The SIDE SHOW With Frank Lee Seaux

Communication is Key...

2012-01-15T06:45:00.000-08:00

One of the problems we face, daily, in our relationships is communication, or a lack of it. I talk, every day, with my girlfriend. The bulk of our conversation tend to be affirmations of love and affection. They would, at points, seem, well, pointless. It is important to maintain those bonds in such a relationship. But, it is equally important to attain an understanding of each other. To do this requires a bit more than those affirmations. It requires deep, and even "scary" context. The same is true of our world and the reality in which we all reside. To understand reality, we must be willing to go "where angels fear to tread." We must explore to regions which may seem depressing, or foreboding. to do this with any hope of equanimity, we must do so with an open mind.

In my communication with my girlfriend, I've tried to share some of the stark realities of the world. I've tried discussing with her the reality of global climate shifts, and the evidence of past ice ages. I've also tried to share with her some of the evidence for other things in our world. But, she always stops the conversation short, saying she doesn't want to talk about such things, because it is too scary.

But, if we are ever going to solve the problems threatening mankind, we will need to get past such fears, and face, head on, such realities. We cannot simply bury our heads in the sand and pretend the problems don't exist, for so long as we can't see them. That is the strategy of the ostrich.

The Free World Charter: Home

2011-03-25T08:19:00.000-07:00

Every SIDE SHOW Freak, as that is what I will term fans of the show, and the blog, should read the Free World Charter at the link below. If after you've read it, you find you agree with it, then you should sign it. I'd like to see every fan of the show to sign this. But, I will not expect or require it. For that is a founding principle of such a movement... true freedom.

The Free World Charter: Home

Sustainability...

2011-03-13T01:28:00.000-08:00

I've been noticing a trend... The trend is sustainability, or at least, what purports to be sustainability. Which, of course, is why I decided to start this blog, and the radio show. There are now online universities offering degrees in "sustainability."

One ad I saw online recently said its course would teach three aspects of sustainability. One of which was profit. Which leaves me with a question.

"How good can the course be, and how sustainable can the results be, if one of the key tenets is grounded in an unsustainable practice?"

The motive for profit can easily be argued one of the most detrimental and unsustainable practices any entity can participate in.

For instance:

If there is greater profit in treating a disease than there is in curing it, then how reliable can the medicine be?

Or:

If there is greater profit in maintaining an unsustainable and detrimental energy source, such as "fossil" fuels, then how sustainable can the conclusions reached be with such a key tenet in place?

Or, How about this one:

What would happen to emerging technologies which could serve to free mankind, clean up the ecology, and offer long term sustainable survival of the human species, if it is less than profitable?

I could go on, but I'm sure you can see by now, that the motive for profit doesn't exactly scream sustainable from the mountain tops. Which, by the way, are being cut down in the name of profits from an energy source which is currently blamed for releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and causing greenhouse warming trends, which could either lead to an early onset ice age, or massive heatwaves, drought, and famine. In either case, the cost of life on this planet would be both dramatic and devastating.

So, sure, we could go on deluding ourselves into believing everything will be just fine, so we can go on living the way we have for so long now, but at what cost?

Some really interesting documentaries for your consideration...

2011-03-13T00:12:00.000-08:00

Yes, I am a mind reader, and I can tell that right now, you are thinking there is no such thing as an interesting documentary. See, I told you I could read your mind.

The following documentaries point to a growing awareness, and alarm at our current system of social and resource management. What you will witness is a lot of academic, as well as pandemic agreement on key elements and issues. Issues dealing with population size and density, agriculture, oil production and depletion, energy conservation, monetary reform or abolition, governmental reform, or abolition, the future survival of our species, and many other relevant topics. That is what the 'SIDE SHOW' and this blog are dedicated to exploring, as well as the proposed solutions.

We will be conducting interviews with the makers of these films, and the founders of such movements as are inspired by these films.

So, here we go:

The following movie is titled 'Blind Spot,' and was written and directed by Adolfo Doring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqy6717el78&feature=player_embedded#at=977

The director of the next film Ethos, by Pete McGrain has already agreed to be interviewed on the 'SIDE SHOW.'

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ethos-the-Movie/115151175221520

I will also be seeking an interview with Peter Joseph, of the Zeitgeist Movement, and the Movies.

http://www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com/

This is just the beginning folks. Stick around, this is gonna get really interesting really fast.

One Hat Solutions...

