You may know that I am trying to leave Facebook (and if you read my posts, you know I proposed a way to ‘roll your own’ using existing social networking sites.)  The reason I am concerned about Facebook, and wanting to leave, is that I am tired of the constant push and pull.  They push the limits on protecting privacy, we push back, they pull back… They claim they own our photos, we push, they pull back… I am not surprised, though. They don’t view their users as their customers (we aren’t–the advertisers are) but they simply view their users as the generators of content that will drive advertising sales.

The problem is that I am not sure how many really understand the several layers of privacy that could be at risk.

And here is where Moms put their kids at risk.  You know that security question “What is your mother’s maiden name?” Well… with so many women including there maiden name on facebook (“hey–my old friends can find me easier!”) it may actually put their childrens’ identity at risk.¹  I suppose this wouldn’t be a problem, so long as we make sure we don’t connect to our parents/siblings, and so forth.  But we share the information (Maiden name) and the say “oh, here are my kids’ names, too.”

Quickly, let me say I am in no way really trying to blame moms for ANYTHING here.  It’s not the fault of Moms or the kids.   I suspect all of us are in a sense “guilty” here–we don’t think about how easily people can connect the dots on this information.

Part of the problem here is that we don’t fully understand how Facebook shares information.  Apparently, even if you only share your information with your friends, if the friends have their settings open to “everyone” then your information is exposed.

I wish we could trust people. I wish we could trust Facebook.  But in this world we must be cautious.

How do we know if it is working?

I have had a simple measure:  Do some (or even any) students use the tools, and when they use them do they feel that they are grasping the material better?

My thought has been that numbers don’t matter as much as outcomes for individuals and if some students find value then these approaches are worth continuing.

What are your thoughts?  Must we have numbers to be considered successful?

Once this hard fought and necessary battle was won, the HOA celebrated their victory, and opened up a Yahoo Group to the community to enhance communications.  Alas, this seems to have brought out not a spirit of friendship and community but one of sniping and backbiting.

Everyone has their own little petty concerns that bother them.  Of course, what seems to bother them the most are what their neighbors are doing with their own property, or with their cars in front of their property.  And of course, all arguments er discussions are brought up with the “greater good” at heart, the greater good being, of course “Property Values.”

Sounds fair, right?

Try this one.  The first comment (and I mean the very first comment) was that, now that the roads have been paved and it is easier to get into your driveway, we need to mandate that everyone parks in the drive and ban parking on the streets in front of their own home.  Oh, and if you have too many cars for the driveway–you need to park in your garage.

The battles have continued, over swimming pools, RVs, pets, fences, and all the various other issues that can annoy neighbors.  But despite all of this, one things remains constant:  no one wants to participate in a Democracy.  They want things to simply be “their way.”

As I mentioned I am renting, so I honestly have “no dog in the hunt.”  I couldn’t care less how things are for the long term.  I just enjoy watching this little corner of America play itself out.  So I have until now just stayed out of the discussions, and watched–and laughed.

This weekend after a rather lengthy back and forth discussion with someone having violated a “24 hour RV parking rule” by 48 hours, I finally offered up my suggestion.  The argument seemed to focus on two things.  First, one group was adamant that “these are the rules” and it doesn’t matter if you like these rules are not, rules are rules and must be followed.  The other group (to summarize) essentially argued that some of these rules are silly and the application of fines and punishments for silly rules is beyond silly.

So I stepped in and suggested that, here in America, it might be a good idea to put the various rules up for a referendum.  Let the community decide as a whole, through a vote, which rules are important and which are worth modifying or discarding.  Then, as we always do in America, live with the will of the people until the next opportunity to change the rules presents itself. {2.  The current rules were simply “handed down” as an edict from the builder when he created the community (remember the builder? Bankrupt and all…) The various members did agree to the rules when they moved in, but are these rules to remain etched in stone for all eternity? ]

Seems simple.  But nooooooo… You can’t change the rules.  The rules are the rules.  And of course, my FAVORITE argument was this one:

“The only people who would want to change the rules are the people who want to break them in the first place.  We shouldn’t give these lawless people a voice!”

SERIOUSLY?  Yes… seriously.  That was the response.  Um. Duh.  People who repeal laws usually do so to allow a behavior that had previously been made illegal.  Remember Prohibition anyone?

