According to an article in the Atlantic Monthly, “The supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration stands in opposition to the principles of an open society, which recognize that people have different views and that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth.”

Do you accept the assertion that there is no ultimate truth?

Scientists might say there is: science.

And, those of faith would say there is.

(and those two belief systems are not mutually exclusive, by the way.)

Is freedom not a universal ideal we should strive for?

If you say no, then do you believe there should not be a universal acceptance of what is right and what is wrong?

Under any circumstance, is genocide ok?

Is terrorism ok?

If you say no, then you are accepting a universal belief. And, this makes you are a supremacist, because you are unwilling to accept these things under any circumstance.

The logical rule as it relates to supremacy is not necessarily valid unless you believe the “universal belief” should apply to all people irrespective of their belief.  For instance, if “terrorism is not ok,” then that would mean your belief is superior to those who believe terrorism is ok, which is different than an “ultimate truth,” which you believe, but are willing to accept alternative beliefs, and don’t necessarily think your belief is superior to another person’s belief.  For example, I believe that Christianity is the “ultimate truth,” but not necessarily a “universal belief.” I do not feel my beliefs are superior to a Buddhist’s beliefs.

Where do you draw the line in accepting opposing points of view, in a free society, to use language consistent with George’s?

Is polygamy ok? Is the oppression of women ok? Is blowing people up in the name of allah, or chopping people’s heads off ok? Is it ok to have 23 babies?

American express donated money to build part of a public park in downtown buenos aires. Also, check out these street signs with Sony ericsson ads on them.

Is the US memorializing its contribution to building schools and infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan in such a way?

Also, why not solicit more advertising bucks for public works? (there are ads on bus stops and in metro stations) but why not Coke Street? Or, Hyundai Park?

The circumstances that led to the Argentine economic crises (1999-2002) seem to have a lot of correlation to our current state of affairs.

I wonder if it would be possible to develop a private, precious-metal backed currency, which people could hold as a hedge against government stupidity and hyper-inflation?

This new currency would be safer than holding precious metal securities (the government has the power to cease stock exchanges from trading), and securities are generally vulnerable to manipulation. Not to mention the vulnerability of 1’s and 0’s (electronic trading) to cyber-hacking.

It’s also a more practical solution than holding gold and other precious metals in a vault.

As part of the currency’s charter, an independent auditing firm would periodically affirm its legitimacy.

Counterfeiting may be an issue, but American Express is able to manage risk exposure with its Traveler’s Checks…

“Over the long term, the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory.”

– Robert Gates

Why can’t we deploy the collective genius of Mad Avenue, to help win over the hearts and minds of those who hate us?

It seems to me that the ideals of peace, freedom, prosperity and democracy, as well as the substance of our foreign aid, non-governmental and academic assistance to those in need can easily win over the doctrine of terrorism, hate, and  tyranny.

California passed the high speed rail initiative this November, which will have a total price tag in excess of $40 billion. The project won’t be completed until 2020. Meanwhile, it looks like the state of California is headed towards bankruptcy.

I propose here that by 2020 the high speed train will be obsolete, because we will have self-driving cars that are also emissions free. Highway efficiency will be greatly enhanced (traffic jams will be of a bygone era), accidents will be virtually eliminated, and the vehicles will move as fast as the high speed train on Highway 5, the main highway running between San Diego and Sacramento.

And, vehicles will be able to be rented on-demand from your mobile device (the rental vehicle will drive itself to you!). Wouldn’t you rather travel comfortably in a private, high speed pod car equipped with a big screen television and a minibar, than on a crowded train that runs on a schedule?

And, the solution is a bottom up solution vs. a massive public expenditure, which is a concept I hope we don’t lose sight of in the era of hundred billion dollar bailouts and “stimulus” plans.

I am updating this post as a result of a great question by Melissa in comments, who doesn’t think the technology will be real by 2020.  But, the technology for self-driving or robotic cars already exists. The DARPA Grand Challenge showed a robotic car successfully navigate an urban setting. Also, have you seen the parking assist feature on a Lexus LS 460? Basically, the car takes over and parallel parks for you. Also, the Lexus has pre-collision assistance, so the car will apply the brakes automatically, if you are unsafely approaching a car or other obstacle ahead.  See previous post here on Sharkride. So, I believe within 11 years there’s no question this technology will be perfected, and commercialized, and you will be able to sit back and watch the news or read a kindle from the comforts of your speeding pod car.

As part of the Inspired Economist’s plan to create 25 million new green jobs within 3-5 years, and to reduce the government deficit by $100 billion, Ramsay Mameesh propses cutting the prison population by 1/2.

How could we safely and responsibly do that?

If at risk populations (such as returning Vets or urban youth) and current inmates are psychologically rehabilitated and have a realistic plan and career purpose.

