Before Comey Takes the Stand..

I’ve been relatively quiet on the Trump matter since I started this blog.  It’s not because I haven’t been paying attention.  On the contrary, I’ve been studying Trump’s rise and time in the office more intensely than I’ve studied anything in my adult life.  The rise of Trump to power will likely go down as one of the most fascinating moments in our young human history.

I’ve done my best to track articles, ‘news’, and commentary from both sides, as well as engaging with some of the most intelligent people I could find representing the full spectrum.  I’ve already put my money where my mouth is by pushing my portfolio to cash, but I also wanted to document my position here before it looks like I did it through hindsight.

I’m not a fan of facts.  Not because they can’t be true by definition, but because they’re only brief glimpses into a greater truth which, without context, can obscure perception.  It’s much like watching brief clips of a movie without being able to see the movie.  It’s true that each clip was part of the movie, but seeing them out of context doesn’t lend to understanding the true nature of the film.  For me, I search for patterns.  Patterns tend to repeat themselves and are therefore much more enduring when it comes to understanding the greater truth.

Trump’s not a good person.  He’s not a very smart person either.  He’s likely guilty, but he wasn’t smart enough to put this together.  In all likelihood, he’s being used – the extent of which he probably doesn’t realize.  I doubt that it’s a single entity or a grand collusion behind Trump, I think it’s more likely that it’s been a patch-worked collaborative effort by several groups who realized they could push their agenda through Trump.

This is a game in which Trump is a pawn who doesn’t realize he’s a pawn.  Ironically, several other players on the board, like the Russians and The Koch brothers think they’re pulling the strings, but even they’re pawns in a much larger game.  This is a game of love versus fear.

 

The Economic Case for Universal Health Care

So with health care being top of mind for a lot of people right now, I’ve been giving the system some thought as well.  In the states, generally speaking, conservatives think healthcare should be left to the private sector and that people should should be able to source their own coverage.  Liberals, generally speaking, think health care is a basic right and the government should assist in making sure everyone is covered.

The frustrating thing about politics for me is that these aren’t conversations about the most efficient way forward, these debates simply an arena where governing parties fight for power and control.  I say this with confidence because if you think about it carefully, both sides are right but they can’t see it.  Rather than working together and coming up with a solution that accommodates the priorities of both sides, those involved seem more interested in obstructing their opposition.

Healthcare should be privatized because privatization isn’t an evil word.  In fact, all it really means is opening that business opportunity up to the public.  As it turns out, the general population is filled with awesome ideas and great entrepreneurs who can bring them to market.  Add in some competition with one another and we’ll find some pretty fantastic ways to deliver healthcare to those who need it.

People should be able to source their own coverage.  Why?  For the same reason we should be able to choose our own internet provider, streaming subscription, or gym membership.  Where we choose to spend money reflects our preferences and our preferences let our providers know where they should be competing hardest.

All that said, health care should absolutely be a basic human right and the government should absolutely have a hand in providing health care to those without the means to provide it to themselves.  I’ll even explain why with basic economic theory.

So I have this theory that right and wrong are human constructs which are actually based in efficiency (I’ll explore that more in another post once I’ve refined the theory a bit more). Effectively, the most efficient manner of accomplishing long-term progress is perceived to be both the most moral and ethical way forward. This is because for it to be the most efficient path forward, it must take all variables into consideration and deliver us to our end goal with the least amount of effort and time.

The next concept that needs to be touched on is comparative advantage. It’s a basic economic theory which essentially says that we’re all built a little differently, and that if we’re able to figure out what we do really well, we should do the hell out of it. Everyone produces what they’re absolutely best at, and trade helps goods and services end up where they should.

Most republicans and economists recognize comparative advantage to be fundamental to the free market – and for good reason. But for people to reach the peak of their comparative advantage, they require favourable circumstances. People on welfare, working minimum wage jobs, etc. are unlikely to be producing at their highest levels (AKA maximum utility) and without more favourable circumstances, never will. I get the classic conservative approach of taking it upon yourself to create your own favourable circumstances – I often tell people to be the change that they seek, but it’s not always in the cards.  For you hold’em players out there, let’s use a poker analogy. Would you rather have pocket aces and hit nothing on the board or a 7/2 off-suit and hit nothing on the board? Most people will choose the aces, but statistically, both are losing hands. I think the best thing the government can do for itself and for its people is help the person holding aces to a hand where they flop the other two aces and the 7/2 to a flop with the other three 7s.

If we can do that, the entire country transforms and becomes an unparalleled powerhouse of production, delivering levels of value that we didn’t even realize were possible. Cost of universal health care in that scenario? Negligible.

I know, I know, what does comparative advantage and maximum utility have to do with healthcare? Stephen Hawking. He’s said on multiple occasions that he would likely be dead without access to the NHS, Britain’s public healthcare system. If that’s true, what if he had been born in the US? He’s one of my favourite examples of someone who was dealt a 7/2 offset, but because he existed in a system which wanted to give him every opportunity to reach his maximum utility, he was given the chance to make his contribution.