I could go on, recounting story after story–the stories are numerous and honestly, I am saving every one of them, hoping some day to turn this dysfunctional microcosm of America into some sort of Erma Bombeck style book.

In the meantime, I would LOVE to hear from each of you–do YOU have any HOA stories you can share?  Horror, humor or happy?

=====

Books are wonderful things. Millenia ago, our predecessors shared their histories, and explained the world around them, through an oral tradition, passing stories down from one generation to another. Over time, these stories were written down, essentially “locking” the stories down on paper. Ever since, books have been a way to disseminate information for thousands of years, and with the advent of the printing press, to do so quickly, and broadly. We can partake in the imaginations of a Tolkien, a Lewis, a Shakespeare, or a Plato. We can read the political thoughts of Aristotle, Marx, and Obama, or the theological insights of Paul, Aquinas and Spong. We can even allow our minds to drift as we read romance novels through the ages, or the horror stories from Beowolf, to Frankenstein, to any Stephen King novel. Each book brings new thoughts, new images, and new imaginings.

In the 21st century we have even more ways to disseminate, and enjoy, the works and thoughts of others. Just as the printing press made paper books available to the masses, we have digital ebooks to take dozens of books with us, to read anywhere. We now also have stepped beyond “books on tape” to truly digital audio books that, when combined with personal media players such as the iPod, enable even those who cannot read to enjoy the panoply of thoughts.

If the printing press was the first revolution, sharing ideas with the literate masses, it was limited in the very requirement for literacy. In order to read, one must be able to read. Thus is its limitation it provided the impetus for literacy as more people sought to embrace the ideas made possible through literature.

This latest revolution both extends and hinders the reach of literature. Certainly, if one defines ‘educated’ and ‘literate’ as being exposed to ideas, then we can see how a more informed, and thus more literate, populace will result from such broad access to reading. And through the efforts of Project Gutenberg many of the classics through the ages are now available to the masses. People with internet access can now enjoy the thoughts of the ages, wherever they can reach the internet. And with the One Laptop per Child initiative, children in developing nations can be exposed to ideas global in scope, and timeless as the ages. And finally, whether one can actually read, or not, the proliferation and easy transportability of digital audio files has opened literature to everyone.

Alas, this great awakening may yet be returned to slumber. In the great confluence of enlightened self-interest we find that several challenges remain for making this the greatest literate population ever.

First, it is possible that, when provided with ample reasons to not learn to read, the population reverts once again to an “oral” tradition. Admittedly this is a different oral tradition. In this “new” tradition, the stories are told, and frozen, and remain accessible to those that can’t read. But in this “new” oral tradition the strengths of the oral tradition, the committing the stories to personal memory, embedding them deep in the social soul, is replaced by committing them to digital memory. The stories are retold, but not necessarily embraced. And perhaps worse, these stories then are so easily accessible as to render the impetus to read almost impotent. ¹

The second great challenge is the rush to protect the “digital rights.” Cory Doctorow, in a This Week in Tech podcast, (42 minutes, 50 seconds in) points out that Audible books, and other electronic book distributors, will not allow for the distribution of digital rights free books. Cory Doctorow actually insisted that his books be distributed without DRM, and audible refused.

So why is this the “second great challenge?” Perhaps the best way to explain the impact of DRM is to ask this set of questions: Have you ever given away a book? Loaned a book? Borrowed one from the library? The way digital rights are currently implemented, you cannot loan out a book that you have already read. You can’t say, as so many of us have, “this is a great book–I will give it to you when I am done.” In fact, the terms of service are such for the Kindle that you can’t sell, it loan it or give it away! If we are to experience the benefits of this greatest age of literacy, we need to allow for information to be shared. I honestly understand the concept of intellectual property (what professor doesn’t?) but I also understand that once we share an idea (and perhaps, get paid for it) the idea not only can enter the mainstream, we should hope that it does!

¹ In fact, this is one area in which I struggle with podcasting for courses. If I make my lectures, notes and answers available as audio podcasts have I disconnected the students even further from the richness that is “the text?”

This time it was for Matthew’s Swim Team.  I had fun with this one, including playing with some 3D effects, but most importantly it was a chance for me to help the kids highlight the fun and excitement that was their Swim Season.

I would like to thank Mike Singletary for giving us the GREAT “Formula” quote, and the good folks Crackpot and Buzzkill at The No Agenda Show for the mix of the Formula quote.  It’s a great way to start a slide show–especially if we watch it “In the Morning.”

