In August, 1935 Soviet newspapers reported that a twenty-nine year old miner, Aleksei Grigorievich Stakhanov (Алексе́й Григо́рьевич Стаха́нов) in the Donbass region mined 102 tonnes of coal in five hours, forty-five minutes. The output was fourteen times his quota. Less than a month later, he mined 227 tons in a single shift.
These heroic accomplishments were held up as a model for others to follow. Workers who exceeded their quotas were known as "Stakhanovites." The movement inspired others to follow suit. The government's goal was to exhort individuals to ever greater efforts at productivity.
Several curious things about the Stakhanovite movement.
1. The Soviet Union had just completed a bloody collectivization campaign, collectivizing every industrial and agricultural activity, yet Stakhanov's accomplishment was to exceed a personal, piece-work goal;
2. Central planners also established output goals for enterprises, but managers apparently saw no way to achieve those goals except to prod individual workers;
3. Central planners were heavily engaged at the time in mechanization of production, but management methods followed pre-revolutionary hierarchical and authoritarian models of management;
4. Management focus was on gross output, not quality;
5. Exhortation was a major instrument of motivation - this instrument almost never works well;
6. Seeds of later failure of the Soviet economic model were sown in the late twenties and early thirties.
My main conclusion: Soviet economic shortcomings resulted from poor management methods - methods handed down from at least the time of Peter the Great.
The failure of the Soviet Union as a political system, however, stemmed from the difficulty of incorporating more than 120 nationalities, with as many languages and at least that many cultures.
It was a pretty impossible task. The breakup of the Soviet Union has not completely played out to this day.
Though the experiment failed, it accomplished some amazing things.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Romney Killed Bin Laden?
Very interesting post by Dylan Matthews in yesterday's Washington Post about a recent Public Policy Polling report from Ohio. The most surprising response to polling questions was that 15% of Republicans polled expressed the opinion that Romney was responsible for the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
How could that be?
Matthews examines some relevant scholarly analysis of polling and presents some possible explanations. He summarizes the analysis: "....voters have trouble crediting politicians they don’t like for policy outcomes they do like. And killing bin Laden is a policy outcome they do like. And so partisan effects have led some Republicans to argue that Obama was not primarily responsible for killing bin Laden or, even more absurdly, that Romney was responsible."
I recommend the whole article. It is also worthwhile reading the referenced scholarly articles as well.
It explains why a campaign operative might say "we won't let our campaign be driven by fact checkers."
How could that be?
Matthews examines some relevant scholarly analysis of polling and presents some possible explanations. He summarizes the analysis: "....voters have trouble crediting politicians they don’t like for policy outcomes they do like. And killing bin Laden is a policy outcome they do like. And so partisan effects have led some Republicans to argue that Obama was not primarily responsible for killing bin Laden or, even more absurdly, that Romney was responsible."
I recommend the whole article. It is also worthwhile reading the referenced scholarly articles as well.
It explains why a campaign operative might say "we won't let our campaign be driven by fact checkers."
Monday, September 10, 2012
Democracy In America
Last May I came across a blog titled Middle Class Political Economist. The post that caught my eye was an examination of over representation of rural areas in the US Congress. I thought it was a good discussion of an issue I had long pondered.
So I offered the following comments:
Some of the ills of congress are built into our constitution. The US Senate, for example, which likes to characterize itself as "the world's greatest deliberative body" is arguably the "free world's" least democratic body. That is, first of all, a consequence of the constitutional arrangement that each state, regardless of size or economic output, have an equal number of senators. This is compounded by the increasingly inexplicable commitment of the senate to the requirement of a supermajority of senators to pass any legislation at all. My solution to that: get rid of paper filibusters imposed by the cloture rule. Let's go back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. Filibusters would become more rare because voters could see what was happening and better understand what it was about.
Some republicans want to fix the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment providing direct popular election of senators. What, we have too much democracy?
A common complaint about the House of Representatives is "My representative doesn't listen to people like me."
Some advocate term limits to fix this. I say, we already have term limits. Elections. What we don't have is enough representatives.
We are going through redistricting right now. This is the process after every decenniel census (except for the 1920 census - there was not a reapportionment after that census). First congress reapportions seats in the House of Representatives to the states according to population. District boundaries are then redrawn by state legislatures and in some cases by courts.
Contrary to popular opinion, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is not in the constitution. But the number has not changed since it was set at 435 in 1911. At that time, each member of the House represented about 216,000 citizens. Since then, our population has more than tripled, but the number remains the same. Now each member represents about 708,000 constituents.
My suggestion: enlarge the House so that each member represents about 216,000 citizens. With modern communications systems, that would allow the members closer communication with constituents. It would also lower the financial and organizational barriers to running for office. It might reduce the influence of money in politics and even create opportunities for more political parties to become competitive.
How many representatives would we have? About 1,426. Admittedly, that might make the body even more unwieldy, but it might force more cooperation. It would certainly induce representatives to be more responsive to constituents.
How could we accommodate so many representatives? Replace the desks on the floor of the House with benches. Reduce representatives' personal staffs. Currently, members are allowed to hire as many as eighteen personal staffers. Reduce that to five per member. Representatives might have to study bills themselves, possibly answer phones and write some of their own correspondence. But they wouldn't have to raise so much money.
