Gyroscopic Investing

If the Permanent Portfolio existed during the American Revolution, the writers of the United States Constitution would need to include the fourth branch of government which required the people of the United States to participate by voting and monitoring the politics and special interests. How about you? If you need to include the 4th branch in the United States Constitution, what would it be?

1. Executive Branch
2. Legislative Branch
3. Judicial Branch
4. Civic/Military Duty Branch

I don't understand the question or its premise. But then again I may be the wrong person to ask as one who doesn't have a favorable view of the Revolution.

Wouldn't a revolutionary war PP be made up of cash, stocks, bonds, and gold?

Having reread the original post I think I grasp the question. The Founders did indeed include a constitutional provision for compulsory service.

Slavery.

I wonder what the monetary system was like back then...

Having 50% of you portfolio invested in the government bonds of an "emerging market" back then seems a bit hasty.  I don't think HB would have recommended that.

I am sorry for not being clear enough.

Currently we have checks and balances of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Can we create the fourth branch to increase the effectiveness of checks and balances? If yes, what is the fourth branch?

Odysseusa wrote: I am sorry for not being clear enough.

Currently we have checks and balances of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Can we create the fourth branch to increase the effectiveness of checks and balances? If yes, what is the fourth branch?

In theory, wasn't it the press?

IMHO, our government is unfixable because it represents deeper and growing divides in our society itself.

Odysseusa wrote: I am sorry for not being clear enough.

Currently we have checks and balances of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Can we create the fourth branch to increase the effectiveness of checks and balances? If yes, what is the fourth branch?

I think the whole point of the Revolution was to get rid of the ultimate check and balance against the stupidity of elected officials.



But for the record I'm all in favor of its restoration.

Ad,

You really have to educate us on this monarchism you're such a fan of.

moda0306 wrote: Ad,

You really have to educate us on this monarchism you're such a fan of.

Yeah...

Monarchism, seriously?  Normally I'd assume a person was joking if they claimed to be a monarchist, but we have a lot of unusual views present on this message board.

Can I be the king?

Ad Orientem wrote: I think the whole point of the Revolution was to get rid of the ultimate check and balance against the stupidity of elected officials.
{ image of George III }
But for the record I'm all in favor of its restoration.

If I have to choose between 8 years max of George Bush or umpteen years of Saddam Hussein, I'll take the 8 years.
The ultimate check and balance is term limits.

dualstow wrote: If I have to choose between 8 years max of George Bush or umpteen years of Saddam Hussein, I'll take the 8 years.
The ultimate check and balance is term limits.

Ah but what about 8 years of George W bush vs umpteen years of MediumTex? Monarchism seems to boil the pressing political problem down to monarch selection. Personally I am skeptical that monarchism could work in a country this big because of the lack of political competition and the downsides of a bad monarch. But I could see it being feasible in a geographically small and demographically homogenous society.

Of course, such societies have historically proven to be really easy to conquer. Maybe modern arms could make the difference.

Odysseusa wrote: I am sorry for not being clear enough.

Currently we have checks and balances of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Can we create the fourth branch to increase the effectiveness of checks and balances? If yes, what is the fourth branch?

I think they tell you in civics class that the fourth branch is "we the people". That isn't a perfect solution admittedly but it's the only one we've got.

Simonjester wrote: .... i would say the unlegislative/deregislature would be the best idea for a fourth branch, charged with undoing all the old bad laws, and regulation as fast as the other branches can pass new ones.
i agree with pointedstick that a free press was supposed to carry some of that burden, it's a shame it doesn't... a well educated population was also supposed to be a part of the mix ...that also is sadly not keeping up with the demand ..

Pointedstick wrote:

dualstow wrote: If I have to choose between 8 years max of George Bush or umpteen years of Saddam Hussein, I'll take the 8 years.
The ultimate check and balance is term limits.

Ah but what about 8 years of George W bush vs umpteen years of MediumTex? Monarchism seems to boil the pressing political problem down to monarch selection. Personally I am skeptical that monarchism could work in a country this big because of the lack of political competition and the downsides of a bad monarch. But I could see it being feasible in a geographically small and demographically homogenous society.

Of course, such societies have historically proven to be really easy to conquer. Maybe modern arms could make the difference.

It's like they say, the best government is a benevolent dictator ... but how do you get one? MediumTex would be a great choice, particularly because he's likely already raised his kids with common sense. I mean, the other problem with monarchies is that the offspring don't have a great probability of being as smart as the top of a pool of candidates, and a good chance of being venal.

If I have to pick a monarch, I'd go with a supremely intelligent A.I. like that depicted in Charles Stross' Singularity Sky.  Besides  outlawing time travel so that its existence could not be unmade and its paranoid habit of blowing up a few other planets, it was pretty decent. But we don't have one of those yet.

moda0306 wrote: Ad,

You really have to educate us on this monarchism you're such a fan of.

Monarchism - a political system based upon the care and feeding of the Monarch flutterby.  Subjects are prone to extreem bouts of shock and awe, followed by a peaceful feeling of beauty appreciation when the Monarch goes south for its winter vacation.