For the sound track I used:
Ladies and Gentlemen by Saliva

There’s A Party (Feat. George Clinton & Chali 2na) by N.A.S.A.

Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines by US Air Force Band and Singing Sergeants

Just A Friend by Biz Markie

Lord, Guard and Guide (The U.S. Air Force Hymn) by US Air Force Band and Singing Sergeants

Nota Bene:

There are two hidden audio jewels.  At the end of the first song, there is a faint voice over, with a certain person saying “I was told that, that suit is illegal.”  And then, before “Just a Friend” the audio is, in classic “no one likes to be a video star” mode being told “Brady, Go Away.”

So now we face  the BIG PROBLEM.

By shifting to a policy where everyone is now to be insured, we open the floodgates of demand (okay, a bit much. But we certainly will allow millions more in.) Demand for services will increase. So it would make sense that prices would increase to balance out the demand (remember Econ 101, all else equal, in the near term an increase in demand will result in an increase in price. In the long term it should result in an increase in supply, as the market responds to the increased demand for the product).

Will we see prices increase? Not for the consumer–they are capped at the Co-pay. And now we are seeing pressures to not raise prices from the supply side (and the insurance companies will be SHOT if they raise rates significantly).

So what happens now? If prices cannot go up, then demand will remain (unrealisticly) high. Unrealistic in that demand is acting free of the market place.

With demand high, and the inability to increase prices we will see no real “benefit” to more providers entering the marketplace.

More to the point, even if we could see more providers enter the market there are significant barriers to entry. Consider the medical field:

1. Doctors must go through extensive training, and then licensing (not to mention the fact that they never really get it right–so must keep “practicing”)

2. medicines must be approved after rigorous testing, and their labs must be approved, and so forth.

3. Various other licensing and authorizing are in place for therapists, assistants, nurses, and the like.

Supply cannot respond quickly, and with a rising demand and supply unable to keep up, and with no pricing mechanism to regulate the demand we will face:

Shortages of service resulting in long waiting lines/delays.

And how do you deal with shortages? Since the market forces are not allowed to work, we are left with the government stepping in, once again, to fix the mess of it’s own making. They will have to “ration” care.

Sorry–it’s a fact. In every nation that has shifted to “socialized” they have faced shortages, lines and rationing.

It’s not something we can “do better.”

It’s economics.

The whole initiative is predicated on a few arguments:

1. Costs (prices) are too high.
2. Insurance companies are “making too much money”
3. Millions of people don’t have access to care
4. The Health Care people are receiving is poor (oh, wait, it’s not about the actual care…)

So let’s tackle this. The basic problem now comes down to a discussion of supply and demand/economics.

As the system currently works we have two sets of perverse incentives fighting against the consumer (and one of these incentives takes place with the willing, yet unknowing, assistance of the patient)

First, the perverse incentives of the patient:

Currently, the “cost of entry” into the health care system is high (monthly “Insurance” rates) but thanks to low, or no, co-pays, the marginal costs of most health care transactions are quite low.

Given the low costs incurred per visit, and the high “sunk” costs incurred to enter the system, the insureds (patients) who HAVE insurance are incented to go to the doctors more frequently, and to go ahead and get the prescriptions (Hey, it’s only $3 copay at Wal*Mart!)

Of course, this is a mirage. The actual costs of each visit and each prescription are borne by the insurance companies, which then have to recover their costs through increased premiums, which of course has everyone screaming that the insurance companies are “gouging” the customers.

On the other hand, we have a set of pricing incentives that also conspire against the consumer. The ‘care providers” are aware that the patient/customer doesn’t see the actual costs–they only pay the co-pay. So given this we have a series of perversions that are at play:

1. Doctors are more able to prescribe tests/medicines, and the like, since they will receive little if any push-back from the patients because of costs. More services with a low marginal cost to the consumer/patient, but a higher total cost, paid by the insurance companies.
2. Insurance companies work to lower their costs by negotiating to pay health care providers a fraction (some value less than 1) of the billable rate. Thus the providers are incented to increase their prices the maintain their revenue stream. This increases the costs once again.

So these two twists to the problem work once again to force the insurance companies to have to raise the rates (really on everyone) to cover the payments they are having to make.

