine rate as outlined in the progressive system.
With this eventual understanding that some perceive to be inevitable, one could believe that the flat tax is just a preemptive strike to neutralize progressive tax reform. In essence although the flat tax would result in an increase in tax payment from net effective rate of the mid-teen (what most well-connected wealthy individuals pay) to something like 20% it would dramatically reduce the probability of reform within the progressive system itself that could result in a rate increase from mid-teens to 39% or even higher. So by giving up something like 4-5 percent points, the biggest benefactors of a flat tax save themselves a 20-30 percent point increase at some point in the future.
Finally the importance of the assigned tax rate in the flat tax itself deserves analysis. If the rate is too low, then the government will not be able to recoup the necessary capital required to effectively run programs for the benefit of its citizens, which would lead to the loss of certain programs or increased national debt either element would negatively affect the economy. If the rate is too high, then those in the lower portion of tax bracket in the progressive system will end up paying more and those in the higher portions of the tax bracket may end up paying less and that hardly seems to emulate the ‘fairness’ of the system, the less you make the more you pay. This single statement has deduced the reality behind the flat tax. Inherently in its purest ‘on paper’ form the flat tax is fair, but the current practice of capitalism is not. The insertion of a flat tax into an unfair system of much greater magnitude corrupts any authenticity in the flat tax. So while a flat tax may be fair in isolation, in the current economic system of the United States, it is unfair and unwarranted.
One of the more popular suggested tax reforms is the elimination of the progressive tax system in favor of a flat tax system where all taxpayers would pay the same percentage of income. Proponents of the flat tax system sing its praises for its simplicity, what they believe as fairness and its ability to acquire more revenue for the federal government than the current progressive system due to a perceived elimination of a vast number of deductions and tax shelter tricks. However, proponents of the flat tax are either misinformed or trying to create a greater advantage for themselves with little concern for others.
Despite numerous studies concluding that flat taxes provide insufficient funds relative to the existing progressive tax system from a methodological standpoint comparing revenue gains from a flat tax system to the current progressive system is silly because the current system is so riddled with immorality and waste that almost any reform will give the appearance of a short-term increase in revenue with favorable assumptions. Therefore, if one were to be reasonable the flat tax system would need to be compared to other reforms in the progressive system and other new systems to gauge the legitimacy of its revenue collection superiority. Simply comparing one reform against the current system without comparing it against other possible reforms diminishes the authenticity of such an analysis. Such a mindset is also questionable in that it is irrational to conclude that there is only one possible alternative to an existing system or solution without careful analysis.
With regards to fairness it is easy to see why proponents of a flat tax system believe such a system is fairer to all parties than the current progressive system. The common flat tax and tax cut battle cry has frequently been ‘why should those that make more money be penalized?’ under the typically bias mindset that those who make a lot of money work harder than those who make less money. Most flat tax supporters appear to believe that the progressive tax system punishes ambition and success, which in turn may discourage individuals from being successful because the more successful they are the less they get. Of course any practical analysis instantly characterizes that complaint as complete and utter bull because first it is irrational to believe that an individual will be less motivated to acquire financial resources simply because they will have to pay more in taxes. Anyone given a choice between pursuing a career where he/she would make 25,000 dollars a year and pay 4,500 in taxes versus make 100,000 dollars and pay 34,000 dollars, would obviously selection the latter option. No reasonable person would elect to only make 20,500 dollars a year instead of 66,000 dollars a year to either ‘stick it to the man’ or because paying 34,000 dollars instead of 4,500 dollars to the government is so distressing that making a net of 45,500 dollars more is immaterial.
Proponents of a flat tax would contend that the above statement misses the point. The very fact that the disparity exists in the tax system at all is what is unfair. If these individuals feel so strongly about ‘rooting’ out unfairness then they should start promoting a communistic economic system. Capitalism is fraught with inequalities and unfairness for gone are the days where individuals can consistently achieve financial success by simply studying hard and working hard. There is indeed still the rare case where an individual pulls him/herself out of poverty to make it big, but in the modernized capitalistic system who you know and what resources you possess have a much more pronounced effect on your success than any drive to work hard. A majority of the individuals that have wealth today definitely took advantage of some of the unfair elements of capitalism to amass their fortunes. How funny it is that most individuals complain about unfair elements that are to their disadvantage, yet say nothing about unfair elements that are to their advantage.
