Things we'd like to see.
On television: A show depicting competent, well-behaved women in New Jersey. Call it "The Anti-Snooki." The theme music could be "A Nightingale Sang in Journal Square." The new show, "Made in Jersey" is a fine start.
In stores: Artisanal Froot Loops.
In schools: Students who aim a pencil at the words, rather than clutch it in desperation.
In general: Men who treat cats as independent creatures, not as possessions.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Modern Mercantilism
"Greed is good." -- Gordon Gekko
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
"Yes, but you can't eat gold." -- Pug Mahoney.
The Road to Prosperity is not a limited access freeway, to be used only by an elite, chosen few. Everyone has a part in building this road, and everyone should be rewarded accordingly. To believe and act otherwise is to return to 18th Century mercantilism, and the ruinous exploitation of the many for the benefit of a few.
On a national level, this led to colonialism, with the dominant nation gathering raw materials and resources from its colonies at low cost, then manufacturing, finishing and selling the products to other nations or to its colonies at a higher price. Result: Profit. But this practice often led to poverty in the colony and extreme wealth in the dominant nation.
In the 19th Century, the worst of the barons of industry lied, cheated and stole their way to a Gilded Age of extreme wealth for a few, and widespread poverty for the many who worked in the mines, mills and factories.
The 20th Century saw the rise and expansion of a middle class in America, where 40 percent enjoyed a comfortable life but did not begrudge the extra fineries enjoyed by those who could afford them.
Today, those in the middle 40 percent are being squeezed by the top 1 percent, who believe they are "entitled" to continue and expand their wealth, just as the mercantilists of the 18th and 19th centuries thought themselves exempt from the self-evident truth that all are created equal.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
-- George Orwell, "Animal Farm"
"Whoever has the most gold at the end, wins." -- Phoebe Zeno"Yes, but you can't eat gold." -- Pug Mahoney.
The Road to Prosperity is not a limited access freeway, to be used only by an elite, chosen few. Everyone has a part in building this road, and everyone should be rewarded accordingly. To believe and act otherwise is to return to 18th Century mercantilism, and the ruinous exploitation of the many for the benefit of a few.
On a national level, this led to colonialism, with the dominant nation gathering raw materials and resources from its colonies at low cost, then manufacturing, finishing and selling the products to other nations or to its colonies at a higher price. Result: Profit. But this practice often led to poverty in the colony and extreme wealth in the dominant nation.
In the 19th Century, the worst of the barons of industry lied, cheated and stole their way to a Gilded Age of extreme wealth for a few, and widespread poverty for the many who worked in the mines, mills and factories.
The 20th Century saw the rise and expansion of a middle class in America, where 40 percent enjoyed a comfortable life but did not begrudge the extra fineries enjoyed by those who could afford them.
Today, those in the middle 40 percent are being squeezed by the top 1 percent, who believe they are "entitled" to continue and expand their wealth, just as the mercantilists of the 18th and 19th centuries thought themselves exempt from the self-evident truth that all are created equal.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Health, Wealth or Wisdom
Here's a wish for everyone's future -- that we all be Healthy, Wealthy and Wise.
Having one, however, is no guarantee that a person will get either one or both of the other two.
Access to Wealth may enable one to get a more prestigious education, but this does not guarantee that one will use it Wisely.
We have met many who have a piece of paper indicating they spent four years attending an institution of higher learning. Even so, they remain ignorant and lack common sense. They have a diploma, but don't know diddley. And common sense is not common.
As for Health, Wealth and Wisdom, few have all three, and those who do tend to stay out of politics. That leaves voters with the task of choosing a candidate who has, at most, two of the three.
So the question facing voters is this: Which two, and who has them?
Let's assume two candidates for the same office, and both have good Health. The choice then becomes one of Wealth or Wisdom.
One candidate may be far wealthier than the other, but since Wealth alone is no guarantee or indicator of Wisdom, that brings the choice to deciding which candidate has more Wisdom.
