random terms (part 0)

So I was thinking about "the peter principle revisted" and government.

In particular, I was thinking about the conclusion from the original paper that in a sufficient level of ignorance the random advancement is the one that maximizes performance of the organization.

I think that, in general, politicians are so bad at actually governing that they are more harm than good.  They are literally and truly the inmates running the asylum.  We have the Joker in charge and he is doing such a bang-up job that he seriously considers electing himself king.  The next joker on the menu isn't scheduled to be "less bad" as much as having slightly more good.  We have spent so long picking the lesser of two evils instead of the good that there is no good left.

Instead of whining, one should come up with a solution.  So here is a solution: randomize.

Of course we can't randomize the election - that would put non-psychopath non-sellouts into power.  The plutocracy would not like such a thing.  They spend $5 billion to elect a president ONLY because they will get more than $5 billion from having their man as president.  That is why it works that way.  Someone likely made a few tens of billions for paying for the re-election campaigns. 

We can randomize the terms.  If they are in power for a random time, then that changes two critical things: their ability to collude, and the return on investment of the controllers of the plutocrats.

Right now the senators spend 50% of their time woo-ing donors.  That means something profound.  If they were robots, not humans, that would mean that serving the public good is equal in importance to their re-election.  The problem is that after spending 50% of the time wooing, they spend some part of the "legislating" time serving the interests as well.  This suggests that an average of 75% of their time and efforts are about the donors, all else being equal.  Serving the public good is strongly subservient to re-election.  There is no public good, only publicity.

Without measurement there is no control - Cayley-Hamilton is an axiom in control systems engineering.  There has been no measure of, or control of, public service by "public servants" therefore it has been corrupted.  Whatever solution is found, it should account for maintaining its integrity in a demonstrable, provable way.  The full state should be regularly traversed.

I'm sure those who own the plutocrats measure.  The public should measure too. 

The randomness will moderately damage the value proposition and control that the money interests can exert on representative government, until the fog of war can be lifted.

A senator currently has a 2 year term and a cleanly defined re-election period.  All re-elections happen at the same time.  The end of term should be randomized to be between 6 months and 2 years.  There should be no "cadence".  Nobody should know before-hand when it is done. 

If I were to approach this, I would want a decent simulation proxy for the current state, then I would look at modeling how it responds to perturbations.

Minimum wage hike vs. reducing poverty

I figured out the solution.  I just couldnt bear to say it to the darkness in power, and have them use my insight - something they could never see - to further their own deeply human wounding agendas.

I hope to post it here.  This is a beautiful solution, and gets to the "physics" of the problem.




Backup

Bill Gates (link) makes the following points:

• jobs are a great thing
• you have to be careful that if you raise the minimum wage you are encouraging job substitution or destruction
• automation
• displacement 
• 88% of fast food workers are from non-poverty households
• often workers are teenagers from a wealthy household
• rarely a household in poverty
• the problem is about hours, not about wages

The implied goals are:

• improve the quality of life for those in poverty, especially head-of-household
• not waste money with marginal improvements for those not in poverty, especially teenagers

The actual results were:

• giving business-owners money to the children of soccer-moms.

The real question is: How do you engineer a system such that it naturally reduces rates and severity of poverty?

Analysis and suggestions to come in the next post.

PS: it is a relevant question in a international scale as well as a intra-national scale.
https://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2015/04/08/world-bank-announces-strategy-to-end-global-poverty-by-2030/

0 The problem - an introduction

There is a joke that goes as follows:

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House in DC:

One is from New York , another is from Tennessee and the third, is from 

Florida . All three go with a White House official to examine the fence. 

The Florida contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, 

then works some figures with a pencil. 'Well,' he says, 'I figure the job will run 

about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me.' 

The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, 

'I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 

profit for me.' 

The New York contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the 

White House official and whispers, '$2,700.' 

The official, incredulous, says, 'You didn't even measure like the other guys! 

How did you come up with such a high figure?' 

The New York contractor whispers back, '$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we 

hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence.' 

'Done!' replies the government official. 

That flatworm level of intelligence permeates modern government.  If there is sugar, go there, otherwise stop.  It is plutocracy.  The goal isn't plutocracy - but true and effective public service.

In this blog, which will have infrequent posts, I hope to look at the big questions, and look at how someone with a brain that isn't a plutocratic flatworm would solve the problem.  Yes these are going to be engineering solutions for political problems - so while they might do the job they aren't going to win more money.  The goal isn't for the organism of the government to make more money but to deliver more value.  These really are thoughts about how to deliver value instead of reducing it.