Can Blacks use the law of discovery to carve out new territory and capital?

One of the failures of black leadership is its unwillingness to pursue a truly self-interested agenda for the people they allegedly represent. The current narrative of assimilation does not work. It puts blacks in an unequal and weak position compared to whites and other non-white populations who have pursued a capital acquisition policy first versus a political empowerment/assimilation approach still preferred by most blacks. It never discusses in any significant way the acquisition of productive capital around which communities can be built. Rather, the assimilationist argument centers on fluffy subjects such as social justice, membership of degreed blacks on the boards of white-owned corporations, and affirmative action in the workplace and in colleges and universities.

To be fair, a number of grass roots advocates do bring up the topic of access to capital by black-owned firms, but the problem is that business capital, whether in the form of loanable funds or equity investment is small compared to the number of black businesses in need of funding. Also, there is the risk that terms and conditions underlying the funding of black enterprise firms may not representative of the black population primarily because the boards that direct these underwriters are probably not members of the community in the first place. Just take a look at the names and faces of the members of the typical executive committee or board of directors and you see my point.

Blacks, as a people, simply are not calling their own shots. If you listen to the rhetoric of current black political leaders, liberty and freedom as it pertains to capital, are not a part of the lexicon. Black political leadership is more concerned with keeping blacks available to vote for white Democratic Party candidates as opposed to self-reliance. Probably in the minds of black political leadership, self-reliance would be akin to self-determination or nationalism and these leaders are afraid that such an approach would sever their attachment to America. But the attachment to America is false one, as I have argued before, because blacks did not come here voluntarily and apply the law of discovery.

To summarize Chief Justice John Marshall, the European came to North America but while acknowledging its Native American occupants, the law of discovery, of showing up first, gave title to the country making the discovery. That Native Americans were there first was irrelevant. Once, say England, made its discovery of what would later become the United States, it created a title that excluded claims by any other European power. Establishing this “title” over the land meant of course establishing control over its natural resources; land, air, water, minerals, the stuff that supports production, transportation, communications, energy generation and distribution.

To the activities that land, water, air, minerals, paid, indentured, and enslaved labor supported, the European was able to attach “coin”; to monetize. He would later create a centralized banking system to underwrite his government’s issue of debt as well as serve as the lender of last resort to commercial banks. The European’s financial system would, in conjunction with public sector investment, underwrite technological innovations that would further spur the design and production of consumer goods and services.

Blacks have been left largely out of the ownership of productive capital in the American political economy and as I have discussed in previous posts, it is too late and probably impractical to attempt any action under the laws of discovery for the purpose of acquiring the natural resources that underpin an economy that would support 43 million people on a self-sustainable, self-reliant way. But I do not think this is impossible.

Cyberspace provides “territory” that blacks can conquer and extract capital from. From the time I immigrated to the mainland I have always believed that blacks had the intellectual resources to construct their own vibrant economy. It boils down to a willingness of the black population to use broadband technology to connect to and import resources from outside of the United States and mixing those resources with the access to land, air, minerals, and water that blacks have here in the United States. It means the black population using its engineering skills to build a renewable energy infrastructure that provides electricity to its population. It means building communications networks using unlicensed to spectrum to tie black households to basic services. It means using the black population’s legal talent to advocate for laws that protect the importation of items into the United States that can be processed by plants designed and built in the U.S. by black engineers. It means using financial talent to reinvest these proceeds back into the black population and further growing its resources and income.

The great thing about applying the “law of discovery” to cyberspace is that no one has to be kicked out or enslaved. There is still plenty of territory to carve up; to reverse colonize but this time with equitable results.

What Woodrow Wilson left out of the definition of public administration: capital

Back in 1887, Woodrow Wilson wrote an essay on the importance of the study of administration of government. Mr. Wilson, who would go on to become president of the United States, is usually referred to as the father of public administration. By his definition:

“Administration is the most obvious part of government; it is government in action; it is he executive, the operative, the most visible side of government, and is of course as old as government itself. It is the object of administrative study to discover, first, what government can properly and successfully do, and secondly, how it can do these things with the utmost efficiency and the least possible cost either of money or of energy.”
Other scholars have offered their tweaks on the definition. Charles H. Levine, B. Guy Peters, and Frank J. Thompson define public administration as:

“[T]he implementation of government policy and an academic discipline that studies this implementation and that prepares civil servants for this work.” It is “centrally concerned with the organization of government policies and programs as well as the behavior of officials (usually non-elected) formally responsible for their conduct.”