2011-03-05T18:58:00.000-08:00

There is a pervasive phenomenon a foot in the world at large. This phenomenon threatens to undo the very foundations of our understandings and effectiveness in the seeking solutions to the problems we face individually, locally, and even globally. I call the phenomenon the "One Hat Solution."

In the world of business many of the different occupations one may acquire often come with a specially designed hat. The Bakers hat, the Engineers cap, baseball cap, batters helmet, football helmet, and even the business man's fedora are all hats one might associate with the task at hand.

So, when we go about resolving issues within our daily lives, whether in business or leisure, we can be seen as wearing a hypothetical associative hat.

Obesity, being one of the major causes of so many degenerative diseases, and even death, is one major problem of concern. In the one hat solution mode we may consider exercise, or dietary eating habits, but we seldom ever undertake both when seeking a resolution to this massive problem(no pun intended).

When many people think of the term "diet," the first thing that comes to mind is the need to reduce weight. But diet is so much more than this. Diet, in the strictest of terms is, what we eat, when we eat, how much of it we eat, and how often. It is more about a lifestyle than it is about a means to a goal. What we eat, and how much we eat of it, is no more or less important than how often in a given day or at what times of day we eat.

There have many "diets" which have come and gone... Most of which have constituted unhealthy behavior when taken to such extremes. Examples of this include, but are certainly not limited to, the low carb diet, the low sodium diet, the water diet, and the low cholesterol diet.

Rather than seeking all the causes of dietary failures, and producing a truly balanced system, we have sought singular causes, and attacked those vehemently.

Contrary to these opening remarks, this article isn't about diet... that just serves as a ready example of what I refer to as one hat solutions.

When we consider economics we generally think in terms of mathematics and money. However, economics is driven more by psychology than it is by the mathematics of money.

In economics and in business there is a certain language employed, and this language carries with it alternate definitions from what we might expect in our normal every day lives, or even in any other form of science. When it comes to economics I apply the term science almost as a bit of a euphemism, and with some trepidation. For what passes as economic science within the monetary system is questionable at best, and quite possibly criminal at worst.

Just as with diet, when it comes to economics, money-market economists, typically referred to simply as market economists, or alternately as free-market economists usually only approach one given perspective at a time. The result is often disastrous. A cursory glance around the world today will confirm this. High to super high unemployment percentages, on the order of 20% or better in many cases, worse in many others... If the keyboard on your computer was only worked 80% of the time, or only 80% of it worked, one would not be able to make effective use of it, and would probably discard it in preference of a new keyboard. Imagine the kind of jumbled up phrases one would end up with if 20% of the keys didn't function. ou iht nd p ith omething ik thi. (<<<You might end up with something like this.) Having had a keyboard that was going out on me, and producing that effect, I am uniquely qualified to confirm that example.

Many economists have blamed the most recent economic crisis on what they referred to as the "Housing Bubble." I wonder, how many of those economists studied the system itself to see where it may have lead, or at least contributed, to the problem.

There are a lot of people out there suggesting ways we can fix the system to make it more productive and less destructive. But, from what I've seen so far, most of them are providing one hat solutions.

"If we just back our currency by precious metals, all of our problems would be solved."

"If we just take care of the ecology, all of our problems would be solved."

"If we just get rid of, or reform government, all of our problems would be resolved."

Many attempts at such things have occurred over time, and many of them have failed miserably. As each problem, along with all of its compromises are tried and fail, we tend to move on to the next possible resolution, never looking back, except to say, well that was tried, but it didn't work.

Not once, in history has an attempt been made which scientifically examined the root causes of all the worlds problems collectively, and tried to systematically resolve them. All attempts so far have been piecemeal, bandages, which only cover the symptoms and do nothing for a cure. Meanwhile all the infestation roiled beneath the surface, festering all the while, till one day it erupts violently.

We have seen such examples with the Proletariat revolution in Russia, which lead directly to a fascist dictatorship, which only remotely resembled communism. And, so we say, communism doesn't work.

Similarly, with socialism, with socialized medicine, socialized schools, and socialized law enforcement, and emergency fields. Except that it can be shown quite easily that where social medicine is practiced the people tend to live much healthier lives. Still, socialized schools don't seem to work.

But here is the key question about these systems that have not worked over time... "Have they not worked because they didn't go far enough, or because they went to far?" or, "What is it about these things which is not working?"

These are some of the things we will be exploring in this blog, and on the radio show. Please be sure to tune in, and feel free to add to this exploration.

In the Beginning...