Unfairness in capitalism and the role of the progressive and flat tax is best illustrated in an example. Consider two participants running a 400-meter dash, Runner A and Runner B where Runner A gets to start 100 meters ahead of Runner B (think of this as better connections and greater access to resources largely due to parental connections). The gun is fired, the participants run the race to the best of their ability and Runner A wins easily. Suppose then the timers elect to remove 5 seconds off of Runner B’s time closing the difference between the two times, yet still maintaining an easy victory for Runner A. Those that support a flat tax would cry foul about removing 5 seconds from Runner B’s time, but would remain silent about Runner A’s 100 meter head-start. Replacing the progressive tax with a flat tax would simply be removing one unfair element that favors the poor further stacking the deck in favor of the rich and well connected.
A more conspiracy theorist view of the flat tax could label the system itself as a fiendish negotiating tactic by the super rich. Perhaps one day the masses will realize the actual disparity in the tax rate between those who make 35,000 dollars a year versus those who make 1,000,000 dollars a year is not in their favor, but the favor of the million dollar earner due to government neutering of the IRS and tax loopholes for the rich. Such realization will result in a demand to close tax loopholes for both the individual and corporations reestablishing the genuine rate as outlined in the progressive system.
With this eventual understanding that some perceive to be inevitable, one could believe that the flat tax is just a preemptive strike to neutralize progressive tax reform. In essence although the flat tax would result in an increase in tax payment from net effective rate of the mid-teen (what most well-connected wealthy individuals pay) to something like 20% it would dramatically reduce the probability of reform within the progressive system itself that could result in a rate increase from mid-teens to 39% or even higher. So by giving up something like 4-5 percent points, the biggest benefactors of a flat tax save themselves a 20-30 percent point increase at some point in the future.
Finally the importance of the assigned tax rate in the flat tax itself deserves analysis. If the rate is too low, then the government will not be able to recoup the necessary capital required to effectively run programs for the benefit of its citizens, which would lead to the loss of certain programs or increased national debt either element would negatively affect the economy. If the rate is too high, then those in the lower portion of tax bracket in the progressive system will end up paying more and those in the higher portions of the tax bracket may end up paying less and that hardly seems to emulate the ‘fairness’ of the system, the less you make the more you pay. This single statement has deduced the reality behind the flat tax. Inherently in its purest ‘on paper’ form the flat tax is fair, but the current practice of capitalism is not. The insertion of a flat tax into an unfair system of much greater magnitude corrupts any authenticity in the flat tax. So while a flat tax may be fair in isolation, in the current economic system of the United States, it is unfair and unwarranted.
Death Penalty Logic?
Since 1973 the death penalty has regained its previously controversial place in society. The controversial nature of the death penalty is somewhat confusing in light of looking at the benefits of death penalty opposed to its detriments. A critical first question when evaluating the merits of the death penalty involves defining the purpose of the death penalty. One commonly citied goal for the death penalty is that of a deterrent, a means to prevent future actions which would warrant the death of the perpetrator. Although in theory this goal may seem logical and noble as preventing crime is always preferable to reacting to crime, no hard proof has ever been produced demonstrating a long-term reduction in homicides directly associated with the reemergence of the death penalty. So the goal of using the death penalty as a deterrent does not appear to be working,
If validating the death penalty through its use as a deterrent is not applicable in reality altering its goal to that of a tool for vengeance seems like the next logical step. The question of whether the death penalty actually serves as a positive psychological tool for the families of the victim is essential to judging the validity of this death penalty goal and purpose. Overall it is a troubling thought to think that families actually receive some level of satisfaction when the criminal is put to death over sentencing the criminal to permanent incarceration, but for the sake of argument consider for a moment that this reaction is indeed the case.
Why is it that the ‘vengeance’ mentality demands the ‘eye for an eye’ treatment in this situation? Although ‘ an eye for an eye’ can be regarded as an appropriate reaction, the concern is that some have come to believe that it is the only appropriate response available, which is not correct. Clearly a single action has many different reactions of differing severities. It is unrealistic to believe that only one specific response among a multitude of possible responses is appropriate instead there are a number of different options for redress and justice.