MangoMan wrote:

dualstow wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: I think the whole point of the Revolution was to get rid of the ultimate check and balance against the stupidity of elected officials.
{ image of George III }
But for the record I'm all in favor of its restoration.

If I have to choose between 8 years max of George Bush or umpteen years of Saddam Hussein, I'll take the 8 years.
The ultimate check and balance is term limits.

Yep, and that's why we don't have them here in Iliinois. 

I wonder how effective this is, sometimes.  If people were barred from working in any connection with politics, rather than just their former position, one might assert that this could help, but being in politics plugs you into such large machination of influence, that I wonder if it really matters if we're playing musical dumbf*ck chairs where people just move around into various forms of influence.

Not saying it doesn't do some good... I'm just wondering if for every five problems it solves, it doesn't create three more.

moda0306 wrote: I wonder how effective this is, sometimes.  If people were barred from working in any connection with politics, rather than just their former position, one might assert that this could help, but being in politics plugs you into such large machination of influence, that I wonder if it really matters if we're playing musical dumbf*ck chairs where people just move around into various forms of influence.

Not saying it doesn't do some good... I'm just wondering if for every five problems it solves, it doesn't create three more.

You mean limited terms? Hmm, well politics is still a mess and the machinations are there whether it's the king and his cronies or career politicians in a democratic system. As you said, it does some good but it cannot solve everything. I'm not sure how it creates more problems, though.

What bothers me is how politics and business intersect (think Dick Cheney and Halliburton), but I have no idea how that might be untangled.

How about a vow of poverty? In the nineties in Time magazine there was an article stating that some Russian mafia bosses had their fingers cut off so that they couldn't enjoy and thus wouldn't amass material wealth. Hmm, I'm not sure if our senators would go for that.

The California experience reveals that term limits can cause more problems than they solve (if any). California has very aggressive term limits for state legislators and the result is that no politician ever really gains much experience or seniority, so they become secondary to staffers and bureaucrats who can stay in their posts for 10, 20, 30 years, and eventually figure out how things get done. Since these people are not elected, they are less (theoretically) accountable to the people than the politicians whose power they have co-opted.

A big part of the reason for the stupidity of politicians is their shortsightedness, which is only exacerbated when they have to be constantly running for re-election, and worsened when they get kicked out of office before the consequences of anything they do can really start to be seen or felt.

Personally, the only term limit I would support is something like the following: only one term for each political office, but that term has a tenure of 30 years, and recalling a politician before the end of their term is made much easier.

Libertarian666 wrote: I forget who suggested a term limit of two terms for all politicians: one term in office and one in prison. :-)

Must have been someone familiar with Illinois politics.

dualstow wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I wonder how effective this is, sometimes.  If people were barred from working in any connection with politics, rather than just their former position, one might assert that this could help, but being in politics plugs you into such large machination of influence, that I wonder if it really matters if we're playing musical dumbf*ck chairs where people just move around into various forms of influence.

Not saying it doesn't do some good... I'm just wondering if for every five problems it solves, it doesn't create three more.

You mean limited terms? Hmm, well politics is still a mess and the machinations are there whether it's the king and his cronies or career politicians in a democratic system. As you said, it does some good but it cannot solve everything. I'm not sure how it creates more problems, though.

What bothers me is how politics and business intersect (think Dick Cheney and Halliburton), but I have no idea how that might be untangled.

How about a vow of poverty? In the nineties in Time magazine there was an article stating that some Russian mafia bosses had their fingers cut off so that they couldn't enjoy and thus wouldn't amass material wealth. Hmm, I'm not sure if our senators would go for that.

A vow of poverty would be pretty awesome... or relative poverty.  Maybe the best benefits in the world (if you become sick, die early, become disabled, etc), but very modest income and a limitation on net worth of, say $5 Million... for life.  And a limitation on all future income too.

Probably about 50 things wrong with this that wouldn't work, but it's worth dreaming about.

The intersection of politics and business sometimes brings about the worst of both government "public purpose," and private "profit-motive."

If the salary of a politician was a million bucks a year, what use would he have for bribes? Singapore follows this kind of model, I believe.

moda0306 wrote: The intersection of politics and business sometimes brings about the worst of both government "public purpose," and private "profit-motive."

Now THAT'S something we can both agree on.

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I forget who suggested a term limit of two terms for all politicians: one term in office and one in prison. :-)

Must have been someone familiar with Illinois politics.

Or Maryland, which had several governors end up in prison. But it's the same principle: corruption is their business.

Pointedstick wrote: The California experience reveals that term limits can cause more problems than they solve (if any). California has very aggressive term limits for state legislators and the result is that no politician ever really gains much experience or seniority, so they become secondary to staffers and bureaucrats who can stay in their posts for 10, 20, 30 years, and eventually figure out how things get done. Since these people are not elected, they are less (theoretically) accountable to the people than the politicians whose power they have co-opted.

That sounds very much like the old British comedy, Yes, Minister. The civil servants are there for life, and they do their best to subvert the ministers they're supposed to be serving. Meanwhile, the ministers are worried about popularity, elections. Fictional scripts, but pretty much based on the truth, apparently. Margaret Thatcher's favorite show.

Should California extend the terms or do something about the staffers? 

Speaking of monarchs, it's the anniversary of Bloody Sunday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)