How to Treat the Feeble Minded

From around 1840 to 1970, people who were diagnosed as 'feeble-minded' in Cambridge (UK) were confined in the Fulbourn Mental Hospital. Especially dim young girls who had a baby out of wedlock. And they were buried there, as rejects from the local community. It was something to be ashamed of.

How do we treat, today, the less-capable?

We spam them with deceptive pricing - so that they get a worse deal. We follow up purchases with 'would you like to buy insurance for that' - which, for consumer goods, is a truly rotten deal. We idolize baubles and meaningless celebrity, for them. And litter their lives with reminders of lust, fattening morsels, and addictive substances. To fund such consumption, we offer easy 'consumer-credit' - which only serves to make their life even more expensive. And, again, penalises the lazy, the ill-informed, and the incompetent.

Why is it that most smokers are among the poor in our society? (A habit costing GBP £5 per day here - when benefits are about GBP £100 per week). Is it, perhaps, because we offer them smoking as something that is 'manly', 'sexy', 'tough', or as an (illusory) way of feeling better about their lives?

Given the right attitude to commercial success, and to commercialism in society, is it any wonder that one can make 30% of a society obese (and 70%[?] overweight)[as now in the UK]?

As Michael Sandel points out there is a lot of virtue that cannot be measured by commercial success, and as Robert Sirico says there is a lot of virtue in rewarding that which is frugal and satisfies peoples choices. But there is more.

All of us are unable to keep more than a few of thoughts in mind at any one time, or of safely controlling motor vehicles at speeds much over 60 miles per hour, obsessed with sex and plumage, and weak and slow. Cetaceans are in all probability a lot smarter.

Given the environment of unfettered commercialism that we seem to think is best - with its rewards for 'marketing' and 'selling', as opposed to 'being good', or actually disseminating accurate information - is it any wonder that the poor are among the most resentful in our society?

Their young men come around to our houses and smash up the place trying to steal a few gadgets. Or do thousands of pounds damage to our offices when stealing a couple of computers they might get GBP £20 for from their drug dealing 'associates'. They blame scapegoats - and so often vote for hate and populist measures. (Like blaming bankers for crises of unpayable debts).

In some countries they keep virtually all such people in jail. (Where, I think, they give them cigarettes...).

Surely there should be much more investment in: Better rewards for socially productive interventions. And in innovations that spread good norms and values - often called 'education' and 'faith'.

After all social innovations and values are 'economic public goods', and so are under-provided by free markets.

The Christian church proved to be a pretty good, and durable, way of doing that in the absence of an effective state. And states, too, need moral and ethical foundations.

The Great Technological Watershed

Will the internet, with its ready information, lead to a "Great Technological Dumbing Down" - and, to even smaller elites making the real choices? Or will it give more power to all - make it easier to find out; easier to publicise; easier to coordinate; easier to get just things done?

Commercial Spam from Prompts and Keywords

How much did 'Christies' (the auction house) pay to get top rank in the prompts of my phone?  Did they pay the phone manufacturer HTC, or Microsoft who own the operating system (who also did other downgrades, 8 months before the contract ended)?

'Christ***' pops up, exclusively, and ahead of Christmas, Christ, or Christian.  Also, the phone chooses not to remember that I have never (and probably never will) wish to type 'Christ***'.

Could I offer to pay an extra (one off) $5 to opt out of all such prompts? In a world where consumers need to be informed, and suspicious, it would only be just if we were offered the chance to outbid commercials.  Which, by aiding the rich and powerful rather than the good, actually act against competition, rational choice and good in the world.

One can say the same of Google prompts in search and Chrome/Android/Etc - where strange things like Dubonnet, and American Airlines sometimes intrude suspiciously.

The Supicious, Penny-pinching and Ruthless Shopper

British Gas (Centrica Plc - the UK corporation) believe the lazy shopper should be punished with higher charges - so they charge loyal customers more.  They also use complex tariffs so that it is very difficult to tell if another tariff is actually any cheaper.

Is this is a good, or even the best, policy from the point of view of society?

British Gas Customer Relations declined to comment...  Perhaps, in the interests of economy, they don't have a corporate philosopher and shareholders discourage their managers from thinking about social impacts of their business model?

According to Adam Smith, "Trust" is fundamental to economic development, and to the equitable workings of "Market Economies" (Evensky; JHET 2011).  This policy of punishing the loyal, and rewarding the suspicious, penny-pinching, and ruthless, shopper who considers nothing but price, seems to me like a breach of trust.  Certainly spamming customers with complex tariffs is a breach of trust.  Also it discourages the most effective strategies for development and to maintain well-being (in repeated interactions).  Namely: 'tit-for-tat' (with forgiveness) and 'you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours'.

Naively, perhaps, I would have hoped that our biggest commercial organisations were not like that.

