Pola šest

Sjajan komentar na B92 vest o skupštinskom zasedanju o odluci MSPa.

Umesto da o odluci skupština kaže da je primila k znanju odgovor na POSTAVLJENO pitanje, predlaže se skupštini da špekuliše o "sustinškim" pitanjima koja nisu bila postavljena. To je kao ja tebe pitam "koliko je sati", a ti mi odgovoriš "pola šest", a onda ja tebe krivim što mi nisi rekao i da pada kiša iako te ja uopšte to nisam pitao. (Matko).

Keš za krv?

Ministarstvo zdravlja je pozvalo građane da dobrovoljno daju krv. Karakteristično za letnji period, rezerve krvi u Institutu za transfuziju krvi Srbije i drugim centrima za transfuziju krvi u Srbiji su smanjene, a broj davalaca manji je od neophodnog. Logično rešenje bi bilo keš za krv ali to izgleda nigde nije praksa. Jedno od objašnjenja je da bi "profesionalni" davaoci krvi imali motiv da lažu o neophodnim podacima (seksualne navike ili istorija konzumiranja narkotika) i da bi se destimulisali altruistični davaoci. Mislim da se time bavi i Freakonomics i da zaključuju da bi krv bila lošija odnosno da bi bilo manje kvalitetne krvi. Nisam baš siguran da je ta teorija tačna ali je činjenica da krv ne može da se testira na određene bolesti (u Americi na primer ne možete da date krv ako ste proveli 6 meseci u Velikoj Britaniji od 1980 - 1996 zbog takozvanih ludih krava jer još uvek ne postoji test koji otkriva prisustvo u krvi). Moral sa plaćanjem ne bi trebalo da ima nikakve veze jer crveni krst u Americi prikupljenu krv ne poklanja već prodaje bolnicama.

Sa druge strane donacije plazme se plaćaju. Plazma može da se donira dva puta nedeljno i otprilike se plaća 20 za prvu i 40 dolara za drugu posetu nedeljno. Dosta ljudi to koristi kao dodatni prihod. Farmaceutske kompanije koriste plazmu za proizvodnju preparata za tretman hemofilije i opekotina. Za razliku od krvi, nestašica plazme je praktično nemoguća.

Alternativno bankarstvo

Banke, zelenaši, rodbina i prijatelji više nemaju monopol na kreditiranju. Na internetu možete naći nekoliko "peer-to-peer" sajtova koji povezuju ljude koji bi da investiraju i one kojima treba pozajmica. Najpoznatiji sajtovi su Lending Club i Prosper, a ta dva portala ujedno predstavljaju i dva različita pristupa problematici.

Skoro svako može da traži pozajmicu na Prosperu a da li ćete dobiti kredit zavisi isključivo od investitora na sajtu koji odlučuju da li će vam pozajmiti novac ili ne. Prosper je doduše uveo neka ograničenja od skoro poput minimalnog kreditnog skora koji morate da ispunite da bi ste mogli da listirate zahtev. Lending Club se ponaša više kao tradicionalna banka i procenjuje ko može da traži pozajmicu putem njihovog sajta. Za razliku od Prospera oni odlučuju i o visini kamate koju kreditor plaća. Nisam siguran ali čini mi se da Lending Club ima i neki kolateral. Oba sajta nude mogućnost trgovine vašim pozajmicama koje još nisu dospele na naplatu. U poslednje vreme postoji i veliki broj sajtova koje kombinuju ovu vrstu pozajmljivanja sa mikro-kreditima za zemlje u razvoju.

Ova vrsta usluga se nudi od 2005. i prva je počela da je primenjuje firma iz Velike Britanije Zopa. Sve firme su imale tu nesreću da se početak njihovog posla vezuje za globalnu recesiju, mada kako tvrde, investitori su imali manje gubitke nego u alternativnim investicijama. Trenutno je 5,8 milijardi dolara investirano putem peer-to-peer mreža i ta cifra će verovatno nastaviti da raste.