2011-02-28T22:52:00.000-08:00

All good stories usually start here. This is the beginning, or is it? If we are truly going to solve any problems, we must first realize there is a problem, and then seek out the root of that problem. However, as we have often discovered, where we typically think the problem begins is where we first noticed it. However, in this, we are often mistaken.

For instance, we may look upon an instance of theft, and determine the theft was a direct result of one person having what another desired. By this logic, we may also figure this act was brought on by greed. Finding agreement in this notion, we may decide to punish this person for being so greedy. Thus we have prisons and so called correctional institutions.

Similarly, we may determine that all of the bankers and lawyers are also greedy, and thus seek jobs which will offer them the highest reward for the least work. Such a conclusion can easily lead us to believe that not only are some people greedy, but that many are also lazy.

Next, we may examine the lifestyle of those who live on welfare subsistence living. It is really easy to arrive at the conclusion that these people are not as greedy as bankers or lawyers, but are certainly lazy.

So far, all of our observations seem to confirm our suspicions. However, it is important to realize here that we have only conducted the most cursory of examinations, and we have relied solely on intuition for our source of knowledge. These are the types of queries which lead us to such faulty conclusions as the human nature argument.

Further, deeper analysis will reveal that our hypothesis doesn't always hold true. Some people are more altruistic than others, even given the same genetics/parentage.

If our hypothesis were true, we would expect all people to be greedy and lazy. Such is the nature of nature, or more specifically human nature. Nature is what occurs naturally, regardless of environment, or otherwise external influence. So that, a person who is greedy, would, by the human nature argument, have been born that way, the same would be true of laziness. So, if not all people are born lazy, and or greedy, then these traits do not belong to the human nature argument.

If they are not a part of human nature, then they may be genetic traits. However, if this were true, then we would expect all people of a particular genetic profile to be one, or the other, or both. However, this doesn't hold true either.

Given all that we apparently only thought we know about this phenomenon, is there anything about it we can honestly claim to know? Well, I'm glad you asked. The answer is, yes and no. We do know some things which we have learned in the process of studying this situation as well as several others. We know that at least the vast majority of what influences our behavior in environmentally borne. This is to say, we are more nurture than nature.

In fact, recent research into epi-genetics would tend to support this notion. It appears that we are so tied to our environmental influences that even our genetics can be remapped according to our surroundings.

If, we are so environmentally influenced, the question asks itself, "How is it some of us are so aggressive, violent, greedy, or lazy?" and, "What, within our environment, could possibly have caused so much aberration?"

Delving ever further into it all, we can see that almost all criminal activity is linked directly or indirectly to money and the monetary system. However, this doesn't really explain, in any detail, why some only steal merchandise, or food products, and others only steal money. After all, if one were to steal enough money, one could purchase those items which are coveted, brand new, rather than taking them in slightly to very used condition.

However, we could determine that since so much criminal activity is so closely tied to money, and the monetary system, that money itself is to blame for the behavior. This seems to be supported by the following quote from 1 Timothy 6:10, "for a root of all the evils is the love of money, which certain longing for did go astray from the faith, and themselves did pierce through with many sorrows" - Young's literal translation.

However, upon reflection, this approach seems a bit foolish since money has no conscience or will of its own.

So, if it isn't human nature and it isn't money, then what could it possibly be which causes so much aberrant behavior? and, Just exactly how deeply do we need to dig to get at the roots?

Since it would seem that we have traced most crimes to money, perhaps we should stick with that one a while longer. Where does money come from anyhow, and what purpose does it serve?

Money has long been used as a system of trade convenience. In fact, the precursor was the barter system, of trading goods for goods... the precursor of which was the gift economy. So, let's start there and work our way forward for a little while.

Before Man was Mankind, he was a hominid, or so the story of evolution goes. I, for one, subscribe to this theory. At that time he was no more than a hunter gatherer, who lived in family groups, or extended families known today as tribes. During those times, food was often scarce. In time, through pattern seeking behaviors we still recognize today, and can recognize in other animals in lab tests, he began to tell time and seasons. He became capable of recognizing certain types of edible food items and this knowledge was passed down through the ages, often by example, and then eventually through communication methods which were gradually improved. Eventually, he became capable of not only harvesting crops of grain, fruits, and vegetables, he also learned to plant and raise these crops and cultivate them. Almost simultaneously, he learned to domesticate animals for food, clothing, shelter and tools. Previous to this time, we can see examples of what looks a lot like a gift based economy. In this gift economy items are exchanged, but not as a form of direct barter or trade. There is no expectation of immediate reward, or return in kind.

