Am I Getting Conservative?

 I sometimes wonder.  It's too bad we didn't have blogs in the 60's and 70's so I could trace the changes in my opinions over the years.  As far as today's politicians go, I generally support the Klobuchars and Bidens of the world. 

I likely am more internationalist/globalist than they.  I remember the heyday of the UN, when it was still viewed by some as essential to world peace.  And I remember the decolonialization movement and our concern over getting adequate foreign aid to the third world.  Liberals mostly seem to have abandoned that focus, but the influence of my ancestral religion still runs strong--the "Great Mission" was to convert the world.

On some current issues:

• I believe in much higher taxes on everyone.  I still retain the bias of JKGalbraith's "The Affluent Society", which argued we underfunded public amenities in favor of private extravagance.  There's no need for 2-4,000 square foot homes. 
• I don't believe in reparations--I do believe in experimenting with social programs, including dispersed public housing (down with NIMBYs) and cash transfer programs. 
• I don't believe in defunding policy, though I would favor more social services, more rehabilitation programs in prison.
• I think there are many more important things people could focus on rather than taking down monuments and renaming landmarks, but different strokes as we used to say in the 60's.
• I do believe in nationalizing a lot of statistics and making reporting mandatory--crime and health come to mind. 

Violence

 Up to now I've been optimistic on the state of the nation's politics, saying today isn't as bad as many fear.

I may be in the process of changing my mind.  I remember the conflicts in the 60's and 70's between the Weathermen and the Black Panthers and the hard hats of some unions. There was violence then, lots of bombs.  But I don't remember the group conflicts then.  The groups on the left were anti-establishment, and often still adhered to the ethic of nonviolence--although a few were killed, the bombings weren't intended to kill. The Black Panthers and police/law enforcement had violent clashes in which people died.  But except for union hard hats disrupting anti-war demonstrations there was little left-right violence with the police caught in the middle.  

That seems to be what's changing.  And what's dangerous is the likelihood of escalation--paint guns and rocks and fists can move to knives and guns, first displayed, then used.  That sort of dynamic is inherent in people, and it's dangerous.

I'm worried.

No Longer the Party of Limited Government?

From Reason.com:

So under Trump's signature, before any true crisis hit, the annual price tag of government went up by $937 billion in less than four years—more than the $870 billion price hike Obama produced in an eight-year span that included a massive federal response to a financial meltdown.

The Slow Progress of Videophone/Videoconferencing

 I'm not sure whether "videophones" is a comprehensive enough term but I'll go with it. I'm referring to the idea of being able to see the person with whom you are talking over long distance.  ("Long distance" for the young means the rest of the US beyond roughly 20-40 miles from your position which incurred a charge per minute,)

I vaguely remember participating in a test in ASCS in the 1970's--I think an innovative deputy administrator for management sprang for it.  It didn't work--too expensive, too little advantage.  Again in the 1980's I think there was a trial, maybe five or six managers in DC and Kansas City had special phones with the idea it would replace our trips back and forth.  It didn't work--too new, too much of a change, too awkward. Again the 1990's there was a trial, but this time it was televised conference calls, with a TV camera covering a conference table with maybe 10-12 seats. Again this was for DC-KCMO conferencing.  It worked better, although the facility had to be reserved at each end.  It was competing against email by this time, not something that the 1970's trial had to face.  I don't remember whether it was still in operation at the time I left.

Up to this point the process was using special phone/camera equipment--really "videophones".  I don't know for sure whether the 1990s were using the internet to communicate, likely not. Fast forward through the 2000's and the development of Skype until you reach 2020 and the wide use of Zoom, and competing services. 

Apparently it works now because almost everyone has the equipment--computer/smartphone with camera and broadband access--to participate. So there's not much hassle to setting up a call. And with the pandemic video conferencing becomes the only way to go.  Email with cc's to everyone works in some situations, but when you want back and forth conversations among a group, conferencing is the only way.  

Social Capital Equals the Dead Weight of the Past?

 In this century the term "social capital" has become popular.  (For some reason I can't embed the ngram viewer from Google, so you'll just have to take my word for it.)

The idea is that people accumulate relationships and knowledge which improve the functioning of society.  It's a positive term.  

The other side of the coin is seeing much the same phenomena as "the dead weight of the past", as Marx did in this quote. Or, as Lincoln wrote: " The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

One example from my lifetime: Germany and Japan recovered relatively quickly from the destruction of WWII partly because they had social captial.  Their people had knowledge, and they had institutions which could operate.  In the last century that was often compared with the situation in developing countries, where the people lacked the knowledge and the institutions.

However I can look at the other side of the same example: much of the social capital of pre-WWII Japan and Germany was useless or dangerous in the post-war situation.  They had to discard some and keep and exploit other aspects.

I think we're finding the same thing as we exploit algorithms in automation--the algorithms are based on past experience, so they reflect the past, both good and bad.  

Interesting FSA Notice For Farmers.gov Positions

 Some 35 years ago ASCS advertised 2-year positions in DC called "SCOAPers".  IIRC the acronym stood for "state and county office automation project".  Leroy Mitchell was, I think the Kansas City Management Office person who pushed it.  He was recognizing that the job of converting our manual and batch processing operations in the field to applications running on our new IBM System/36s couldn't be handled by the personnel on hand in DC. He had also been very impressed by the program assistants KCMO had worked with in the guinea pig counties (first one county--IIRC Osage Kansas, and then a group of 6 or so counties.

The DC office had big problems in hiring field people the way we had done in the past--i.e., hiring county executive directors for permanent positions.  Typically they'd get a grade increase to GS-11 or 12, with the possibility of getting to GS-13. In the old days that may have been a good enough carrot for an ambitious type, but as DC area housing prices soared in the 70's and early 80's due to inflation and a housing boom, it just didn't work.

