Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
more volatility: pain in transition
I have a theory about the social order, and the generally glacial pace of change in societal institutions that need change. I would posit that most people in the US believe the public education system needs reworking, and that the same people would agree that health care / insurance is broken in the current model; it is not a stretch to claim that many people find the tax regime in need of accelerated evolution.
The problem with changing any of these macro level societal constructions is not necessarily with the alternative version (let's call it the "end point" of the change) but in the transition period. Take the tax regime change as an example.
Tax assessment and collection policies affect every last bit of the economy, in varying degrees of explicit visibility. A wholesale change of those policies would have severe immediate and long term effects, some of which would necessarily be unexpected. But consider a circumstance where sufficient political will and public support rallied behind an idea to change the US tax regime from the current multi-tiered, highly stratified and nuanced set of rules to a fixed percentage flat tax on net worth accretion (I'm not advocating for this system, just making an example.)
I have come to believe that one huge obstacle to making this sort of change, even as an experiment, is that we cannot stomach the volatility, or the pain in the transition from the status quo to the new end point. It's a fear of the unknown, on a societal scale. If the tax example is too impersonal in its effects to make a good example, consider the debate over reworking social security.
The upshot of that argument is that the economics of the current system are unsustainable and that if some of the mechanics are not tweaked, the system will go "bankrupt" in the near future. Opponents to change tend to argue that changes in medias res are not fair to those who have been paying into the system under a given set of assumptions; further arguments might suggest that we cannot know the ultimate effects of changes for those most in need of the safety net provided by social security. The solution to the problem at hand may be clear, but we are hemmed in by fear of the volatility in the transition.
I'm still working through these thoughts and trying to form a cogent and coherent narrative about humans and volatility.
The problem with changing any of these macro level societal constructions is not necessarily with the alternative version (let's call it the "end point" of the change) but in the transition period. Take the tax regime change as an example.
Tax assessment and collection policies affect every last bit of the economy, in varying degrees of explicit visibility. A wholesale change of those policies would have severe immediate and long term effects, some of which would necessarily be unexpected. But consider a circumstance where sufficient political will and public support rallied behind an idea to change the US tax regime from the current multi-tiered, highly stratified and nuanced set of rules to a fixed percentage flat tax on net worth accretion (I'm not advocating for this system, just making an example.)
I have come to believe that one huge obstacle to making this sort of change, even as an experiment, is that we cannot stomach the volatility, or the pain in the transition from the status quo to the new end point. It's a fear of the unknown, on a societal scale. If the tax example is too impersonal in its effects to make a good example, consider the debate over reworking social security.
The upshot of that argument is that the economics of the current system are unsustainable and that if some of the mechanics are not tweaked, the system will go "bankrupt" in the near future. Opponents to change tend to argue that changes in medias res are not fair to those who have been paying into the system under a given set of assumptions; further arguments might suggest that we cannot know the ultimate effects of changes for those most in need of the safety net provided by social security. The solution to the problem at hand may be clear, but we are hemmed in by fear of the volatility in the transition.
I'm still working through these thoughts and trying to form a cogent and coherent narrative about humans and volatility.
Friday, May 6, 2011
all in the cards
I bought an economy pack of unlined index cards from Amazon and suggested to my beautiful and creative wife that we create our own "flash cards" for sharing bits of learning with our son.
Mom rocked this one! We also have 26 of these suckers featuring the alphabet. And the best part, is if the kid gets them dirty or covered in slobber, we can just make new ones!
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
can the arts "mark to market"?
Generically speaking, an investment should be continuously evaluated based on evolving circumstances. I'm wondering if the same sort of approach should apply to appreciation of the arts.
Here's a specific example: should Led Zeppelin's music be evaluated in relation to current rock&roll, or i it's original, historical context? Put another way, if there had never been a Led Zeppelin, and then in the midst of your 2011 media consumption you heard Dazed and Confused or Stairway to Heaven...what would you think?
I'm curious about TV as well...I caught a bit of an All in the Family episode recently, and it struck me as a reasonably good chunk of entertainment, with a good mix of social commentary (some of it dated, but not all), and some explorations of more universal themes (gender relations, husband/wife dynamics, working class struggles). But the show is SO different from current sitcoms (and dramas, depending on which category you drop AITF into)...say, for example, if you wanted to compare AITF to 30 Rock...both shows use some exaggerated caricatures to make fun of our society, but the plot lines of a typical Liz Lemon episode are generally going to cover many narrative threads, where I would suspect that the Archie Bunker episodes generally dealt with one or two. So would today's audiences consider AITF a "good" show?
It's irresponsible to have this conversation and not acknowledge the influence of earlier art on what comes after...would there be a Coldplay if not for U2? But still, as consumers of art and media, we have options on how we allocate that consumption, and that leads back to the initial question.
This post was inspired by me listening to Stairway to Heaven and realizing that, while I enjoyed it, the song could also be taken as grandiose and maybe a bit cheesy.
Here's a specific example: should Led Zeppelin's music be evaluated in relation to current rock&roll, or i it's original, historical context? Put another way, if there had never been a Led Zeppelin, and then in the midst of your 2011 media consumption you heard Dazed and Confused or Stairway to Heaven...what would you think?
I'm curious about TV as well...I caught a bit of an All in the Family episode recently, and it struck me as a reasonably good chunk of entertainment, with a good mix of social commentary (some of it dated, but not all), and some explorations of more universal themes (gender relations, husband/wife dynamics, working class struggles). But the show is SO different from current sitcoms (and dramas, depending on which category you drop AITF into)...say, for example, if you wanted to compare AITF to 30 Rock...both shows use some exaggerated caricatures to make fun of our society, but the plot lines of a typical Liz Lemon episode are generally going to cover many narrative threads, where I would suspect that the Archie Bunker episodes generally dealt with one or two. So would today's audiences consider AITF a "good" show?
It's irresponsible to have this conversation and not acknowledge the influence of earlier art on what comes after...would there be a Coldplay if not for U2? But still, as consumers of art and media, we have options on how we allocate that consumption, and that leads back to the initial question.
This post was inspired by me listening to Stairway to Heaven and realizing that, while I enjoyed it, the song could also be taken as grandiose and maybe a bit cheesy.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)