Upon having learned these agrarian traits, Man began to build settlements, which eventually became villages, and then towns. It is during this time that Man, having learned to tame the land and the beasts begins to think more highly of himself. In some cases they could even be said to have seen themselves as rivaling the gods they had so long worshiped. They felt they had dominion, and would claim property rights. Rights which were often defended by brute force when challenged. It is around this time that a system of exchange begins to arise. This system, in many cases is conducted with strangers along trade routes. Strangers who may never be able to repay the customary kindness of the gift economy. Such an economy, in such a system could get quite costly, and so, this new system would require an immediate exchange in kind. Thus the barter system is born.

As civilizations grew, and trade routes got longer and busier, and products became more abundant, it became necessary to lighten the load, as it were. So, a system which seemed beneficial to all parties arose through a process of social agreements. And thus money was born. Or at least some primitive form of it. This new system was so successful that it caught on everywhere. Soon everyone was using this money system of trade and a new business arose. Since some people used differing materials in their coinage, of alternate qualities and quantities, some coinage was quite well lent to melting and re-smelting into an alternate coinage, thus increasing its value amount. So, the money changers were born. This, is who eventually becomes the bankers, by the way. Although they were more like the "Foreign Exchange Commission. "

So, as we can see, the true root of money is in the sense of ownership, and property. Gift economies didn't have such an idea. In a gift economy it wasn't really possible to own anymore than you could carry. Thus, it was impossible to own land.

This is something of a condensed version of the story, but none the less as accurate as I can currently get in so little space. It is also, perhaps, more accurate than I may really need for my purposes here. The story does vary slightly from location to location, but as generalities go it should serve our needs here. We know as much as we do about gift economies because many still exist to this day in remote corners and pockets of the world. The people who live in these societies, admittedly, live a much simpler and more agrarian lifestyle. They are not very technologically advanced at all. But, these people do live in much greater balance with nature and the natural world around them. They are truly sustainable societies, as evidenced by the fact that they still exist so many thousands of years later, while we, in the "civilized" and technologically advanced world, stand at deaths door.

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends...

2011-02-27T23:30:00.000-08:00

What is the SIDE SHOW, you may ask. It is a rag tag group of "freaks" for lack of a better term who have latched on to the circus train. They present themselves as a diversion before the big show.

How fitting that term is these days as I look around at all the growing numbers of people who have begun awakening from a long slumber in the comforting arms of blissful ignorance.

What you are about to witness here will astound and amaze you as the secrets of the universe reveal themselves to such wandering eyes. You will stand in awe at the majesty of our ecosystem, as well as the beauty and wonders of galaxies of mysteries once believed to be improbable.

There are so many mysteries awaiting us to discover for ourselves. I cannot teach you anything, but, if you will but allow me the privilege, I can serve as a guide along that path. It may seem a bit dark, bleak, and ominous at times, but together we can and shall persevere.

So, join me as we awaken that sleeping giant within each of us, and rediscover that curious child within us all. We will explore the deepest crevasses of our "souls," and journey through worlds untold to discover ourselves and become as beacons of light amidst the darkness.

A world of wonders await us just around this bend.

The Answer to the Economic Calculation Problem

2011-02-23T19:28:00.000-08:00

Get ready folks, this is going to be a long one. But, since there are those who say we haven't adequately answered the question, it begs the length and girth.

Okay, admittedly, I essentially cheated... rather than reading what Mises actually had to say on the subject, I referred to what is basically the Cliff's notes of the internet age... I went to wikipedia on the matter. Here is what I found.

Mises projected that without a market economy there would be no functional price system, which he held essential for achieving rational and efficient allocation of capital goods to their most productive use.

This is a BS answer. Any sane, rational person can quickly and easily see that this is a BS answer without even having to sniff at it for a bit. In fact, this is such a BS answer that it hardly counts as an answer. The only reason it has been accepted as an answer is because it supports the existing system, and doesn't require the truly lazy people to do anything.

Remember, that the argument isn't simply that a fully automated moneyless system won't work, but that it will create lazy people. But I would say it is truly lazy to come up with a cop out answer like this one.

So, let's not be lazy, and let's take the time to examine this answer for a bit to see what fits and what doesn't, and to see if my assertions are the least bit correct.

No market system = No Pricing system = No rational and efficient allocation of capital goods to their most productive use?

I know, let's define our terms first.

ra·tion·al
/ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl]

-adjective

1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
7. Mathematics .
a. capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers.
b. (of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials.
8. Classical Prosody . capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.