Why do some individuals look upon a lifetime of imprisonment as inappropriate? One of the worst things you can do to an individual is restrict or remove freedom. Although one could argue that the worst thing that can happen to an individual is the loss of his/her life, with suicide rates greater than zero clearly other individuals believe that living in certain circumstances are worse than death. From a psychological perspective restricting the freedom of an individual for the rest of his/her life appears to be an appropriate response for the vengeance seeking individual set on inflicting a significant level of suffering to the criminal as redress for the crime. For certain individuals one could regard life imprisonment as a worse punishment than death for certain individuals.
In regards to what comforts death offers a family over life imprisonment, any significant difference seems rare as both death and life imprisonment remove the ability of the individual to repeat the action against an individual that the family would regard as important or even society in general. The death itself may not be as tragic an event for the criminal as desired because of acceptance of the inevitable.
Also the numerous appeals and legal hurdles rightly involved in an execution typically provides delays of multiple years, which could inflict undue psychological damage on those who want to see a particular individual die, a case of deferred justice. In the end realistically very little is gained when electing to execute an individual over the punishment of life imprisonment for the sake of vengeance alone. Instead by electing to utilize an unnecessary and potentially savage response over one that is appropriate in its own right society could lose another shred of its humanity.
If deterrence and vengeance as reasonable motivating factors for utilizing the death penalty are eliminated, what makes the death penalty useful? Despite its flaws, the death penalty is remarkably effective as a bargaining chip for prosecutors when negotiating plea agreements with eligible criminals in question. The fear provided by the death penalty may not work as an effective deterrent in the prevention of certain crimes, but is effective in neutralizing the vigor in which a criminal may desire a trial. Whether or not this is actually a good thing is debatable. In a logical and perfect world one would conclude that only an individual that is actually guilty of a crime would plead guilty, but unfortunately due to fear and psychological trauma that ideal is not always achieved as individuals not guilty of the crimes they are accused of have pled guilty to lesser offenses or been found guilty by a jury.
So the death penalty may be a great negotiating tool only because of its greatest flaw, its finality. Clearly individuals in the past and more than likely in the present have been killed for crimes in which they have later been exonerated. Therefore, an individual that is not guilty may believe that pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty might be the only way to eventually prove his/her innocence of the accused crime and still have a life to live when this innocence is recognized. The fact that this psychological belief even exists demonstrates a great failure of the criminal justice system.
By stripping the death penalty of a worthy and significant purpose, the proverbial ‘death penalty horse’ has been shot and killed, but just to be thorough it is time to pick up a stick and commence wailing on it. Even if the death penalty did have a worthwhile purpose there would still exist multiple fronts in which opponents could attack both its philosophical existence (even when excluding moral arguments) and its execution (no pun intended). The primary goal of the prison system in general seems to be rehabilitation not punishment. The use of the death penalty displaces that goal for it is impossible for one to become a productive member of society if one is dead. It could be argued that the same failure occurs when an individual is sentenced to life without parole, but such a belief is in error.
Although an individual sentenced to life without parole will never be able to reemerge into society as a changed individual, if the individual is indeed rehabilitated he/she can instruct other individuals within jail and in society on what mistakes to avoid and provide other information and experiences that could better both the prison society and non-prison society. In response to those that believe certain individuals cannot be rehabilitated, the only way to be sure of such a position is to never give those individuals a chance.
Also when looking at life in prison versus the death penalty from a simple economic argument, the death penalty losses out as in every state that has studied the economic differences between death and life in prison has concluded that executions cost significantly more money mostly due to the required appeals that come with a death sentence to limit the possibility that a not-guilty individual is being put to death. Finally with regards to individuals who are deemed too violent for general population, solitary confinement is always available.
Overall opposition to the death penalty could be driven by any underlying concern for the sanctity of human life, but elements of practicality, efficiency and accuracy also play important roles.
If validating the death penalty through its use as a deterrent is not applicable in reality altering its goal to that of a tool for vengeance seems like the next logical step. The question of whether the death penalty actually serves as a positive psychological tool for the families of the victim is essential to judging the validity of this death penalty goal and purpose. Overall it is a troubling thought to think that families actually receive some level of satisfaction when the criminal is put to death over sentencing the criminal to permanent incarceration, but for the sake of argument consider for a moment that this reaction is indeed the case.