Assume both candidates have graduate-level diplomas (e.g. Law or MBA). The decision then rests on which candidate has actually acquired some knowledge and, more important, knows how to use it (i.e. Wisdom).
The choice then becomes clear, and easy.
Having one, however, is no guarantee that a person will get either one or both of the other two.
Access to Wealth may enable one to get a more prestigious education, but this does not guarantee that one will use it Wisely.
We have met many who have a piece of paper indicating they spent four years attending an institution of higher learning. Even so, they remain ignorant and lack common sense. They have a diploma, but don't know diddley. And common sense is not common.
As for Health, Wealth and Wisdom, few have all three, and those who do tend to stay out of politics. That leaves voters with the task of choosing a candidate who has, at most, two of the three.
So the question facing voters is this: Which two, and who has them?
Let's assume two candidates for the same office, and both have good Health. The choice then becomes one of Wealth or Wisdom.
One candidate may be far wealthier than the other, but since Wealth alone is no guarantee or indicator of Wisdom, that brings the choice to deciding which candidate has more Wisdom.
Assume both candidates have graduate-level diplomas (e.g. Law or MBA). The decision then rests on which candidate has actually acquired some knowledge and, more important, knows how to use it (i.e. Wisdom).
The choice then becomes clear, and easy.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Prior Approval
The lid is off, and the stink is in the air.
Politicians and celebrities are getting prior approval before publication.
Granted, for the moment this applies mostly to stuff within quotation marks as part of a continuing effort to make sure candidates don't go so far as to prove their incompetence, but it's not a big step to where the entire piece gets a final rinse by the message managers before publication.
It has long been true that interview subjects and their minions have wanted to control the final version of what gets into print, but they seldom got it. Attempts to control the news media have long been around as long as there have been news media. And government officials, even at the local level, have been fond of saying such things as, "If the press wasn't here, I'd have something to say about that."
Occasionally, however, when there is sufficient lead time, an article may be routed to the subject for review of factual information. (Emphasis: Facts only, not how the factual information is treated.) But just as often, the piece comes back rewritten and revised to cut out what the subject deems unfavorable.
Good reporters and editors ignore the rewrites, and remind the subject that the review was for factual information only, not for prior approval.
In addition, there have been numerous reports recently that politicians have been demanding, and getting, prior approval of quotes as a condition of an interview.
Competition among news outlets has enabled politicians to specify that without a condition of prior approval, there will be no interview.
Also, the current issue of The New Yorker, in a feature piece on J.K. Rowling, reports that agents for the author asked for, and got, extensive prior approval from The Times of London on many aspects of a proposed article. The New Yorker did not, however, grant prior approval on its piece.
The bottom line is this: If you don't want to see it in print, TV or on the Internet, don't say it.
And that's the way it should be.
Politicians and celebrities are getting prior approval before publication.
Granted, for the moment this applies mostly to stuff within quotation marks as part of a continuing effort to make sure candidates don't go so far as to prove their incompetence, but it's not a big step to where the entire piece gets a final rinse by the message managers before publication.
It has long been true that interview subjects and their minions have wanted to control the final version of what gets into print, but they seldom got it. Attempts to control the news media have long been around as long as there have been news media. And government officials, even at the local level, have been fond of saying such things as, "If the press wasn't here, I'd have something to say about that."
Occasionally, however, when there is sufficient lead time, an article may be routed to the subject for review of factual information. (Emphasis: Facts only, not how the factual information is treated.) But just as often, the piece comes back rewritten and revised to cut out what the subject deems unfavorable.
Good reporters and editors ignore the rewrites, and remind the subject that the review was for factual information only, not for prior approval.
In addition, there have been numerous reports recently that politicians have been demanding, and getting, prior approval of quotes as a condition of an interview.
Competition among news outlets has enabled politicians to specify that without a condition of prior approval, there will be no interview.
