Tag Archives: ethics

And German Governance

Posted on by
Reply

The following is excerpted from Spiegel Online:

SPIEGEL: Facebook is only eight years old, has annual revenues of $3.7 billion and, following its stock market debut, could be worth $100 billion. Is that normal?

[Co-founder of German business software giant SAP, Hasso] Plattner: Oh God, normal!? That’s just what America is like. They’re unbeatable when it comes to advertising. Don’t ask me if I think it’s a good thing …

SPIEGEL: Well, do you think it’s a good thing?

Plattner: You’re bombarded with advertising all day long there. But that’s just how it works. You really have to take your hat off to the Americans — the way they reinvent themselves again and again, especially in the high-tech sector.

SPIEGEL: But that could also be possible in Germany.

Plattner: A lot of the framework conditions are not right here. For instance, it’s much more difficult to obtain venture capital. But you need that so your company can quickly achieve a critical size. And anyone who follows all the daily debates in Germany that are critical of capitalism and growth could come to the conclusion that we Germans don’t want to be successful anymore.

…

Plattner: …it’s really only in Germany that I’m asked time and again such strange things like: Why growth? Or: Why does the database have to be so much faster? That just creates stress … And that, even though for the past 40 years IT has been almost exclusively about the question of speed. Americans are much more open and bolder in this respect. Their attitude has also long since been adopted by the Indians and the Chinese, which makes the competition even more difficult for us.

We, the people, have to take care, also, or we’re no better at governance than a top-down governance in China.  At least, though, we can correct our own mistakes.

Chinese Governance

Posted on by
Reply

The rumors of a coup in the People’s Republic of China serve to illustrate the PRC’s concept of governance.

Its economic success over the last generation and a half, or so (roughly 30 years), seems apparent.  It has accumulated the world’s largest stash of foreign currency reserves (some $3.2 trillion), and it has grown into the world’s second largest economy, albeit with the world’s largest population across which to amortize that economy.  Some even argue that this success demonstrates the superiority of the Chinese method of centrally managing an economy.  After all, those folks say, the Chinese government doesn’t waste time debating; they simply decide, and promptly.  Moreover, specific leadership candidates are selected carefully and only after a proven performance record.

But at what cost has come this success?  That’s what the coup rumors highlight.  The power struggle underway (whether it’s really a coup in progress or not is unimportant to this post) is purely a Party struggle; the people of China are not at all involved other than being stuck with living with the outcome.

The current showdown—of whatever form—threatens the carefully planned change in the party and national leadership, including seven of the nine positions on the Politburo Standing Committee.  The thrust of the argument seems to be whether China should go back to a more “revolutionary”—i.e., more directed from above—form of government or reforms should be instituted that lead toward a more constitutional state.

But even at best, whose constitution?  Notice where this argument is occurring: internally, at the top levels of PRC’s Communist Party and People’s Liberation Army government—not among the people.  In fact, the people may also be discussing this, but since they have no say in their own government, their discussions “are unimportant, and [government] does not hear them.”

The coup rumors illustrate another aspect of governance PRC-style.  The rumors began appearing about two weeks ago via Sina Weibo (“China microwave” or “China microblog”), the Chinese version of Twitter.  The government promptly deleted those messages.  Now, searches for key words like “gunfire” or “Changan Avenue” (where much of the Chinese leadership lives and where gunfire allegedly was heard during the “coup”) are answered with this message:

These terms are not being displayed in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations and political guidelines.

Here is Chinese free speech.

The PRC is a one-party dictatorship: there are no checks or balances, as from an independent judiciary or legislature.  The people are unrepresented by individuals of their own choosing in an elected government.   In sum, the people are not Sovereign in their own country—the government that has placed itself above them is.

And that economic success?  Yawning cracks in it have appeared.  The vast migration over the last several years from the hinterland to the coastal cities, where the jobs are, have led to severe housing shortages in those cities, shortages exacerbated by those cities’ governmental requirements that the people must be registered with the city government in order to get city services like utilities, housing, and so on.  The migrants are denied registration, though: they’re not residents of the city.

Additionally, those who do find jobs, including the original residents, are demanding higher wages, which hurts production, which hurts job availability.  On top of that, the lack of jobs for that massive influx of migrants leaves people without money to buy goods and services other than those basic city-provided services (which the migrants can’t get anyway).  This also hurts production, and job availability.  And on top of this, those migrants generally are their families’ bread-winners and were intending to send money back home to family members who didn’t make the move.  This lack deepens the impoverishment of the hinterlands.