–noun

9. Mathematics . rational number.

ef·fi·cient
/ɪˈfɪʃənt/ Show Spelled[ih-fish-uhnt]

–adjective

1. performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.
2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.
3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.
4. utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.

capital goods

–plural noun Economics .
machines and tools used in the production of other goods ( contrasted with consumer goods).

wikipedia:

A capital good, or simply capital in economics, is saved-up wealth or a manufactured means of production.[1]

Individuals, organizations and governments use capital goods in the production of other goods or commodities. Capital goods include factories, machinery, tools, equipment, and various buildings which are used to produce other products for consumption.

pro·duc·tive
/prəˈdʌktɪv/ Show Spelled[pruh-duhk-tiv]

–adjective

1. having the power of producing; generative; creative: a productive effort.
2. producing readily or abundantly; fertile: a productive vineyard.
3. causing; bringing about (usually followed by of ): conditions productive of crime and sin.
4. Economics . producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value.
5. Grammar . (of derivational affixes or patterns) readily used in forming new words, as the suffix -ness.
6. (in language learning) of or pertaining to the language skills of speaking and writing ( opposed to receptive).

All of my terms are as defined by this site: dictionary.reference.com except where otherwise noted.

There are really only two best fits for definitions I can find within these sources as to the suggestion at hand. The first looks a little like this:

No market system = No Pricing system = No rational(1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.) and efficient(2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.) allocation of capital goods(Capital goods include factories, machinery, tools, equipment, and various buildings(and raw materials, resources) which are used to produce other products for consumption.) to their most productive(2. producing readily or abundantly; fertile: a productive vineyard.) use.

The other looks more like this:

No market system = No Pricing system = No rational(8. Classical Prosody . capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.) and efficient(3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.) allocation of capital goods(or simply capital in economics, is saved-up wealth) to their most productive(4. Economics . producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value.) use.

Now, since Mises was a market economist, and since he earned his money defending such a system, one can only assume he meant the latter of these options. This becomes quite obvious when one takes in to account the fact he calls it a "calculation" problem. This is further supported by the fact that Mises suggested that in order to have a true economy, it had to be measured in numbers, and lend itself well to mathematics.

Obviously he considered a system more productive if it gained a net profit for its investors, regardless of any other net result, such as waste, pollution, environmental degradation, or loss of lives. The assumption seems to be one of two things... Either resources are infinite, and thus we can afford infinite growth, as Mises' model is designed to accomplish, which, by the way, would be that efficient effect he was apparently looking for, or by the time all the resources are used up and the planet is depleted of anything useful we would be able to build rocket ships into outer space to find another planet to rape, the way we have with this one.

What this latter suggestion fails to realize, and make no mistakes... even if this wasn't Mises' idea, there have been plenty out there who have suggested this very thing, is that once the materials are depleted, there are no resources left from which to build that great rocket ship, and it certainly wouldn't fit the large population such a system inherently generates.

Had he asked the first question, I seriously doubt he would have supported the money-market system of trade. Remember folks, the answer is often determined by how you phrase and contextualize the question.

I would argue that the only way to answer the question, as contextualized in the first instance would be without money or market systems. Thus, we have an answer to the same question based on context.

So, let's examine the effects of these questions as framed within the two contexts.

In the first context, we have asked that some reason, logic and rational be invested into our decision making processes. In other words, we have advocated the use of the scientific method for social concern within a systems theory approach. With which we can study the effects of efficiency in production and distribution of resources to the benefit, or detriment of all. We can maximize the intelligent management of our resources economically, and ecologically, by minimizing waste production, and maximizing efficient use of those resources in their allocations, by use of intelligent recycling and design for reuse. And we can produce abundantly to provide for all humans within that society.

In Mises framework, materials and resources and their use are rationalized as a set of integers, for mathematical equations, which are then reduced to dollar signs, which have no logical referent to the physical world, and thus do not generate a truly sensible approach. His system is only efficient in that it efficiently generates a lot of pollution, and efficiently uses up resources to the point of depletion. It holds capital goods in the form of capital gains, and profits for a vast minority, while forcing the larger majority to suffer under an oppressive dictatorship of the tyranny of trade. All for the sake of being able to add a few numbers together which do not actually measure anything but the amount of suffering in the world, for every time the GDP goes up people are slaving away, and when it goes down, they are starving. Meanwhile, the people at the top of this ponzi/pyramid are getting fatter and lazier.

In short, the answer to the calculation problem is in how you frame the question.