George J. Gordon and Michael E. Milakovich define public administration as:

“… all processes, organizations, and individuals (the latter acting in official positions and roles) associated with carrying out laws and other rules adopted or issued by legislatures, executives, and courts.”

And Melvin J. Dubnick and Barbara S. Romzek provide the following take on this branch of political science:

“The practice of public administration involves the dynamic reconciliation of various forces in government’s efforts to manage public policies and programs.”

Looking back on my public administration studies and my time as a practitioner, I can say that the above definitions capture the various facets of the discipline; that academics and practitioners do not vary much from these definitions when either studying the administration of public policy or carrying out public policy and managing institutional systems. The problem, however, with the study and practice of public administration in a market-oriented political economy is that the study of public administration rarely if ever addresses public administration’s impact on private capital, specifically, how management of public capital positively impacts returns to private capital.

In getting to his description of public versus private capital, Thomas Piketty first describes national capital “as the total market value of everything owned by the residents and government of a given country at a given point in time, provided it can be traded on some market.” National wealth includes land, dwellings, commercial inventory, other buildings, machinery, infrastructure, patents, bank accounts, mutual funds, stocks, bonds. Mr Piketty found that public capital or public wealth are assets and liabilities held by government and other social entities including towns and other social insurance agencies while private capital or wealth is made up of assets and liabilities held by individuals.

One question that public administration does not address is how best to deploy public capital to boost returns to private capital. While there is literature discussing how public sector spending can boost gross domestic product or even productivity, the study of public administration silos itself by discussing fiscal policy, infrastructure, and public goods, and leaving the discussion of private capital to the markets.

Why is this discussion necessary? Public sector spending needs discipline. How many of us have asked the federal government to provide a cost analysis of each tax dollar we spend and then provide some data on returns on that tax dollar? I wager none. But if public spending on the public goods that act as inputs for private sector production was done at low cost to the tax payer while providing a low cost input for the private sector, could public administration play a more meaningful role in the production of returns on private capital?

It is a question worth pursuing.

There is too much “we” in our mindless political analyses

Recently I saw a meme on my Facebook feed that asked, “How did my freedom end up in Afghanistan?” As July 4th approaches I cringe at the thought of all the patriotic messages that will be spewed especially by Blacks born here in the United States. Their thoughtless blithering on “freedoms” and “blessings” form the basis for the observation in the Afghan meme.

Thoughtless because it is beyond me how a small Central Asian country that has poppy as its main crop could pose any danger to my ability to walk around my neighborhood; eat my turkey sub; write this blog post; apply for a job; or watch a movie.  Yes, the Afghans are notorious for rightfully kicking the asses of imperialist British and Russian invaders, but if anyone’s freedom is being threatened, it is that of the Afghans who have a 150 year of more long history of battling uninvited guests.

Blacks in America should be especially mindful of latching on to the “we” word.  A group of people who only saw their rights as citizens fully incorporated by law within the past 60 years should be pulling back from the assimilation rhetoric of current misguided or disingenuous political leaders.  So quick to be accepted are blacks that it is easy to spout the mindless adages that will flow more freely than beer during July 4th.

It is too easy for blacks to scream that the Russians attacked “our” election process.  Really? How so? Did the Russians stop 20 million eligible black voters from going to the polls and choosing Hillary Clinton?  How is it “our” process when diverse voices within the black population can nary get support from fellow blacks?

The second problem with “we” is that it reinforces the myth that the black population is a political monolith.  Black over-indexing in support for the Democrats creates group speak and gives the Democratic Party the emotional, Pavlovian responses that make good sound bites for television talking heads and thirty-second video clips for MSNBC.

The appropriate unit of analysis for reflection should be “I”. Democracy and the partisan politics that flow from it have made Americans fearful of sounding selfish or anti-social. Avoiding the “we” is painted as anti-collective and creating disharmony.  Focusing on the “I” fears collectivists, especially the collectivists on the Left because the “I” means operating in an environment of mental and emotional discipline, and when operating in the space raises the chance that the individuals says, “Hey. Not so fast, collective. That’s not where I want to go.”

It is time to pursue more independent thinking. Time to stop fearing the “I”.

Understanding your country as a payment system

A macroeconomy is a payment system. Historically, the first payment system was the one where an individual paid himself. His effort i.e. getting up in the morning, finding something to eat, killing it and cooking it, was exchanged for survival i.e. eating, housing, and sex. As he sought comfort, convenience, or security, man decided to enter into an extended payment system called trade with people outside of himself. The results of his efforts represented by a portion exceeding the amount necessary for his survival could now be exchanged for additional comfort, convenience, or security.