This could be accomplished by CBT methods pioneered at UCSF and Stanford, and could be administered by automated computer systems, without expensive one-to-one therapist and other expensive consumables. What a great problem to try to tackle!

thought this article written by Clayton Christensen and Jerome Grossman and Jason Hwang is particularly good.

From my own research:

Twenty-five percent of the U.S. community population are reported to have one or more of five major chronic conditions:

• Mood disorders.
• Diabetes.
• Heart disease.
• Asthma.
• Hypertension.

Total expenses for people with these five major chronic conditions accounts for ~ 49 percent of total health care costs.

And, I’ve heard that all chronic conditions actually represent around 85% of spending.

The really interesting thing to me is that technology is well positioned to disrupt current models of care for these chronic conditions. Internet-based interventions can potentially treat mood disorders and hypertension (in lieu of expensive pharmaceuticals and other consumables). The Internet can also be used to more effectively manage diabetes and heart disease, to decrease the risks of these diseases, as well as prescribe preventative measures for those in the population at risk of these conditions.

I’ve heard the analogy that routine healthcare (checkups) etc. should be treated like a car’s oil change, an out of pocket expense, and insurance should be structured, to focus on catastrophic or emergency health.

Imagine if on our tax bills we got an itemized report of where and in what amounts our money is going (sort of like an itemized restaurant bill).

How would this change the public’s support and priorities for spending?

How granular would the reporting be – at least something along these lines…

Where exactly are your taxes going? (these figures are purely presentational, and not representative of real allocations)

Department of Agriculture – $84
Department of Commerce – $150
Department of Defense – $344
National Intelligence Program – $176
Department of Education – $85
Department of Energy – $47
Department of Health and Human Services – $54
Department of Homeland Security – $103
Department of Housing and Urban Development – $66
Department of the Interior – $34
Deparment of Justice – $44
Department of Labor – $56
Department of State and other international programs – $77
Department of Transportation – $25
Department of Treasury – $18
Department of Veteran Affairs – $22
Corp of Engineers – $19
Environmental protection Agency – $9
NASA – $ 16
National Science Foundation – $12
Small Business Administration – $17
Social Security Administration – $14

It’s clear that capitalism without checks can run a muck, and we’re entering a new economic era, a sort of hybrid capitalist and socialist system, where the government intervenes in markets, and bailouts mismanaged businesses.

The $700  billion bailout will currently ultimately have to be either paid for by Americans via some sort of combination of taxes and inflation.

So, here’s my proposal (I hope I can take credit for it – I have not seen anybody propose it yet):

American citizens under the age of 50 (and an optional buy-in for people over 50) should have a transparent tax allocated to the bailout, to purchase equity securities in the banks and automakers (right now, the government is buying and holding securities – not the people directly). The equities (or shares of a government-directed mutual fund) would be held in the people’s social security accounts. In 20+ years, the value of these equities will most likely be worth quite a bit more.  An additional benefit of this plan is that the windfall from the likely appreciation of these assets could offset future shortages in social security. Of course, we also need to fix the structural and regulatory problems that led to our current crises.

Also, taking this one step further, the government clearly has an interest in developing industry in America, and it’s clear that the scope of our healthcare, energy, transportation, and security problems may be beyond the capacity of private industry to fix by itself.  So, another complementary proposal is that an independent commission outside the influence of politics (a la the Federal Reserve) would make direct (and completely transparent) investments in startups and other business initiatives that are vital to America’s future.

There is precedence for variations of this.  The CIA, for instance, funds In-Q-Tel, a taxpayer funded venture capital firm that invests in startups working on technology that has strategic importance to our national security. Also, funds like CALPERS already make investments on behalf of public employees. And, the government is already a critically important funder of scientific research.

We, the tax payers of America, will pay to resuscitate American business one way or another, so this should take the form of direct investments in which we will ultimately directly benefit.

I often credit Bill Clinton for his pragmatic and moderate presidency, and his support and championing of traditionally Republican issues like free trade, welfare reform, and fiscal conservatism (Under Clinton, we had balanced budget and surplus for the first time since 1969). However, I falsely use this example as a rationale for supporting Barack, who I view as being Clintonian in many ways.

If you remember the facts of the Clinton administration, it paints a different picture. The republicans gained complete control of Congress in 1995, and remained in power until the end of the Clinton presidency.  Remember the Contract with America? It included The Fiscal Responsibility Act, which tried to give the President line item veto powers and a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget.

So, it’s pretty clear that Clinton had to compromise with congress, and he wisely takes credit for what the republicans made him do.

And, now, Barack is known as the candidate, who is stronger than McCain on economic issues? He can thank the Clinton legacy for this distinction. Before Clinton, the democrats had to answer to the disastrous and failed economic policies of Jimmy Carter. The republicans have lost credibility on economic affairs, because Bush and congressional republicans have squandered the opportunity to maintain the principles and ideals of the republican party.