Too much rain!

I will be writing a piece on how weather affects my peace of mind.  As soon as I get piece of mind!

The Role of the Fed

Response to a critique of the Federal Reserve Bank and a debt-free monetary policy:

I think we agree on basic principles, but I cannot see how we can convert to a debt-free monetary policy.  The ability to pay back a loan has inherent value, and there will always be people and institutions willing to capitalize on that.  Ignoring that value would simply be leaving money on the table for others to scoop up.  What is needed, in my opinion, is responsible regulation and oversight of a system that is beyond the comprehension of most people.  That is the correct role of government.

I don’t think it matters much what people think of the Federal Reserve Bank.  Most people simply do not understand how it works.  The “Fed” (as I refer to it) has a role in in keeping the economy healthy through the proper application of monetary policy (it also acts as a lender and regulator).  In order to accomplish this, Congress correctly decided it must have authority outside the domain of politics.  That it is a private corporation keeps important policy decisions from being political footballs.  I would prefer not to imagine what would happen if this authority were extended to Congress!

I am not an avid Fed fan, but I reluctantly support its existence.  I think reform is necessary, and that more transparency should be built into the system.  The actions the Fed took in 2008 (Bear Stearns, etc.) saved our economy from an even deeper collapse.  Like it or not, our monetary system is based on credit, and without short term credit available from lending institutions, many business would simply be wiped out.  Without industry supporting paychecks, we would tailspin into economic ruin.

The idea that most Americans could survive on our own gumption and initiative is a fairy tail.  It is a popular misconception that is encouraged by Tea Party ideologues and Libertarian pundits.  The romantic appeal of American rugged individualism, the Gold Standard, and protectionism simply attracts voters that do not have a good understanding of how things really work.  The disturbing thing to me is how powerful this new right has become.  One of the results in this shift of political thinking is using the Fed as a scapegoat for the economic problems of our times.

The real problem, as I see it, is the distribution of wealth in this country.  It is an unfortunate mathematical reality that those with the most money stand to gain the most by gaming the system.  The nation’s wealth is created on the backs of American workers, but we live in a system where the large majority of workers must spend their paychecks in order to live.  Only when a certain threshold of living standard is reached are funds available to “invest” in the betting game that is becoming more and more the exclusive playground of the truly wealthy.  Until these inequities are addressed, the brutal mathematics of the system will continue to concentrate wealth only for the super rich.

We have, as a nation, have addressed these issues before.  After the Great Depression, Roosevelt reluctantly secured the services of Marriner Eccles and other who correctly identified the problem and guided our country out of the depression and into the most prosperous period of our history (we could get into a whole discussion regarding the efficacy of Keynesian economics, its evolution, and neo-Keynesianism).  Middle class purchasing power drove unprecedented economic growth (at the expense of fewer gold-plated toilets for the super rich).  The government was the correct vehicle for this reform, and investments in infrastructure, relatively loose monetary policy and low interest rates were the engines that drove the change.  We, as a country, cannot leave this up to Wall Street, unbridled capitalism, and the super rich power brokers.

Kevin

PS:  One of the better recent books on this subject is Robert Reich’s Aftershock.  Reich is flawed, but evolved.  His insights are reasonable, and his delivery is digestible.

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”

Meyer Amschell Rothschild

E-readers

My response to a tablet advocate who dismissed current dedicated e-reader technology:

E-readers are designed specifically to facilitate an immersive reading experience.  The elegance of design, take the Kindle, for example, has to be experienced to be appreciated.  For the relatively low entrance cost, most anybody who enjoys reading (especially reading immersive, lineal content like fiction and longer expository pieces) can afford to try this technology.  Tablets, such as the Android and iPad, although excellent for multi-media and anecdotal content, provide a different user experience.

I’m guessing that it won’t be long before tablets can provide the elegance of the e-reader user interface.  The toughie is going to be coming up with something equivalent to the e-ink screen.  I can personally attest to less eyestrain and far more comfort using e-ink technology over backlit displays.  It won’t be long, however, before the backlit displays will be able to emulate or construct on their own display technology that will rival, or even surpass, e-ink in comfort and ease of use.

Another issue, perhaps even more important than comfort and user interface, is the idea that an e-reader is a single-purpose device.  I would be daft to consider myself any kind of expert in sociology or human behavior, but casual observation and my own experience has led me to believe that if distractions exist, I will be distracted.  I could wax endlessly on the virtues of concentration and singe-purposedness, but I choose here to limit my observations to only that which seems self evident: isolating myself with a book, both physically and mentally, provides, for me, a richer and more satisfying reader experience.  If I am in a distracting environment, or if I am in close proximity to a potential distraction, the quality of my reading experience suffers.  For me, reading a book on a computer is akin to reading while watching TV, or reading while listening to music — a fantastic experience for engaging in short snippets of information and collecting anecdotal information from a variety of sources, but less than ideal for an immersive reading experience.

