Real Majority Rule

I recently finished reading Jeff Madrick's Seven Bad Ideas.  The book is written by an economist who supports the kinds of policies used during the 1950s and 1960s, and presents data critical of more recent "free market"-oriented policies.  Within the context of discussing the merits of 1960s policies versus 2010s policies, there's plenty of information.  However, you won't see efforts to look beyond these horizons. Readers who have limited knowledge of the underpinning of conservative / "free market" economic policies may appreciate the issues being divided into seven "bad ideas."  However, there's considerable overlap between a number of them.  One says individual selfish business transactions will result in a beneficial global economy.  Another says the economy is self-correcting.  Another says little government involvement is needed or desirable...  The book provides historical examples and shows that much of free market claims are si

There's been a lot of discussion about Trump's Supreee Court nominee, Kavanaugh.  This has included references to the Senate GOP's refusal to consider Obama's nominee in 2016 - claiming it was better to wait to see the results of the 2016 election, and then decide if the voters wanted a nominee from Obama.  I don't want to discuss the pros and cons of Kavanaugh here.  I will just discuss how the handling of these nominees reflects ignoring the will of the majority. First, let's be clear.  When the Supreme Court vacancy occurred under Obama, it was further from the 2016 election than the current opening under Trump.  We should also note that in 2016, Obama was not running for re-election.  Therefore, regardless of who won the presidential election, it would not so clearly indicate that the voters did or did not want an Obama nominee. The Senate GOP demanded that no nominee be given any consideration until after the election.  OK, so what did the election tell the

Automation - using machines to replace human workers - could be used to provide everyone with better living standards and more free time, but as implemented today it means people are thrown out of jobs or are pressured to work for less pay / benefits.  There are different predictions of how serious the impact will be in the next 20 or so years, but none are really good.  Below is a link to an article about the more optimistic view given by the OECD: AI and robots will destroy fewer jobs than previously feared, says new OECD report Synopsis: The new study offers a counterpoint to an influential 2013 paper by Oxford University academics Carl Frey and Michael Osborne, who warned that around 47 percent of jobs in the US were at high risk of being automated. The OECD report says that only 14 percent of jobs in OECD countries — which includes the US, UK, Canada, and Japan — are “highly automatable,” meaning their probability of automation is 70 percent or higher. That is still signifi

Welcome readers. This blog is titled "Real Majority Rule" because of the serious legal limitations on putting majority sentiments into government practice. The creation of the United States as a nation - no longer under English colonial rule - was a step forward.  Yet, despite words such as "all men are created equal" and "inalienable rights," there have always been restrictions on rights such as voting.  Over time, some have been removed, some have been added, some have gone through ups and downs.. Today, the legal barriers blocking real majority rule include: • The Electoral College.  In 2016, the Electoral College gave the presidency to the candidate who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.  Historically, in round numbers, the Electoral College has given the presidency to the loser of the popular vote about 10% of the time. • Each state gets two Senators regardless of population.  Wyoming has so few people it only gets one member i