On the other hand, it could be helpful to sometimes remind shoppers that the primary raison d'etre of corporations is to make profits.  It is making profits that makes corporations frugal.  When there is little excess profit in our spending corporations will serve our interests most effectively.  But, in markets where customers are lazy and ill-informed sellers will extract excess profits, and allocations will be less than ideal.  Consumers will be poorer.

Rewarding price comparisons, and the lowest bidder, would ultimately lead to bankrupting of all but the least ethical - and so to calls for a strong and more active state.

This situation, where our biggest companies encourage the ruthless shopper, leaves a lot of responsibility on institutions that influence our 'morals' and our 'values' (namely: leaders; parents; churches; & the media).  So strong ethics, within companies, are vital to avoid the worst effects of free competition.

Global Sustainability - some notes

 

Title	Consider
WHAT DO WE WANT?     {why}
Sustainable__	Species/Habitats/Ecosystem
	°C
↑LivingStandards / ↓Deprivation__	Energy
	Ferts/Chems
DO?     {what}	↓CO2 ↓Energy ↓Fert/Chem ↓LandUsed[?]
TOOLS?     {how}
	Incentives/Rewards - $
	Values/Norms      - debate/ideas      - celebrities      - prizes      - religions/church      - media
	Costs      - taxes      - subsidies      - user fees
	Regulations      - punish/fine
	Rights: to Use/Do things
PROBLEMS?     {but}
	conflicting      ↑LivingStds <==> ↓E/Fert
	incommensurable      Spp; LivingStds; E; °C
	costs      transaction/ monitoring/ dead_weight
	valuations stakeholders (diverse|standing) timeframes (& discount rates) options knowledge (and costs of) existence (intrisinc|spiritual)
{who} {when} {where}

Trapped in Our Modules? - Cars and the Ideal City

can't drive his module
road movies
rebel without a cause
max max - with his nitro enhanced machine [/monster]
chrysler socal LA [factcheck!]
Is there not something completely out of proportion with a primate weighing perhaps 70kg choosing to travel about in vehicles weighing between 1000kg (Fiat) and 2400kg (Chev)? Per day these vehicles use an average of around 41,000 kCal from fuel, to transport people who need around only food with 2,300 kCal per day for good health.
instinct for size;power;image;loudness;freedom;agency
manipulated
remember all of the types driven/owned
- partially sex driven/ appeals to our most basic instincts
aspirations of the world popn

not only in the 'rich west': a minor leader in the revolution nicaragua (provincial Matagalpa) chose to receive a Land Cruiser as a reward of office - a great expense and a rarity in the country. Given the levels of deprivation a bus, or truck, could have served a great many more. In North Korea, as is true in virtually every other country, "[The passenger car] is the ultimate symbol of the prosperity of high officials" (Bloomberg). In developing economies car sales are booming. Sales in India and China are at record levels and, there too, cars are seen as a necessary symbol for having reached a 'good standard of living' (Gallup). Lagos is being rebuilt to suit automobile driving commuters.

In America, the relative prices of cars have not changed in the last 90 years (using Wage Rates, or GDP per capita). For example, in 1925 agricultural labourers earnt $630 per year (NBER 1929) and a Model T Ford cost just under $300 - and, in 2010, the cheapest cars were around $10,500-$14,500 and agricultural workers earnt $22,000 (18,800 median earnings; 24,400 citizens: USDA-ERS 2008).

Thus automobiles have become the icons, in the religious sense, in the modern world.

Margaret Thatcher famously commented that "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure" (House of Commons, 1986).

In the USA there are around 240 million registered cars, SUVs, & pickups (Statistical Abstract of the USA) - and many more scrapped or unregistered. This is equivalent to 0.8 vehicles per capita. If all countries took up motoring at the same rate as the USA, there would be 5.4 billion passenger vehicles in use on earth - using 56 billion barrels of oil per year, compared to total consumption of 3.1 billion barrels in 2008. These might need 5 billion tonnes of steel and much energy to manufacture, with immense CO2 emissions. Road deaths would also increase, and the problems from such greatly increased CO2 emissions could be very grave.

purchase of influence [thru instinct; affinities;
networks; legitimated aspirations;
advertising; and explicit lobbying]

all these have together given aspirations to the world popn
- which would be difficult to realise in practice

'modern' cities designed around cars - need not be so. many other arrangements are possible and provide shorter, healthier, and more pleasurable, commutes - as well as a more enjoyable environment. Congestion, time pressures - for example getting children to school - are all things that could be greatly eased by better planning and incentives. There are still many habited places without vehicles - some inaccessible; some poor, or ancient, and ill-adapted for cars; and some cut off by bad roads in wet seasons. Some of the most valued cities in the world are in fact old ones in Europe where driving is impractical.

The Aims of This Blog

Most of the world's problems are ultimately due to the choices and actions of individuals. These can be changed for 'good-living'. You can make a bigger pie; You can restrict access to the pie - Or, redirect shares of it (while possibly making the pie smaller); Or, you can use information and incentives to get people to behave better.