When the day comes that tablets can provide the same comfort and ergonomic advantages of a dedicated e-reader (and it will come);  that will be the day that my own short-comings as a human may dictate my choice of media and delivery device.  I will hazard a guess that as technology becomes more common place, the human experience will become relatively more important.  I cannot envision a future (for me, at least), where I would be hard put to sequester myself into some kind of private corner and allow myself to be transported from my current plane of existence (mundane or otherwise) to some other place, fantastical or intellectual; letting my mind and imagination be carried by spirits other than those concocted principally by coercion or commerce.

 

In reply to a conservative friend who believes we need less government…

The argument that I am making is that we need more “governance.”  Capitalism is an excellent, self-correcting system that assures the accumulation of wealth for the rich and powerful.  Unfortunately, it also assures a form of slavery or at least indentured servitude for those who through lack of opportunity or fortune are not members of the ruling class.

Communism addresses this problem by disseminating the social strata and providing a more equitable distribution of wealth.  It achieves this through the creation of laws designed to limit the accumulation of excessive wealth (much like a governor limits the extreme mechanical action of a motor in a well-engineered mechanical system).  In a modern communist state there would be adequate opportunity for all members of the state to earn a decent living and pursue a satisfying and meaningful life.  There would also be adequate opportunity for enterprising individuals to reap the rewards of their extraordinary labor and accumulate wealth beyond the levels of the average worker.  However, limits would be in place restricting the excessive accumulation of wealth (both for corporations and individuals).  These limits would be laws that “govern” the mechanism of our economy, largely in the form of restrictions put in place to curb actions designed for the accumulation and concentration of wealth.

How does a society go about doing this?

Well, the United States already has begun the process (stopping and going throughout the years).  Because of our domination of the the world through military and economic might, the last half of the 20th century saw an unprecedented flow of riches to the United States, which allowed for the accumulation of huge fortunes simultaneous with a rise in the middle class.  This system existed because all the power existed in a ruling class that was primarily white, anglo-saxen and male.  The fortunes of working class citizens also rose because of trickle down economics (yes, trickle down economics does work, on some levels).  This allowed members of other classes (southern Europeans, blacks, and other minorities) to participate in the prosperity of the times (although not at the level of their WASP neighbors).

As the century progressed, laws that were written in the thirties designed to prevent the unbridled accumulation of wealth began to be repealed and changed.  Once again, the wealth of the country began to concentrate into the hands of the few.  Race, sex and culture began to be less important determinants as a new ruling class developed with wealth being the main criteria for inclusion.  The middle class began to feel pressure as the decreasing availability of good paying jobs and a rise in the cost of living combined to eliminate them from the pool of investors, putting them on the same level of the poorer classes living from paycheck to paycheck.  Big dips in the value of stock and housing (the traditional vehicles of wealth accumulation for the middle class) did less to discourage big-time investors (in fact, as we have seen, they had a profit bonanza in betting against the value of their own securities, then mopping up even more profits by buying undervalued stocks with funds given to them for free by the middle class taxpayers) than to essentially “rinse out” most of the remaining middle class investors, further concentrating the wealth of the country into even fewer hands.

The middle class, in the meantime, is being continually encouraged to believe in the “American Myth,” to believe that through the force of their own individual efforts (by virtue of the freedoms ascribed to them by the Constitution) they can rise from their indebted situation, working two jobs and living paycheck to paycheck.  Many live in a state of disbelief, continuing their ill-advised consumer-centric lifestyles under the illusion that, because they are true believers in the American Way (as evidenced by their homes, cars, large screen TVs and other ephemera emblematic of the middle class), all will work out in the end.

That notion could be no further from the truth.  White, middle-class baby-boomers who thought that they had some kind of historic right to a comfortable, well-funded retirement will be surprised to find themselves in the same predicament as the poorer working-class Americans who never had any idealizations about retirement.  The vast majority of retired Americans will exhaust their savings way before they die, and will depend on some form of social security to live (and pay their medical bills).

It’s that “bill” that’s coming up that makes the need for government reform so urgent.  We need to be building those social safety nets now.  We need to be providing better health care for all Americans at prices in line with the rest of the world (Americans pay almost twice as much on average as any other G7 country, yet we rank 37th – by many polls –  in the quality of our care).  We need to be setting up communities that encourage nurturing and support as opposed to “rugged individualism” (progressive urban planning along the lines of many European and advanced Asian societies).  We need to plan for decreased reliance on fossil fuels and individual automobile transportation.  Retirement needs to be re-thought as families will need to provide more care for their elderly (and, conversely, child care needs to be addressed as a community service, enlisting available family members and community resources).  It is one of the ironies of our “successful” upper middle class that they have precious little time to spend with their families and loved ones (young and old), spending most of their waking hours either going to, coming from, or at work.  We need to transition our thinking from desiring individual houses on individual plots of land, complete with fences, private transportation, and title deeds to desiring integrated housing that supports more family and community involvement, with a renewed emphasis on quality public space both for day-to-day living and recreation.  This re-thinking of how we live, evolving into a family and community based support system, is the intellectual argument of communism.

I have no doubt that it would be pleasant to be in the upper 20% of Americans who currently are not living beyond their means, are fully insured, have adequate savings, and are investing in order to secure a financially sound retirement.  For those 20% my arguments will likely fall on deaf ears.  I wonder if I was in that class would I even be concerned about this.  I think I would be.  The future is inevitable.  The bottom 80% will eventually be the bottom 90%, and change will come.  My only hope is that we can transition in a productive, non-violent way that benefits everybody.