All of these changes are easily handled by a flexible, free market, but a centrally managed one, even managed by carefully selected government leaders, simply cannot keep up with the dynamicisms of the country’s (any country’s) real-world economic evolutions.  It’s an edifice poised for a major retrenchment, drawdown of those reserves, or hard collapse.  Or all three.

Information Privacy

Posted on by
Reply

In a burst of good sense, the Federal Trade Commission is on the right track.  Earlier this week, it “issued a strong call for commercial-data collectors to adopt better privacy practices and called for Congress to pass comprehensive privacy legislation.”  While I have no great confidence in Congressional skill at protecting our privacy, this would be a better choice than leaving our information to the tender mercies of “commercial-data collectors.”  As FTC Chairman, Jon Leibowitz, notes,

Simply put, your computer is your property.  No one has the right to put anything on [your computer] that you don’t want[.]

The FTC’s initial solution, though, is at best naïve.  Putting a “Do Not Track” button into Web browsers is doomed to failure as Google’s decision to ignore even user-deliberate attempts to prevent their browsers from yielding up personal information demonstrates.  Such a button will not prevent the data collection; it can only rely on a “Pretty please, Mr Data taker, don’t take my data” plea.  Beyond that, the data collectors already are weasel-wording the meaning of “Do Not Track.”  The online-ad industry, for instance, has decided it means “Do Not Target,” and it will still collect your data for “market research,” “product development,” and the like.  Oh, and “trust us.”

The need for overt controls that actually block the collection rather than relying on begging and the good offices of the collectors is demonstrated by, even more than the equivocations, the rank cynicism of those collectors and their objections.  The Wall Street Journal article at the first link cites the Executive Vice President of the Direct Marketing Association, Linda Woolley—whose group represents many of those data hounds—as saying her Association opposes

giving consumers access to marketing information because it would be expensive, difficult to keep secure and the type of data used by marketers doesn’t harm consumers.

Sorry, Madam, your costs aren’t relevant to my privacy.  You don’t get to hide from me what you’re trying to take from me because that might hurt your pocketbook.  As to your plaint that such data would be “difficult to keep secure,” it’s not secure now.  You’re already taking it without our permission, and often without our knowledge, and as Google has demonstrated, and as Apple has demonstrated with its unauthorized tracking via our smart phones.  Worse, your view of “security” is markedly different from ours.  And on what basis should we believe your claim that the data you’re taking from us to be “used by marketers” doesn’t harm us when you’re at such pains to hide those data from us?

Woolley says,

We are very wary about taking the information out of the information economy[.]

Since it’s not your information in the first place, and we’re only looking to recover that which you’ve taken without authorization, no data are being taken “out of the information economy.”  Your argument could be used by the burglar, who having successfully stolen the jewelry from our house, also is “wary of taking…out of [his] economy.”

More than just Cheating

Posted on by
Reply

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported last Sunday the results of its extensive investigation into standardized testing results across the country, and its discoveries were appalling.  The links under “Related” in the left margin tell the tale (read them all; the series is illuminating).  I’ll just offer a few highlights.  It’s important to note that the AJC makes no bones about their analysis: the statistical results do not prove cheating.  However, the results to demonstrate utterly anomalous test scores and score movements from year to year.

Extreme swings in test scores, the paper reported,

occurred in several major urban school systems, including Baltimore, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles and Mobile County, Alabama.

In Houston,

test results for entire grades of students jumped two, three or more times the amount expected in one year, the analysis shows.  When children moved to a new grade the next year, their scores plummeted[.]

One particularly egregious example occurred at Patrick Henry Downtown Academy in St. Louis. MO.  The AJC reported that in 2010 42% of fourth-graders passed the state’s math test (an appalling teaching performance in its own right). The following year, just 4% of those same students passed the state’s math test when they took it as fifth-graders.  The AJC added that while the 2011 tests were administered, the school was under intense scrutiny as a result of earlier cheating allegations.

Dr Andres Alonso, Chief Executive Officer of the Baltimore, MD, school district, noted that the AJC’s analysis found very large year-on-year changes that, in general, were score reductions following intensified efforts by his staff to prevent cheating in his Baltimore schools.  That intensified effort was a result of Alonso’s own investigation, triggered by a complaint at a PTA meeting.