Originally Posted May 29, 2012
So I offered the following comments:
Some of the ills of congress are built into our constitution. The US Senate, for example, which likes to characterize itself as "the world's greatest deliberative body" is arguably the "free world's" least democratic body. That is, first of all, a consequence of the constitutional arrangement that each state, regardless of size or economic output, have an equal number of senators. This is compounded by the increasingly inexplicable commitment of the senate to the requirement of a supermajority of senators to pass any legislation at all. My solution to that: get rid of paper filibusters imposed by the cloture rule. Let's go back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. Filibusters would become more rare because voters could see what was happening and better understand what it was about.
Some republicans want to fix the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment providing direct popular election of senators. What, we have too much democracy?
A common complaint about the House of Representatives is "My representative doesn't listen to people like me."
Some advocate term limits to fix this. I say, we already have term limits. Elections. What we don't have is enough representatives.
We are going through redistricting right now. This is the process after every decenniel census (except for the 1920 census - there was not a reapportionment after that census). First congress reapportions seats in the House of Representatives to the states according to population. District boundaries are then redrawn by state legislatures and in some cases by courts.
Contrary to popular opinion, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is not in the constitution. But the number has not changed since it was set at 435 in 1911. At that time, each member of the House represented about 216,000 citizens. Since then, our population has more than tripled, but the number remains the same. Now each member represents about 708,000 constituents.
My suggestion: enlarge the House so that each member represents about 216,000 citizens. With modern communications systems, that would allow the members closer communication with constituents. It would also lower the financial and organizational barriers to running for office. It might reduce the influence of money in politics and even create opportunities for more political parties to become competitive.
How many representatives would we have? About 1,426. Admittedly, that might make the body even more unwieldy, but it might force more cooperation. It would certainly induce representatives to be more responsive to constituents.
How could we accommodate so many representatives? Replace the desks on the floor of the House with benches. Reduce representatives' personal staffs. Currently, members are allowed to hire as many as eighteen personal staffers. Reduce that to five per member. Representatives might have to study bills themselves, possibly answer phones and write some of their own correspondence. But they wouldn't have to raise so much money.
Originally Posted May 29, 2012
Football - A Liberal, Collectivist Enterprise
Conservative columnist George Will has uncovered a liberal, elitist plot - the introduction of football into higher education. Football teams, after all, succeed because of effective teamwork, planning and organization. They don't succeed because of stars, who can't score without blockers.
If Will had any direct personal experience with military operations, he would know that the military is a collectivist enterprise as well.
I guess that's why George Will is so fascinated with baseball. Still, there's a disturbing amount of teamwork there as well. Hard to imagine a triple play or a hit and run play without teamwork.
If Will had any direct personal experience with military operations, he would know that the military is a collectivist enterprise as well.
I guess that's why George Will is so fascinated with baseball. Still, there's a disturbing amount of teamwork there as well. Hard to imagine a triple play or a hit and run play without teamwork.
How To Be A Republican
- You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.
- You have to be against all government programs, but expect Social Security checks on time.
- You have to believe...everything Rush Limbaugh says.
- You have to believe society is color-blind and growing up black in America doesn't diminish your opportunities, but you still won't vote for Alan Keyes.
- You have to be against government interference in business, until your oil company, corporation or Savings and Loan is about to go broke and you beg for a government bail out.
- You have to believe a poor, minority student with a disciplinary history and failing grades will be admitted into an elite private school with a $1,000 voucher.
[Alternate to the first item: "born on third base, but thought he hit a triple."]
The late Ann Richards had a real Texas accent. Her comments may seem a bit dated, but not all that much.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Seventy Years Ago: September 9, 1942 - Japanese Bomb Oregon
Pretty incredible for a Japanese aircraft to bomb Oregon, but they did it seventy years ago, September 9, 1942. Here's the story.
On Poverty And Government
Economist Jared Bernstein brings to our attention an illuminating graph showing data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a body made up of the world's 20 most advanced economies. What the graph shows is that all 20 advanced countries alleviate poverty to some extent by redistribution payments.
The poverty rate of the United States before redistribution is 26.3%; very close to the 26.4% average of the other 19 member states.
After redistribution, however, is a completely different story. The poverty rate of American citizens after taking redistribution into account is at the bottom - 20th among OECD countries.
"We're number 20" isn't such an inspiring chant. Here's the graph:
We're the richest country in the world and that's the best we can do?
The poverty rate of the United States before redistribution is 26.3%; very close to the 26.4% average of the other 19 member states.
After redistribution, however, is a completely different story. The poverty rate of American citizens after taking redistribution into account is at the bottom - 20th among OECD countries.
"We're number 20" isn't such an inspiring chant. Here's the graph:
We're the richest country in the world and that's the best we can do?
On Women And Work
"They blame the low income women for ruining the country because they are
staying home with their children and not going out to work. They blame
the middle income women for ruining the country because they go out to
work and do not stay home to take care of their children."
-Ann Richards
When we were pushing "welfare reform," meaning putting single mothers out to work, I always wondered, "who is going to raise the children?" There are possible answers, but I don't recall that we ever had that conversation.
-Ann Richards
When we were pushing "welfare reform," meaning putting single mothers out to work, I always wondered, "who is going to raise the children?" There are possible answers, but I don't recall that we ever had that conversation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