Now–as consumers, we see that we are paying a high “sunk cost” as a monthly fee and, rather than view this as traditional insurance (where I am betting against myself) the consumer wants to try to get at least that benefit back out of the “system” (and is encouraged to do so, by “low co-pays”)

Sadly, the whole mess was brought on by our desire to protect everyone and provide some level planning to health care. The “free market” actually would provide better incentives here, placing limits/governors not only on how much people are willing to spend on services, but the prices that people would have to pay. If service providers want to stay in business then they would be forced to price competitively based on the market, and the market would be making the decisions based on the consumers. As it stands now, with the “same co-pay regardless” the consumer has no indication of value, and the market cannot respond. Viagra is as valued as Interferon and as Motrin.

What to do when everything costs the same?

I am not alone in my expectation that the Health Care (insurance) reform will not improve Health Care (it won’t make bad doctors good ones, for instance) and it won’t improve access since lower prices have that pesky effect of increasing demand–in a field where the barriers to entry for suppliers are significant.

I will say this:  Welcome to the new “Grand Experiment.”  If it succeeds, then by all means celebrate (but could we get a good solid definition of success on which we can all agree?)  But (and this is significant) if it fails, how many will have died as part of the experiment, and will we ever be able to recover?

One final note:  As researchers we have to seek, and get, informed consent from human subjects before we can experiment on them.  Did you get the forms?

He is also a self-professed liberal. This is not surprising. He believes that we need to look out for our neighbors, and his view of neighbor is expansive. So understandably (I hop) I found myself pondering if I am missing something. Is there something “great” about liberalism as we know it today? And if it is “great” does that mean conservatism somehow misses the boat?

After much reflection, I realized that we have two problems facing us. First, the liberal ideal of caring for those around you is not only a good one, it’s Biblical. We are called on by Christ to love our neighbors. And Christ didn’t draw any neighborhood boundaries, either. On the other hand, we are faced with an ever-enlarging government that, despite all the best intentions and heartfelt goodwill, never seems to deliver on the “big promises.”

My conclusion? Liberalism doesn’t scale–and it wasn’t ever intended to. For us to love our neighbor we must be in contact with our neighbors. We can care best for those we touch. I suspect this was designed into our nature.

There have been many articles and books written, speeches given, and studies done, identifying that we respond more positively, and give more freely, to concerns closer to home. So we are hard-wired to care for those around us. This “local giving” may not be motivated from a pure heart, but at least we know it happens. Superfreakonomics gives us a perspective on this altruism: ‘Most giving is, as economists call it, impure altruism or warm-glow altruism. You give not only because you want to help but because it makes you look good, or feel good, or perhaps feel less bad.”]

So we, for whatever reasons or motivations, generally want to help our neighbors. Surely that extends to those we cannot see, correct? Well, the authors of the book SuperFreakonomics would perhaps argue no. Not only do they essentially argue that liberalism doesn’t scale, they go a step further and discusses research that indicates that, when given an opportunity, people will not only fail to behave benevolently towards their neighbor, they will in fact, cheat them. But what is most interesting here, is that, in the research they discussed, the cheating occurred most often between people who were not neighbors. “In the data, List found an interesting split: the out-of-town dealers cheated more often than the locals.”

So here is where I believe liberalism, or altruism, fails. When we ask the government to step in and perform altruistic acts, we ask the government to do a few things on our behalf:
1. We want an non-person to demonstrate humanity. We ask that the government “care.”
2. We want the government to make the “right” choices about what and whom to care for. Of course, we find that often that means bringing the “bacon” (or “Pork”) back to our own districts, where we “see the need.”
3. We want the government to do all this, without actually requiring that we pay for it, and simultaneously wanting the government to make sure someone else pays for it (“raise the taxes on the wealthy.”)

So over time, we find that government is called on less to be altruistic on a grand scale, and becomes for nearly all a way to force others to give money to causes and people they otherwise might not support, while simultaneously bringing resources to bear on my own local problems. Government then takes on the roll of proxy for the same local concerns we used to care for ourselves!

This is, of course, simply a blog. I make no pretense of conducting large scale research myself on this topic. I am simply tying together my readings, and my observations of the world around me. It seems to me that most people want to help those close to them, and most when presented with true and compelling need or tragedy, will give. But when we rely on our government to function on our behalf we become disconnected. We no longer have those “feel good” moments that cause us to practice “warm glow altruism.” Government

And then, over time, we stop caring.