Would you agree that the value Hawking has provided to the world has exceeded the health care services he has provided? Perhaps my biggest point here is that everyone *should have* the opportunity to make their greatest contribution to society. Some of us are able to earn it, but as circumstance would have it, for those like Hawking it must be given.  Healthcare included.

Using Google’s Algorithm to Solve Democracy

So I don’t sleep much.  My issue is that when the lights go off and I climb in bed, instead of my brain thinking that it’s time to sleep, it think’s that it’s now time for an un-interrupted thought session.

Last night, at about 2AM I turned to the other person in my bed and announced that I might have solved democracy with an application of Google’s search algorithm.  Fortunately for me, I wasn’t greeted with a pillow to the face and I was given an opportunity to explain what I meant.

When defining democracy, it’s essentially a system of government by the people, for the people.  I don’t see a fundamental flaw in that regard, but I do see a fundamental flaw in our application of democracy to the election process. Even with variations like the electoral college system, democratic elections are still determined primarily by the popular vote – and that’s the problem.

Back in grade 9, I ran for student council.  I was the representative for the grade 8 class, so why not.  I was one of two people who were voted in.  The second was a classmate named Collin who was egged on by the popular crowd to run.  The problem is that Collin had very few intentions of actually participating on the council.  He was elected, partly as a practical joke and partly as an act of defiance.  This was the first time I had experienced a failure of a democratic election and certainly wasn’t the last.

If we agree that the purpose of a democratic election is to collectively select the leader most capable of leading, then we have a fantastic starting point.  Where that falls out of line with the democratic process though, is that all votes are counted equally.  That makes the assumption that everyone is equally capable of selecting the most capable leader.  Effectively, someone who has put no effort into understanding who’s most fit to lead has an equal vote to someone who’s put in a tremendous amount of effort.  That’s strikes me as an efficient process.

Imagine if a company’s CEO was determined by the popular vote of its employees and customers.  Sounds fun, but how qualified are those individuals to make that decision?  A search for a major CEO is a highly strategic endeavor in which significant resources are dedicated to finding the absolute best candidates, and vetting them to the nth degree.  Would it not make sense to apply a similar strategy to electing a president or prime minister?  For most companies, the CEO is elected by a board of directors and the board of directors are elected by the company’s shareholders.  Effectively, you have people who are highly educated on the operations of that business, have had a chance to review all the candidates personally, and have selected the person who’s best capable of leading that company – in theory.

I certainly wouldn’t be the first person to suggest applying business principles to government, but I think this approach falls short of the end goal as well.  Let’s use the states as an example with a 320 million person voting base and let’s say that this hypothetical board of directors that would be responsible for selecting a president was 20 members deep.  So the 320 million Americans would elect those 20 board members and those board members would elect the president, but this doesn’t solve the issue of people choosing someone they don’t know, whose policies they don’t understand, for a role they don’t entirely comprehend.  That board of directors becomes another exercise in the popular vote, but now they’ve also been given the autonomy to select someone who may not be in the public’s best interest.  Somehow, the elected leader needs to be reflective of the general population’s best interests, but be selected by those who are capable of making such decisions.  Enter Google.

I suspect that the majority of people who use Google know that it’ll do a fantastic job of helping you find something, but they might not understand what’s happening behind the scenes.  The way it was explained to me was with a soccer team.  How do you determine the best player on the team?  Is it the player who scores the most goals?  Is it who the crowd cheers loudest for?  Probably not as defense wins championships and fans are fickle.  Based on the Google Algorithm, a player’s value is determined by the passes they receive.  Effectively, if they receive more passes than the average player, they’re simply identified as a more important player.  The best player is simply determined by which player receives the most passes from the most important players.

Makes sense right?  Well let’s take that one step further and recognize that what Google has really done is created an algorithm that identifies and then prioritizes trust.  The best player on the team receives the ball more more often from other top players because they trust that player to be more capable.  This trust factor is important when discussing the relationship that most voters have with their candidates.  Most career politicians seem to have issues with integrity and keeping promises, yet every cycle, millions of voters talk about how they trust their preferred candidate.  Personally, I think it’s unreasonable to trust someone you’ve never met, let alone seen how they behave when their morals and integrity are challenged.  The reality is that it’s unfair to expect these individuals to choose a leader simply because they’re not equipped to do so.  Another unfortunate reality is that the political system and media are fully aware of this and it’s why every few years, the circus comes to town and the status quo is maintained.

In order to make an educated decision for the leader of a country, you need to have a deep understanding of how government works and you need to have a deep understanding of who that candidate is.  I think I’d be safe in assuming that 99% of Americans who participated in the last election were unqualified to vote by those standards – but they absolutely still deserve a voice.  Time to deploy Google’s algorithm.

The idea is that you may only vote for someone you know and it would be encouraged that you simply prioritize character, integrity, and vision. Neighbourhoods all over the country would then put their trust behind a few key individuals who would then put their trust behind other key individuals.  Through 6 degrees of separation, this algorithm would include just about everyone.  Eventually, the algorithm would produce a group of peers who are effectively the most trusted and capable individuals in the country, and through their votes, they would elect the individual who they deem to be the most capable and trust worthy.

Earlier we agreed that the purpose of a democratic election was to collectively determine the individual most capable of leading.  Democracy solved.