Others, though, like Nashville, TN, district officials, responded by challenging the AJC’s methodology.  These officials emphasize both the high turnover of children in and out of their districts and that for many of their children English is not the primary language.  The AJC, though, while addressing Nashville’s concerns, points out that lots of other districts—vis., Chicago, Los Angeles, Amarillo, Texas—have similarly high student turnover, and similarly high numbers of students for whom English is not their primary language, and these districts did not have a similarly high incidence of suspicious test results.

There also are the usual cop-out excuses from those more interested in turning a blind eye to the problem than in doing the hard work of actually solving it.  Standardized test scores, they complain, put undue pressure on the teachers to do their jobs.  It’s true enough that test scores typically inform teacher evaluations and/or bonuses.  Other, more interested, educators correctly point out, however, that “cheating is a moral choice.”  No one stuck guns in these cheaters’ ears’, if cheating is what’s going on, and forced the misbehaving educators to misbehave and shortchange our children and their education.

Indeed, the objections to the analysis outcomes do not serve to deny that any cheating is occurring.  The objections instead center on three items: a) justification of the behavior because the teachers are under so much pressure; b) objection to the analysis’ methodology, as with Nashville above; and c) denial of the results.  Detroit, for instance, insisted that its scores were not “unusual or out of line in any way.”

Overall, the AJC reports, 196 of the nation’s 3,125 largest school districts had tests results whose odds of occurring by chance alone were less than 1 in 1,000.  That’s fully 6% of those largest districts.

Cheating on this scale, if that’s what is behind those suspicious scores, is more than just cheating.  These cheaters are doing more than just defrauding you and I out of our tax money.  These cheaters are doing worse than short-changing our children.  These cheaters are doing worse than abusing our children.  These cheaters are setting a devastating moral example for our children.  These cheaters also are threatening our nation’s security—and threatening the welfare of those children’s children thereby.

How is our nation supposed to compete in the world when our citizens are just adult ignoramuses because teacher and school administrator organizations like this make no effort at all actually to educate our children?  How is our nation supposed to compete in the world—or set an example for it—when tomorrow’s adults are morally destitute?

Bookkeeping

Posted on by
Reply

Related to the Health and Human Services mandate to provide—and so to buy—contraception and abortion health insurance coverage at no cost to the “purchaser” is another final rule from HHS that requires those plans that cover abortion to collect a separate fee of $1 or more directly from the policy customers, with the money collected being used for abortion coverage.  The administration’s claim is that doing it this way means that abortions are not subsidized with taxpayer subsidies.

However.

Congressman Chris Smith (R, NJ) correctly observes,

Requiring the segregation of funds into allocation accounts—a mere bookkeeping exercise, is a cheap political trick designed to circumvent longstanding prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion.

Moreover, as Smith also notes, the rule pushes insurance companies obscure information about the surcharge in their benefits materials, so that customers are not readily able to discriminate among policies that do and do not cover abortions.  We’re all still subsidizing abortions, which violates the consciences and religious teachings of many of us.

With regard to the government as middleman denial, we’re all taxpayers—at least those of us who work and so must buy these policies and this coverage under that other HHS rule.  The idea that the Federal government isn’t acting as middleman in the collection and transfer of the funds doesn’t alter at all the fact that it is us taxpayers’ money that’s being used to subsidize abortion coverage.  But the premise that government isn’t middleman in this set of transactions is itself fictitious: it’s government that’s mandating the funds transfer; it is the necessary middleman here.

Finally, the dishonesty of this bookkeeping separation of the money is easily illustrated with a thought experiment.  Imagine a woman who has, in her mind, three needs: pay the rent, buy food, and get an abortion.  Imagine further that each of these items costs $1 and that the woman has only $2 to her name.  Now imagine a government man approaches the woman and says to her, “Here’s $1.  The only string attached is that you may not use this dollar to get an abortion.”  With the $3 the woman now has, she goes out and gets all three: she pays the rent, buys food, and get the abortion.  Prove the taxpayers’ dollar, which the government man gave the woman, was not used to get the abortion, when without that third dollar, she could not get all three, and with it, she actually did get all three.  That third dollar made it possible.