What’s so damn important about our selfs?

“Good health is just the slowest way a human being can die.”  unknown

I am nothing if I am not everything.  Healthcare is a universal concern, to hell with rights.  As sentient beings it is in our nature to tend to the ill and suffering.  It is encoded in our DNA, it is the biological imperative to metabolize and procreate.  We must do these things in order to survive.  But what is surviving?  It can’t be our selves… The sense of self is a construct, there is no such thing.  That’s the only thing that makes sense.

Breathe on.

Situational Analysis

Kevin Collins Design has recently announced the addition of situation analysis to it’s ever-growing list of services.  This decision has resulted from months of consideration planning.  Collins Design will begin the roll-out at once, and is presently soliciting clients.  Anyone interested can contact Kevin at kevin@kcollinsdesign.com.

?tunes

I do not quite “get” where contemporary popular music is going.  There is some quite good jazz, and some classical and classical “fusion” music that I’m excited about, but it is far, far from popular.  Popular music (rock, country, alt., MOR, etc.) seems to be all controlled by the big producers and concert promotors, which in turn are controlled by big spending advertisers.  It is more about brand identity than an emotional response to the music.  The music is so ridiculously over-produced that only safe, usually MOR (Middle Of the Road) can get the sponsorship needed for the lavish productions that are apparently needed to attract concert goers.  It’s all about selling shoes (or beer, or fast food).

Anybody today can record an album.  We now have a lot of unique talent and really good, original music available to us.  Very little of it is promoted, as there is no money in it.  Talented bands, like my friends in Backyard Tire Fire make their money doing shows, and, while fun and exciting for a young person, touring tedious after a while.  The pay sucks.

Who listens to music?  Most everyone.  But, now, the only big money-making genre is MOR pop acts supported by the big advertisers.  So they cram this in our ears.  You can’t watch TV without encountering it.  American Idol and similar offal make a public fetish of it.  Retailers use it to reinforce brand identity.  It’s crap;  useless industrial detritus that I find repulsive and unappealing, and has little to do with a true emotional involvement in the creative process (either as performer or listener).

It’s time to take back music – in fact, it’s time we took back a lot of the aesthetic experience that has been so woefully appropriated by the entertainment/advertising industry.  The internet allows us to not only seek out original voices, but also to add your voice to the chorus.  There may be little money in it, but money is not what it is about.  I sit and think up songs and play my guitar as a past time.  I enjoy it.  I do not even want to be paid.  Music should be participatory, dancing and singing along is a big part of the shared experience, and bonding, in person, with old and new friends has to be healthier than sharing a vicarious experience through the television.  I hear a lot about how the internet has ruined the music business;  anyone can record a song now, and any song can be downloaded without paying for it.  Is that so bad? The digital age may have “destroyed” the music industry, but in the end it might save music.

Kevin

What’s Up!

This makes no sense.  Stay tuned…

Modernism and the Economy

“The economy is bad,” they are telling me.  ”I’m going to wait and see what happens before I do anything.”

Business is down.  Gas and food prices are up.  Okay, prices have gone up.  So I have to figure out how to make more money to pay my bills.  Or figure out how to have less bills.  Or both.

The promise of modernism is the betterment of human life through the use of technology.  The message is underscored by a desire for simplicity.  The failure of modernism is the loss of distinctive character and a sense of anonymity.  People got sadder.

The “new” economy is forcing us to look at modernism in a new light.  The rational application of technology is an appropriate and viable way to address our current economic woes.  The current “green” trend and a revived interest in public transportation are manifestations of this direction of thinking. Applications of “appropriate technology” will go far in easing our comfort of life issues.

Rather than taking a “wait and see” attitude towards our current economic challenges, now is the time to apply some critical thinking and take some positive action to solve the problems.  It’s time to get busy and start changing!  Let’s go!  There’s nothing wrong with the economy that a little creativity and hard work won’t solve.  If we apply rational thinking to the problems of food, shelter, and transportation there might be a little money and time left over for the pursuit of happiness.

Kevin

Say NO to Bad Design

My new ad campaign will be starting in a few weeks.  I will be airing radio spots on the local public station (I donate several thousand dollars worth of services every year and they are kind enough to air play sponsor messages).  My ad and poster campaign will begin soon with posters, stickers, and other planned exposures.I am trying to grow my business more towards creative services and away from production.  Yes, I will still handle some production, but the changing nature of business, mostly due to the internet, has made production more of a commodity than ever.  Anybody can go to the web now and get good quality printing, custom signs and banners, ad specialties, and, well, about anything cheaper and more efficiently than working with a small shop, broker or a middleman.  I am just a little guy, and the factories and large production houses can do all this stuff way more efficiently than I can.What I do have are my ideas and experience as a communicator.  All this access to inexpensive production gives me and my clients a great opportunity to create truly outstanding messages.  So let’s all take advantage of this situation and start rolling out some unique and memorable content.  There is no reason to settle for mediocrity, just say NO to Bad Design!