Also, the current issue of The New Yorker, in a feature piece on J.K. Rowling, reports that agents for the author asked for, and got, extensive prior approval from The Times of London on many aspects of a proposed article. The New Yorker did not, however, grant prior approval on its piece.
The bottom line is this: If you don't want to see it in print, TV or on the Internet, don't say it.
And that's the way it should be.
Political License
Here's an idea. As a guarantee of competence, licenses are issued to practitioners of various trades and professions, such as doctors, lawyers, psychotherapists, plumbers and electricians.
And some politicians have proposed licensing of journalists, to assure competence and fairness in reporting.
How about we also license politicians, forcing them to prove their competence before running for office?
Unfortunately, that raises the question of who would issue the licenses.
As for licensing journalists, that means if government issues a license, government can also take it away.
Bad idea.
And some politicians have proposed licensing of journalists, to assure competence and fairness in reporting.
How about we also license politicians, forcing them to prove their competence before running for office?
Unfortunately, that raises the question of who would issue the licenses.
As for licensing journalists, that means if government issues a license, government can also take it away.
Bad idea.
Entitlements
"The rich are different from you and me." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
"Yes; they have more money." -- Ernest Hemingway
"You should know your place, f___ plebs." -- Tory politician Andrew Mitchell, to police officers at 10 Downing Street
From one perspective, money is the only difference between rich people and those who are not. Rich folks are just as wise or foolish, just as courteous or rude, just as talented or clumsy as the rest of the population. But from another perspective, one held by many of the wealthy, being rich "entitles" them to respect and deference -- a one-way attitude that, many of them believe, they need not show to the unwealthy.
When a wealthy political candidate in America warns that 47 percent of the population believe they are "victims," and that they are "entitled" to handouts from the government, he shows not only a haughty ignorance of reality, but also a lack of respect for others not of his same "class."
Money, in and of itself, cannot buy respect. Nor can it buy character.
"Yes; they have more money." -- Ernest Hemingway
"You should know your place, f___ plebs." -- Tory politician Andrew Mitchell, to police officers at 10 Downing Street
From one perspective, money is the only difference between rich people and those who are not. Rich folks are just as wise or foolish, just as courteous or rude, just as talented or clumsy as the rest of the population. But from another perspective, one held by many of the wealthy, being rich "entitles" them to respect and deference -- a one-way attitude that, many of them believe, they need not show to the unwealthy.
When a wealthy political candidate in America warns that 47 percent of the population believe they are "victims," and that they are "entitled" to handouts from the government, he shows not only a haughty ignorance of reality, but also a lack of respect for others not of his same "class."
Money, in and of itself, cannot buy respect. Nor can it buy character.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Conservativization
Use it up, wear it out
Make it do, or do without
Of the four major inputs that economists call the "factors of production," only one -- Land -- has built-in limits.
The other three -- Labor, Capital and Entrepreneurial Skill -- can be expanded, enhanced, and improved.
Labor -- the number of people in the world -- can be increased through population growth and their skills can be improved.
Capital -- investment in machines, roads, bridges and buildings -- can be expanded and made more efficient through technology.
Entrepreneurial Skill -- the ability to coordinate the other three -- can also be improved, either by increasing the number of entrepreneurs or by enhancing their skills, or both.
But as for Land, they ain't makin' any more of it.
There are some natural resources that can be renewed, such as trees and crops, for example, but others -- oil, coal and natural gas -- cannot.
Therefore, society must learn to use available, non-renewable resources wisely, or risk depleting the supply entirely.
There are those who say they don't care, that by the time a resource is used up, they will be long dead. But this ignores the reality that there will be others living on the planet who, at whatever time in the future shortages occur, will need these natural resources that are now being depleted, wasted or used inefficiently.
Political conservatives claim that people have a right, an entitlement, to use whatever is available in whatever manner they choose.
Others, including Barry Goldwater, the founder of the modern political conservative movement, believe in the original meaning of the word: Conserve.
Make it do, or do without
Of the four major inputs that economists call the "factors of production," only one -- Land -- has built-in limits.
