More about the future

I've wondered before, more than once, about what the future might hold, though obviously without any semblance of actual knowledge of such. Usually I've pointed to articles others have written, but I've not yet aimed (can I still say that?) you towards any which directly address the possibility of the United States breaking up, though a number of websites do so.

I've been thinking about this for some time, not because I think the South will rise again, but more as a result of economic and/or social breakdown. Many consider such breakdowns not as possibilities, but as paranoid fantasies from the far right. They may be correct, as its widely known old gray rednecks are often nuts.

My thinking originates, I suspect, from a very old belief of mine - I'm one of those who think that bigger is not necessarily better. Or to phrase it as I once did to Shane - I think micro beats macro in all but a few situations. I've wondered how the Constitution would be different had the founders known how large the country would end up.

With that said, it would not surprise me should a breakup occur in the future, though hopefully not till I'm gone. Most of my five readers have worked for large enterprises but some are acquainted with smaller ones. A few have actually owned small businesses, and/or weathered the storms inherent in growing a small business into a national conglomerate. I've not taken a survey so cannot state it as a fact, but I suspect those who have worked for both small and large firms would agree that systemic errors are far more likely to be found in the large ones.

I happen to think, though many disagree, that top down rule, or centralization, rarely works on a large scale. A group in DC cannot determine the best way for every hospital, or oil company, or automotive manufacturer in this country to operate, regardless of their credentials or how smart they think they are. If there are five tire stores in Richmond, they can probably be run by one man or group, but five hundred across the nation cannot. There are simply too many competing interests and far too many differing circumstances.

The above blather finally gets me to my point. I recently found an article which posits something similar. Gary North, well known in libertarian circles, posted an article which begins by commenting on an article about how the use of algorithms by major market players has changed the concept of investing. Algorithms, as used here, are basically no more than complicated computer formulae, with lots of "if this, then that" steps, mostly processed without human intervention. The article then looks forward to how the use of algorithms will likely affect other areas of life.

I found the article fascinating, and especially how it suggests that, in the future and due largely to economic factors, some smaller, more efficient version of what we've known as the nation state might become the norm. So, even if I'm wrong about the micro versus macro thing, I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.

---

Cantankerous you will be

While it is difficult to recall today, there were once gasoline filling stations which offered actual service. Many actually called them service stations. When you pulled up next to the pump, a young man, usually, would exit the office area and walk up to your window. "Fill'er up?" he might ask, and then he'd put the hose in the tank. While the fuel flowed, he would check your oil level and often wash the outside of your windshield.

I don't remember exactly when the change started, though I seem to recall the oil crisis of 1973-74 seemed to push it along. Prices skyrocketed and as one way to advertise lower prices, stations began installing self-service gas pumps (which had actually been around for over two decades). Both full service and self-service prices were listed on signs, so as to offer consumers the choice. Before long the full service stations either went out of business or diversified so that gasoline sales were no longer as consequential.

I no longer know of a full service gas station around here, though there may be some. I've read that in New Jersey, they passed a law outlawing self-service stations some years back that is still valid. I hold no great love for full service stations, as self-service is, if nothing else, quicker and therefore more convenient, at least for most of us. And as we all know, convenience is the prime consideration for boomers and those who follow.

For years I resisted the push to pay for gas with a debit card, and made it a point to have cash in my pocket when it was time to buy gas. Then, due apparently to the success of thieves, stations began to require customers to park their cars, go inside the station to prepay, go back outside to fill the tank and then go back inside to get their change. Obviously this was less convenient, so I started using a debit card.

Earlier this week, I stopped next to the gas pump and was reaching for my debit card when I noticed a new sign on the pump. I don't recall the exact wording, but it was something like "Debit - inside: Credit - outside". So now unless you want to buy gas on credit, you have to go inside first. I checked another pump and saw the same sign, so being a cantankerous old gray redneck (trust me, when you get to be old and gray - redneck or not - you'll be cantankerous too), I put the cap back on my gas tank and drove down the street to the next gas station.

In a similar vein I was in a Food Lion a couple weeks back when I was asked to show a picture ID to be able to buy beer. As I lifted my head expecting to see a grin on the cashier's face (I don't know why, but a number of cashiers seem to enjoy teasing we who are blessed with white hair), she was already pointing to a sign which said, roughly, "Everyone purchasing alcoholic beverages MUST show a picture ID". The cashier, nearly my age, just shook her head and said "Sorry, there's nothing I can do about it." I muttered something about petty little dumb-assed, college educated whippersnappers and she agreed, but I haven't been back.

For the time being, in matters like these, I can vote with my wallet, but I recognize this too will change in the future. Convenience, like the rule of law, will be a mere shadow of what it once was. Petty little laws passed by petty little politicians and petty little rules enacted by petty little asshats will continue to proliferate until one day, we'll all be cantankerous - redneck or not.

---

Dods and dens

Over the past year I kept a list of articles or websites I might want to comment on, or to recommend and I just finished going through it again to see if I'd missed anything still worth posting. Though some are months old, there are a few, though you may have already seen them.

First though, almost like an addendum to my last rant about science and the state, The Los Angeles Times recently ran an article in which several researchers claim that much of what the government has recommended about not eating fat for the last two or three decades is most likely dead wrong. Then, this year comes a report about the fraud perpetrated about autism and vaccine shots, and then one about the "mistake" the government made when pushing flouride. Golly, a cynic might wonder if it would be best to simply not believe anything spouted by the government.

Whether true or not, there is no question the government brags widely about all the ways they are helping we mere citizens. Well, maybe they don't share everything. For example, they don't often advertise that back in the 30s they actually poisoned alcohol, to try and push folks away from drinking. Then just a couple months back, the government apologized publicly for deliberately infecting citizens of Guatemala with syphilis, so they could study the disease.

Up north, the government decided they needed to spend $4.6 million to repair a bridge, even though it's used primarily by horses. Perhaps it's not all favors for contributors though, and actual incompetence is the real problem with our elites. In California it turns out that a few years back, their experts over-estimated the amount of pollution by 340%. Naturally it was just an innocent error, and only taxpayers will be forced to pay for it.

I found perhaps the best short explanation of government ever. Per Karen DeCoster, "Government is in the business of making special interests wealthy, and in the process, it knowingly creates problems that can feed its own growth so it has the manpower to “resolve” the problems. Many years and many $$$$$ later, the problems are far more widespread and catastrophic." Read the whole thing.

Okay, after this one, I'll leave the leaders alone. But if you want to understand why small government advocates seem a little annoyed, look at this list of California government agencies.

Early last year there was a report of raining fish in Australia. I remembered reading briefly about raining fish in other places, so I surfed around a little. Here's a good writeup about it in this country. In a similar vein, Unexplained America is also interesting.

Finally, and to prove I'm not always in a terrible mood, I know I have at least a couple of animal lovers who stop by from time to time. For them, here's a site that highlights really good pictures of baby animals. And did you know that some catepillars can whistle? I also happened upon the world's most bizarre mugshot, though it's not really a laughing matter. Finally I found the article which men my age have been looking for for years. Now I have to find a new excuse for my lack of a social life.

---