Why is it that the ‘vengeance’ mentality demands the ‘eye for an eye’ treatment in this situation? Although ‘ an eye for an eye’ can be regarded as an appropriate reaction, the concern is that some have come to believe that it is the only appropriate response available, which is not correct. Clearly a single action has many different reactions of differing severities. It is unrealistic to believe that only one specific response among a multitude of possible responses is appropriate instead there are a number of different options for redress and justice.
Why do some individuals look upon a lifetime of imprisonment as inappropriate? One of the worst things you can do to an individual is restrict or remove freedom. Although one could argue that the worst thing that can happen to an individual is the loss of his/her life, with suicide rates greater than zero clearly other individuals believe that living in certain circumstances are worse than death. From a psychological perspective restricting the freedom of an individual for the rest of his/her life appears to be an appropriate response for the vengeance seeking individual set on inflicting a significant level of suffering to the criminal as redress for the crime. For certain individuals one could regard life imprisonment as a worse punishment than death for certain individuals.
In regards to what comforts death offers a family over life imprisonment, any significant difference seems rare as both death and life imprisonment remove the ability of the individual to repeat the action against an individual that the family would regard as important or even society in general. The death itself may not be as tragic an event for the criminal as desired because of acceptance of the inevitable.
Also the numerous appeals and legal hurdles rightly involved in an execution typically provides delays of multiple years, which could inflict undue psychological damage on those who want to see a particular individual die, a case of deferred justice. In the end realistically very little is gained when electing to execute an individual over the punishment of life imprisonment for the sake of vengeance alone. Instead by electing to utilize an unnecessary and potentially savage response over one that is appropriate in its own right society could lose another shred of its humanity.
If deterrence and vengeance as reasonable motivating factors for utilizing the death penalty are eliminated, what makes the death penalty useful? Despite its flaws, the death penalty is remarkably effective as a bargaining chip for prosecutors when negotiating plea agreements with eligible criminals in question. The fear provided by the death penalty may not work as an effective deterrent in the prevention of certain crimes, but is effective in neutralizing the vigor in which a criminal may desire a trial. Whether or not this is actually a good thing is debatable. In a logical and perfect world one would conclude that only an individual that is actually guilty of a crime would plead guilty, but unfortunately due to fear and psychological trauma that ideal is not always achieved as individuals not guilty of the crimes they are accused of have pled guilty to lesser offenses or been found guilty by a jury.
So the death penalty may be a great negotiating tool only because of its greatest flaw, its finality. Clearly individuals in the past and more than likely in the present have been killed for crimes in which they have later been exonerated. Therefore, an individual that is not guilty may believe that pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty might be the only way to eventually prove his/her innocence of the accused crime and still have a life to live when this innocence is recognized. The fact that this psychological belief even exists demonstrates a great failure of the criminal justice system.
By stripping the death penalty of a worthy and significant purpose, the proverbial ‘death penalty horse’ has been shot and killed, but just to be thorough it is time to pick up a stick and commence wailing on it. Even if the death penalty did have a worthwhile purpose there would still exist multiple fronts in which opponents could attack both its philosophical existence (even when excluding moral arguments) and its execution (no pun intended). The primary goal of the prison system in general seems to be rehabilitation not punishment. The use of the death penalty displaces that goal for it is impossible for one to become a productive member of society if one is dead. It could be argued that the same failure occurs when an individual is sentenced to life without parole, but such a belief is in error.
Although an individual sentenced to life without parole will never be able to reemerge into society as a changed individual, if the individual is indeed rehabilitated he/she can instruct other individuals within jail and in society on what mistakes to avoid and provide other information and experiences that could better both the prison society and non-prison society. In response to those that believe certain individuals cannot be rehabilitated, the only way to be sure of such a position is to never give those individuals a chance.
Also when looking at life in prison versus the death penalty from a simple economic argument, the death penalty losses out as in every state that has studied the economic differences between death and life in prison has concluded that executions cost significantly more money mostly due to the required appeals that come with a death sentence to limit the possibility that a not-guilty individual is being put to death. Finally with regards to individuals who are deemed too violent for general population, solitary confinement is always available.
Overall opposition to the death penalty could be driven by any underlying concern for the sanctity of human life, but elements of practicality, efficiency and accuracy also play important roles.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Progress at Durban?