The payment system has expanded with trade, becoming local, then regional, now global. The value of the trader’s effort is now represented by hard and digital currency.  But the system is also imbalanced.  It is bloated having been converted into an extraction conveyor belt excavating more out of natural and human resources.  The bankers depicted in Pieter van der Heyden’s The Battle about Money have programmed the conveyor belt to extract more from one’s effort in exchange for access to units of survival that have been increasingly expensive.

This imbalance has led to a widening of the income and wealth gap. The imbalance has also led to a macro payment system that intrudes on the privacy and civil liberties of the individual in order to extract more of his effort and more of his financial resources. It surveils him in order to market items to him that will persuade him to spend more of his coin.

The imbalance has spawned political, social, and economic factions based not on familial ties or lineage but on artificial classes of haves and have nots. Why do I say artificial? Because the reasons usually presented by the political elite for the existence of these classes never takes into account the hoarding of capital, an activity political elites take a heavy hand in.  For if the political elites were truly concerned about reducing these gaps, they would promote initiatives that promote getting into the hands of current consumers the technology that would make them self-sufficient.

Such promotion may result in getting the individual off of the payment system plantation, an end result the elite is not interested in.

The Sarah Sanders fiasco challenges the notion of free exchange of ideas and nation-state.

America’s hypocrisy when it comes to the freedom to exchange ideas was further exposed last weekend when Sarah Huckabee Sanders, press secretary for the White House, was asked to leave the Red Hen, a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. According to The Hill.com, Mrs. Sanders along with seven members of her family, was asked by Stephanie Wilkinson, the co-owner of the restaurant, to leave the establishment because she took issue with the Trump administration’s policy toward transgender members of the military.  Listening to calls this morning to C-SPAN on the issue is giving me the sense of how increasingly polarized the United States is politically. It has me asking, “Are Americans really serious about the free exchange of ideas or is that just some Madison Avenue hype designed to maintain an artificial society?”

The first three words in the Constitution of the United States of America, “We the People”, seem farcical given this latest event. Yes, humans are expected to disagree, but the United States has been transmitting a message to the world that the choice to disassociate based on the groups you want to disassociate away from is somehow a bad thing and that real strength lies in diversity of people and ideas.  The Sanders event is an example that this creed is built on shaky ground. It seems more likely that Americans rather not share space with people who do not share their political beliefs or political lineage. “We the People” means, “We, a Particular People Who Have Taken Charge.” Inclusive means only including those who share your beliefs.

The State had to sell the notion that the disenfranchised were allowed to come to the party. The last thing the United States needed to see was its own version of Bastille Day on American soil. To keep the barbarians at bay the political elite needed a doggy bone and democracy has been that bone since the country’s inception.  But as the guise of democracy and its phony noble intent falls away, are the disenfranchised ready for a world that is not inclusive?

If Americans are serious about freedom of association and the freedom to exchange ideas, they must accept the freedom to disassociate and go one’s own way. The Left is afraid of such a mindset because disassociation means fewer people across which to spread the costs of unnecessary programs and fewer people towing their party line.  The Left has been historically aligned with freedom of thought, but their support for the co-owner of The Red Hen demonstrates to me that even they do not understand their equality standards and the artificial nature of those standards are coming back to harm them.

The co-owner of the Red Hen, again, took issue with transgender policy of the Trump administration and given the lack of anonymity that Mrs. Sanders could not avoid were able to single her out and direct a protest against Mr. Trump by asking her to leave.  Would the Left take issue with a restaurant owner who does not support the Democratic Party because of the party’s support for gay marriage but because she is aware that 90% of blacks support the Democratic Party decides to not serve them? The answer is yes and not because the Left would think the owner is wrong, but the loss of black votes stemming from any Democratic support for the restaurant owner’s free speech would cost Democrats at the polls.

I don’t believe the discussion on free association will ever end. Quite frankly it needs to continue and get louder.

Anonymity in broadband and cryptocurrency

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Timothy Carter v. United States (No. 16-4012) on the question of whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy where cellphone information stored by a wireless carrier is shared with the government without a warrant issued on the basis of probable cause. The court ruled last Friday that using third-party cell storage location information to track the physical movements of a citizen requires a warrant less the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution be violated. The Fourth Amendment provides the following:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by the oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This opinion is pretty narrow and by that, I mean that the court’s holding in this case may not hold when the issue does not involve seizing information documenting an individual’s movement over a long period of time or the involuntary sharing of such information with a third party.