Očigledna mana ove vrste investiranja je negativna selekcija. Ljudi koji ne mogu da dobiju kredit od banaka će pokušati da dobiju kredit alternativnim putem. Sa druge strane, očigledna prednost su niski transakcioni troškovi, koji čine ovu vrstu posla lukrativnom. Standardna provizija za Prosper je 1 procenat dok Lending Club naplaćuje od 2,5 do 4,5 procenata. U svakom slučaju mislim da bi ovo bila odlična prilika za preduzetnike u Srbiji.

Ustavotvorna skupština

Čitam ovih dana ponovo The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, pa sam naleteo na par sjajnih strana. Jeste dugačak citat, ali se nadam da će biti zanimljivo.

Ukratko, ljudska kolonija na Mesecu je proglasila nezavisnost od Zemlje, pa sada drže ustavotvornu skuštinu. Intelektualni vođa pokreta, Bernardo La Paz, drži sledeći govor:

Comrade Members, like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master. You now have freedom--if you can keep it. But do remember that you can lose this freedom more quickly to yourselves than to any other tyrant. Move slowly, be hesitant, puzzle out the consequences of every word. I would not be unhappy if this convention sat for ten years before reporting--but I would be frightened if you took less than a year.

Distrust the obvious, suspect the traditional . . . for in the past mankind has not done well when saddling itself with governments. For example, I note in one draft report a proposal for setting up a commission to divide Luna into congressional districts and to reapportion them from time to time according to population.

This is the traditional way; therefore it should be suspect, considered guilty until proved innocent. Perhaps you feel that this is the only way. May I suggest others? Surely where a man lives is the least important thing about him. Constituencies might be formed by dividing people by occupation. . . or by age. . . or even alphabetically. Or they might not be divided, every member elected at large---and do not object that this would make it impossible for any man not widely known throughout Luna to be elected; that might be the best possible thing for Luna.

You might even consider installing the candidates who receive the least number of votes; unpopular men may be just the sort to save you from a new tyranny. Don't reject the idea merely because it seems preposterous--think about it! In past history popularly elected governments have been no better and sometimes far worse than overt tyrannies.

But if representative government turns out to be your intention there still may be ways to achieve it better than the territorial district. For example you each represent about ten thousand human beings, perhaps seven thousand of voting age--and some of you were elected by slim majorities. Suppose instead of election a man were qualified for office by petition signed by four thousand citizens. He would then represent those four thousand affirmatively, with no disgruntled minority, for what would have been a minority in a territorial constituency would all be free to start other petitions or join in them. All would then be represented by men of their choice. Or a man with eight thousand supporters might have two votes in this body. Difficulties, objections, practical points to be worked out--many of them! But you could work them out. . . and thereby avoid the chronic sickness of representative government, the disgruntled minority which feels--correctly!--that it has been disenfranchised.

But, whatever you do, do not let the past be a straitjacket!

I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent--the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority . . . while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?

But in writing your constitution let me invite attention the wonderful virtues of the negative! Accentuate the negative! Let your document be studded with things the government is forever forbidden to do. No conscript armies . . . no interference however slight with freedom of press, or speech, or travel, or assembly, or of religion, or of instruction, or communication, or occupation. . . no involuntary taxation. Comrades, if you were to spend five years in a study of history while thinking of more and more things that your governinen should promise never to do and then let your constitution be nothing but those negatives, I would not fear the outcome.

What I fear most are affirmative actions of sober and well-intentioned men, granting to government powers to do something that appears to need doing. Please remember always that the Lunar Authority was created for the noblest of purposes by just such sober and well-intentioned men, all popularly elected. And with that thought I leave you to your labors. Thank you.

Gospodin President! Question of information! You said 'no involuntary taxation'-- Then how do you expect us to pay for things? Tanstaafl!

Goodness me, sir, that's your problem. I can think several ways. Voluntary contributions just as churches support themselves . . . government-sponsored lotteries to which no one need subscribe. . . or perhaps you Congressmen should dig down into your own pouches and pay for whatever is needed; that would be one way to keep government down in size to its indispensable functions whatever they may be. If indeed there are any. I would be satisfied to have the Golden Rule be the only law; I see no need for any other, nor for any method of enforcing it. But if you really believe that your neighbors must have laws for their own good, why shouldn't you pay for it? Comrades, I beg you--do not resort to compulsory taxation. There is so worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for

him.