Another problem, which I don't think most of us realized, was CED's could be at a loss in trying to handle automation.  A lot, most IMHO, were used to being the public face of the county office, relying on their clerks/program assistants to handle the nuts and bolts, the paperwork.

So the bosses worked out a deal with the Civil Service Commission and USDA's Office of Personnel to offer 2-year positions to program assistants and CED's to work on the automation from the DC side. The key to the deal was that they would technically still be county employees, not federal, so they didn't count against federal personnel ceilings. 

The program turned out to be key in changing the ASCS DC workforce from almost male-only.  In the end many of the SCOAPers stayed in DC, converting to GS status and advancing up the ladder to management.  There was another batch in 1987-8.

It sounds to me as if FSA is taking a similar approach to staff the farmers.gov initiative, as outlined in this notice.  Good luck to them. 

I note some differences:  it's a 2-year minimum with possible extensions up to 5 year max. And there's the possibility of relocation allowances. Despite the innovation of locality differences in pay, I suspect the problem of attracting field employees to DC remains, possibly not improving any since 1997. I also suspect management has underestimated the problems of implementing the farmers.gov.  

Chill: My Words for the Country

 I'm reminded of Wouk's "The Caine Mutiny" which I read multiple times in youth.  There was a couplet in it which I remember, notable because I don't remember much poetry.:

When in trouble or in doubt

Run in circles,

Scream and shout.

IIRC it was being applied to the USNavy, as their response to problems, perhaps by Lt. Keefer, but I may be wrong.

Anyhow it's a corollary of the Harshaw Rule--trouble and doubt occurs often when you're doing things for the first time, at least the first time within living memory.  That's what we as a world and a nation are doing now with covid-19.  It's new enough we have no assurance in what we're doing, so we get uptight and snap and fight.

Someone today noted that we have a huge number of different school systems, private, public, parochial, in different jurisdictions, all of which are using different approaches to handling schooling for the fall. Different because we don't know what are "best practices" for sure.

Lots of recriminations among the politicians about whose positions in the first quarter of the year were correct. I'm firm in my belief that the president screwed up, and continues to screw up the response. But, it's true enough we're all screwing up because we don't know now what we'll know in a year from now.  

So I think people should chill, at least a bit, and put more emphasis on who's learned what and what process will be most enlightening and educational. 

Why I, a Liberal, Worry About the Federal Debt

 Most liberals these days don't worry about the debt.  Even Kevin Drum, whose view I mostly follow, is rather blase about it.  So why do I worry?

One word: history.

I've lived throughabout a third of the life of the nation, which included some big increases in the debt, some severe inflation, and lots of changes.  Lessons I've learned:

• nothing lasts forever--the fact that inflation has been low, contrary to expectations of economists and conservative debt hawks, for many years doesn't mean it will always be low.
• inflation causes problems--it works for those with real assets, like homeowners, but not for people like those receiving aid from the government. 
• rising inflation rates leads to rising interest rates, which can rapidly eat up all flexibility in government budgets.  (See Clinton--whose 1992 program was killed by the bond traders.)

If we go on adding debt, it's like living at the foot of a mountain.  It snows on top of the mountain and the drifts build up.  But everyone says it's okay, it's been years since the last avalanche. So people build more houses at the foot of the mountain, and each time it snows there's no avalanche.  Comes the day when there is an avalanche and all the houses are wiped away.

Bottom line, I remember the 1950's, and 1960's when the Dem economists thought they had things figured and inflation was low enough.  Then Vietnam war heated up, debt increased, and money got tight.  We struggled through years of fighting inflation.  LBJ's Great Society dreams were sacrificed as a result.

I Don't Understand the Iowa Governor

 From the Gazette:

Gov. Kim Reynolds on Sunday requested an expedited federal disaster declaration to aid Iowa counties ravaged by last week’s a derecho that caused damage preliminarily estimated at nearly $4 billion — including $3.77 billion in crop damage in 36 counties.

What I don't understand is the crop damage request--given the changes in crop insurance and disaster programs in the 1990's I don't think there's any basis for it; at least there's no program under which USDA could make the money available.   

Ducks Pick Ducks

Rand did a big study of how the different US armed forces recruit and promote their general officers, particularly what are the features of each one's culture.  I skimmed it, finding it interesting, with some resonance with the differences in the cultures of the different USDA agencies I once knew.  

I hadn't run across the saying in the title before, but it makes sense.  It explains a lot of patterns in the bureaucracy.  A paragraph:

 “Ducks pick ducks.” We were unable to obtain data on exact compositions and backgrounds of promotion board members in order to compare them with the backgrounds of the candidates they ultimately chose for promotion. But we heard repeatedly from interviewees in each service that there is a tendency for promotion boards to select officers whose career experiences are comparable to their own, and for senior officers to select officers with backgrounds similar to theirs for aide jobs, positions that serve as a signal of O-7 potential to board members and can provide access to powerful networks of G/FOs. We also observed this trend in the SLSE. The notion of “ducks picking ducks” serves to cyclically reinforce service culture by perpetuating the selection of officers who similarly reflect service goals and preferences. As far back as World War II, Morris Janowitz wrote about the propensity of senior military leaders to fill their staff roles (e.g., military assistant or executive officer) with people who could “speak the same language.”582 However, this observation does not mean that the officers who are selected for promotion by similar, more senior officers are necessarily less qualified; it is possible that the “ducks pick ducks” tendency in some cases occurs because well-qualified officers sitting on promotion boards are selecting for other wellqualified officers.