I admit that on the surface, this case may have nothing to do with the transmission of digital information in the form of currency given its narrow meaning. Cryptocurrency is still in its infant stage. Unlike a cellphone that generates continuous cell site location information, I doubt at this stage of crypto growth that you will have a consumer making 127 straight days of transactions such that miners are continuously verifying a consumer’s transaction blocks. It may be another matter for vendors that accept cryptocurrencies that are accepting crypto every day.

What cryptocurrency does have in common with the case is the threat to anonymity. While the general description of cryptocurrency includes anonymity, anonymity is, like the information transmitted by a cellphone, not guaranteed.  In a piece for CoinDesk.com, writer Adam Ludwin describes how cryptocurrency transactions can be “deanonymized.”  While anonymous, Bitcoin transactions, for example, are not private. Transactions are recorded in a distributed ledger called a blockchain. Anonymity is more a function of the Bitcoin protocol, but during a user loses anonymity when their identities are linked to their initial Bitcoin currency purchases, whether done via a digital wallet or via an exchange.

Mr. Ludwin describes how anonymity can be gained by buying Bitcoin from a private holder or buying from an exchange.  But just like a mobile broadband communications network can betray a subscriber’s identity, so to can a cryptocurrency network, whether via the public nature of Bitcoin’s transactions ledger or via the IP addresses of the computers originating Bitcoin transactions.

 

Of Congressional factions, disruptive economy, and Donald Trump

The Goodlatte-McCaul Immigration & Border Security bill, HR 4760, failed to pass a few minutes ago.  I believe that Mr. Trump will gain more traction from the failure of both bills to pass and from the further weakened position of congressional Republicans as their majority starts looking like the majority that former president Barack Obama had in the first two years of his first term in office.  I would go further and argue that the sweet spot for Donald Trump would be the finish the second half of his first term with at least one chamber of Congress under the control of Democrats.

While on the surface the disruption may seem abnormal or undesirable, disruption, as represented in a split Congress, disruption is what Americans should expect. A majority of interests cannot exist without a minority of interests.  There is no such thing as congressional harmony.  There cannot be harmony given the political goal of a party: to persuade the electorate that the party should have a monopoly on the power and prominence that comes with office.  Mr. Trump, I believe, already had a sense of this going into office and the dysfunction of his party may have strengthened the rationale for his findings.

For example, take Obamacare. The premature consensus was that with majorities in both chambers, Mr. Trump would be able to move a repeal of the controversial Affordable Care Act through a friendly Congress. Pundits and constituents were wrong. The Affordable Care Act is still on the books thanks primarily to its provisions that extend care to children up to age 26 and its protection of consumers with pre-existing conditions.  Mr. Obama put a bomb in the ACA that Republicans are now afraid to detonate.

Another example: tax reform. While the GOP was able to pass some measure of tax reform, the level of difficulty in getting a bill to Mr. Trump to sign caught Congress watchers off guard.  Did Republicans doubt their chances so much in November 2016 that they started a new Administration and entered the 115th Congress with no coordinated plan?

It doesn’t help that the electorate does not look favorably on Congress. The average approval rating for Congress is 17%, according to a May 2018 Gallop poll.  Among Democrats the approval rating is approximately 12% while Republicans hold Congress in slightly higher regard at 22%.  The President’s approval rating is another matter.

According to Gallop, Mr. Trump’s current approval rating is approximately 45%, up from a low of 35% back in December 2017.  While his overall approval rating gives him some cushion against the low view of his colleagues in Congress, what is being overlooked is his performance among independents and Democrats.

Mr. Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is 90%. No surprises there. Among independents, Mr. Trump’s current approval rating among independents is 45%. At the low point the approval rating among independents was 29% but has been hovering in the thirties throughout 2017 and 2018. Meanwhile, a small number of Democrats are flirting with the idea of liking Mr. Trump. While his favorable rating among Democrats has mostly been in the single digits, since his inauguration his weekly average favorable rating has been in the double digits twelve times. It is currently at 10%.

I see Mr. Trump having room to maneuver away from the congressional Republicans and while moving away from the party may seem disruptive, disruptive is the modus operandi in today’s economy. We hail disruptors like Elon Musk, Brian Chesky, and Garrett Camp for using technology to upend the electricity, hotel, and transportation industries. Mr. Trump is doing the same thing, albeit not with the smooth intellect of an Elon Musk.

He has shown no fear in governing as an executive, using the executive order option with no hesitation. And while his ability to transfer his deal making skills from the world of real estate to the game of thrones has taken heat, his negotiations with Kim Jong-Un could move him toward silencing critics.

Politics is about creating the political packages that win over the pawns necessary for winning the throne. Mr. Trump, so far, is beating the Democrats.