The other three -- Labor, Capital and Entrepreneurial Skill -- can be expanded, enhanced, and improved.
Labor -- the number of people in the world -- can be increased through population growth and their skills can be improved.
Capital -- investment in machines, roads, bridges and buildings -- can be expanded and made more efficient through technology.
Entrepreneurial Skill -- the ability to coordinate the other three -- can also be improved, either by increasing the number of entrepreneurs or by enhancing their skills, or both.
But as for Land, they ain't makin' any more of it.
There are some natural resources that can be renewed, such as trees and crops, for example, but others -- oil, coal and natural gas -- cannot.
Therefore, society must learn to use available, non-renewable resources wisely, or risk depleting the supply entirely.
There are those who say they don't care, that by the time a resource is used up, they will be long dead. But this ignores the reality that there will be others living on the planet who, at whatever time in the future shortages occur, will need these natural resources that are now being depleted, wasted or used inefficiently.
Political conservatives claim that people have a right, an entitlement, to use whatever is available in whatever manner they choose.
Others, including Barry Goldwater, the founder of the modern political conservative movement, believe in the original meaning of the word: Conserve.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Anthem Anathema
Quick, name your home state's anthem.
In reporting on the Puerto Rican Day celebrations in Philadelphia, the news anchor referred to the singing of the "Puerto Rico national anthem."
The island is an autonomous possession of the U.S., and, because it is autonomous, it is entitled to a "national" anthem even though it is not an independent nation.
The island was ceded to the U.S. by Spain after the war in 1898, and the residents acquired U.S. citizenship in 1917. So far, Puerto Ricans have not yet agreed on whether to move to statehood, or to separate from the U.S. and gain independence.
New Jersey, Ohio and other states have "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem.
Some states do not even have state songs, and of those that do, some are marvelously unmemorable. There was a move some years ago to enact a state song for New Jersey, to be sung to a familiar melody. It began:
If you New Jersey, like I know Jersey
Oh, oh, oh what a state.
It was, mercifully, vetoed.
In reporting on the Puerto Rican Day celebrations in Philadelphia, the news anchor referred to the singing of the "Puerto Rico national anthem."
The island is an autonomous possession of the U.S., and, because it is autonomous, it is entitled to a "national" anthem even though it is not an independent nation.
The island was ceded to the U.S. by Spain after the war in 1898, and the residents acquired U.S. citizenship in 1917. So far, Puerto Ricans have not yet agreed on whether to move to statehood, or to separate from the U.S. and gain independence.
New Jersey, Ohio and other states have "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem.
Some states do not even have state songs, and of those that do, some are marvelously unmemorable. There was a move some years ago to enact a state song for New Jersey, to be sung to a familiar melody. It began:
If you New Jersey, like I know Jersey
Oh, oh, oh what a state.
It was, mercifully, vetoed.
Metaphorically Challenged
The GOP candidate said he wants to kick the economic ball down the field and hope that something will happen in the future to change the game. (A variation on the need to "kick the can down the road.") Meanwhile, Congress sits on the sidelines and refuses to get in the game at all.
To modify the metaphor slightly, the view from here is that it's time to kick the "can't" off the road, refuel the tank and kick start the engine.
To modify the metaphor slightly, the view from here is that it's time to kick the "can't" off the road, refuel the tank and kick start the engine.
Grammar Manners
The standards of usage are largely upheld by copy editors at daily newspapers. But sometimes, too close attention to fixed, hidebound "rules" can mislead even the best copy editors. A moment's thought, for example, would have saved the New York Times editorial page from this:
"A variety of polls also shows ..."
We can hear the debate even at this distance in time and space.
A/ The governing noun is "A variety," obviously singular, so the verb must be "shows."
B/ That's silly, because that makes "polls shows," which is obviously a mismatch of plural and singular, and therefore wrong.
C/ But the governing noun is not just the one word "variety." It's the entire noun phrase, and the sense of it is plural. That makes the vote two to one in favor of the plural verb "show."