The two sides of contrast in the COP-17 agreement at Durban seem to divide on the perspective of goal advancement. Assume for a moment that the necessary emission reductions and other necessary strategies (leaning more towards various geo-engineering applications) can be akin to society collecting 10 fireflies in a jar. Suppose the consequence to not collecting these fireflies in a certain time frame is death.
The group who believes that Durban is a success could argue that Durban captured one firefly, finally the ‘developing’ nations like China and India acknowledge that they will need to cut emissions in consort with the developed nations not after. These individuals could also argue that those who view Durban as a failure are being unreasonable, assuming that a vast majority, if not all, of the fireflies could be captured in a single swipe of the jar. The ‘Durban was a success’ crowd believes that the best strategy for capturing all ten fireflies is to capture one firefly at a time and because Durban seems to have done just that it should be considered a success.
The ‘Durban was a failure’ crowd believes this mindset is foolish. This criticism flows one of two ways. First, society has not collected 10 fireflies yet and until that happens nothing else should be viewed as a success. Overall while understandable, this mindset is rather counterproductive and unrealistic because no rational person would conclude that such a dramatic shift in human society could occur in a single element short-time frame.
Second, even if you could argue that Durban was a success based on both the U.S., China, India, etc. actually agreeing, despite no binding elements, to reduce emissions within a global carbon scheme the problem is timing. Assume that both China and the U.S. actually live up to this pledge, a critic could state that why should people be happy about capturing one firefly, a firefly that has been evading the jar for over ten years since Kyoto. Does society really have the luxury of spending an average of ten years capturing each one of the remaining nine fireflies?
A critic could argue that perhaps it is time for a new strategy to capture these fireflies, one that does not involve aimlessly running around wildly swinging a jar (global climate conferences). Recall that a number of individuals believed that this ‘Durban’ firefly was captured in Bali in 2007 and the final details from Bali were supposed to be addressed in Copenhagen in 2009, all interested parties know how that turned out.
The biggest telling point in the above criticism is that with no binding elements in the agreement the proverbial can has simply been kicked down the street until the next conference, something society has been doing for the last decade. Without binding elements that could penalize non-participating or non-complying countries such emission agreements are equal to having a sizable hole in the jar where whether or not any fireflies remain captive is at the discretion of the firefly not society. When it is in the interest of the firefly to be free it is difficult to consider the possibility that it will voluntarily restrict itself for the sake of others.
The group who believes that Durban is a success could argue that Durban captured one firefly, finally the ‘developing’ nations like China and India acknowledge that they will need to cut emissions in consort with the developed nations not after. These individuals could also argue that those who view Durban as a failure are being unreasonable, assuming that a vast majority, if not all, of the fireflies could be captured in a single swipe of the jar. The ‘Durban was a success’ crowd believes that the best strategy for capturing all ten fireflies is to capture one firefly at a time and because Durban seems to have done just that it should be considered a success.
The ‘Durban was a failure’ crowd believes this mindset is foolish. This criticism flows one of two ways. First, society has not collected 10 fireflies yet and until that happens nothing else should be viewed as a success. Overall while understandable, this mindset is rather counterproductive and unrealistic because no rational person would conclude that such a dramatic shift in human society could occur in a single element short-time frame.
Second, even if you could argue that Durban was a success based on both the U.S., China, India, etc. actually agreeing, despite no binding elements, to reduce emissions within a global carbon scheme the problem is timing. Assume that both China and the U.S. actually live up to this pledge, a critic could state that why should people be happy about capturing one firefly, a firefly that has been evading the jar for over ten years since Kyoto. Does society really have the luxury of spending an average of ten years capturing each one of the remaining nine fireflies?
A critic could argue that perhaps it is time for a new strategy to capture these fireflies, one that does not involve aimlessly running around wildly swinging a jar (global climate conferences). Recall that a number of individuals believed that this ‘Durban’ firefly was captured in Bali in 2007 and the final details from Bali were supposed to be addressed in Copenhagen in 2009, all interested parties know how that turned out.
The biggest telling point in the above criticism is that with no binding elements in the agreement the proverbial can has simply been kicked down the street until the next conference, something society has been doing for the last decade. Without binding elements that could penalize non-participating or non-complying countries such emission agreements are equal to having a sizable hole in the jar where whether or not any fireflies remain captive is at the discretion of the firefly not society. When it is in the interest of the firefly to be free it is difficult to consider the possibility that it will voluntarily restrict itself for the sake of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)