Various Thoughts XV

I have no bucket list. There's nothing I want to do that is not part of my ordinary life. I don't mean there is nothing left, only that there is nothing that I find missing from my life that needs to be done before I die. I'm satisfied with what I do and what I have. All I want for my remaining time (may it be long) is to continue living the way I have been up until now. I am rich. According to Ben Zoma, the rich man is "The one who is satisfied with what he has…" I'm satisfied. What I did yesterday I'll do today. I don't need to see Bali Bali.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

One of the biggest areas of contention in our time is income inequality. There are certainly many who are happy living off handouts, or engaging in projects that yield illegal gains. They're a minority, though, and I won't consider them in this effort. And the issue of the power of the rich – especially the multinational corporations – must be considered as well.

Most people blame the inequality on the rich, without considering why they're rich. They would end incentives to progress. And there is no consideration of how their resources affect others. Perhaps they pay low salaries, but maybe not. Still there are inequalities, justified or not. What can we do? And should we do it?

Perhaps the most striking example of the discontent it has caused was the “Occupy Wall Street Movement” and its numerous spin-offs. The protesters railed against the 1% without ever defining them. Some were involved in business, but many are sports stars and entertainment figures. In fact the latter groups may be the majority. I don't know (I don't have the expertise) but I'm suspicious. They're people we love and admire and who admonish us about whom to elect. And the politicians themselves of course – especially former presidents and others who command obscene speaking fees or otherwise benefit from their influence. In all likelihood the majority of people who make up the 1% aren't those we imagine them to be.

But those issues are misleading. The protest organizers' actual goal is activity rather than achievement – the appearance of accomplishing rather than any actual accomplishment. They're interested in ideology and bragging rights. When confronting the 1% they paint them as evil capitalists who oppress everyone else and who should pay for all of the projects advocated by the leaders of the dissent. And when it serves their purposes, they move on and draw their followers into another crusade.

Notwithstanding the induced antics of the insurgents, however, there is a problem of increasing income inequalities that should be addressed. The problem is a difficult one because it not only involves workers and management, but also stockholders, consumers, those in other countries, economists, advertising firms, and a variety of others. And it involves patent rights, lawsuits by consumers, development of products and services, marketing, as well as numerous other functions. We have laws against usury, laws limiting the amount which credit card companies can charge, Medicare and similar agencies that limit the income of their target groups. And bureaucracies that control prices. Is it possible to limit profits and salaries of executives in some of our companies? And if there were limitations on what could go to stockholders there would be more money available for workers' salaries. Extensive bookkeeping and auditing would be necessary to ensure calculations according to standards established for those industries, but it would allow some diminution of the inequality while allowing reasonably high salaries for a firm's directors.

Similarly, the power and influence of multinational firms should be limited by preventing their representatives them from interactions with public officials – especially those in other countries. Perhaps we're too forgiving of the mergers of large firms when we investigate the economic consequences of a merger and display less interest in the political.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A final thought. Cleaning up after a flood or other natural disaster is enormously expensive. Where possible, we might consider ending flood and other insurance if people have collected on it twice. Clearly that couldn't apply to cities or other relatively high population centers.

It makes sense, however, when considering areas at high risk of flood, fire, and wind damage. An area subject to the payment of insurance claims, as well as the cost of repairing infrastructure damage, will be a recurring drain on the resources of taxpayers with the sense to live in safer places. It would require relocation of people from homes established by their ancestors, but perhaps the funds saved could be used to build new towns that are safer than the old. The saving of citizens' lives is even more important than the money.

We might even lower other entitlements to cover expenses. They've piled up over the years but perhaps they were instituted to get votes, and we'd be better off without them. Savings there could also be used for relocation efforts, and even to fund job training so the entitlements would be less necessary.

But our first priority should be to get our citizens out of harm's way. We've gotten better at predicting disasters. Preventing them and protecting Americans would be more desirable, and it might be economically advantageous.

September 5, 2017