A/ You're both wrong. Look at the indefinite article. It's an "A," which is singular.
B/ But "polls" are plural ...
Yada, yada, yada.
Here's where the chief copy editor steps in, with his samurai pencil.
When in doubt, rephrase. Change the whole thing to "Several polls," or "Many polls." This makes clear the plurality and doesn't distract the reader or start street fights.
"A variety of polls also shows ..."
We can hear the debate even at this distance in time and space.
A/ The governing noun is "A variety," obviously singular, so the verb must be "shows."
B/ That's silly, because that makes "polls shows," which is obviously a mismatch of plural and singular, and therefore wrong.
C/ But the governing noun is not just the one word "variety." It's the entire noun phrase, and the sense of it is plural. That makes the vote two to one in favor of the plural verb "show."
A/ You're both wrong. Look at the indefinite article. It's an "A," which is singular.
B/ But "polls" are plural ...
Yada, yada, yada.
Here's where the chief copy editor steps in, with his samurai pencil.
When in doubt, rephrase. Change the whole thing to "Several polls," or "Many polls." This makes clear the plurality and doesn't distract the reader or start street fights.
Monday, September 24, 2012
A Poem
Barack Obama
Misplaced his karma
Economy's tilting a bit.
"Leave it alone, 'twill heal on its own,"
Say econ advisors to Mitt.
Misplaced his karma
Economy's tilting a bit.
"Leave it alone, 'twill heal on its own,"
Say econ advisors to Mitt.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Birthers Revisited
Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, was a candidate for President in 1968. He was born in Mexico. By birther standards, George Romney was not eligible for the presidency. Neither was John McCain, candidate for President in 2008, who was born in Panama. Yet no fuss was made over their eligibility.
Birthers insist that candidates be "native born" citizens; that is, born in the U.S. But the Constitution specifies "natural born," not "native born."
George Romney and John McCain were, in fact, natural born citizens of the U.S. because their parents were citizens. As "natural born citizens," which is what the Constitution requires, they were eligible.
Barack Obama's mother was from Kansas. Therefore, regardless of his place of birth, he -- like George Romney and John McCain -- is a natural born citizen and constitutionally eligible for the presidency.
The news media need to be more emphatic in pointing out the difference, and in asking the so-called "birthers" why they insist on ignoring the Constitution.
Birthers insist that candidates be "native born" citizens; that is, born in the U.S. But the Constitution specifies "natural born," not "native born."
George Romney and John McCain were, in fact, natural born citizens of the U.S. because their parents were citizens. As "natural born citizens," which is what the Constitution requires, they were eligible.
Barack Obama's mother was from Kansas. Therefore, regardless of his place of birth, he -- like George Romney and John McCain -- is a natural born citizen and constitutionally eligible for the presidency.
The news media need to be more emphatic in pointing out the difference, and in asking the so-called "birthers" why they insist on ignoring the Constitution.
Brevities
It's easy to build support among supporters.
It's a lot harder to persuade people who don't agree with you.
"Men seldom seek a high degree of proof for what they already believe to be true."
"Vote early and often." -- Tammany Hall slogan.
Tammany Hall is vacant. Nobody goes there anymore.
Big city political machines: Forgotten, but not gone.
The only poll that counts is the one on Election Day.
Ballot stuffing is not a Thanksgiving dinner side dish, even though it does involve political turkeys.
Beware of Qualifiers as ye would Absolutes. -- Pug Mahoney
Qualifiers can creep into text and dilute a writer's prose. Using words and phrases like perhaps, more likely, presumably, probably, a likely hypothesis, would have been, must have been, and similar phrases all indicate that there is not enough certain evidence to support the claim. Most especially, writers should be wary of the word "may," since a skeptic can easily respond, "Or it may not."
Senior citizens have excellent smoke detectors. They have decades of experience deciding when a candidate is Blowing Smoke at them.
It's a lot harder to persuade people who don't agree with you.
"Men seldom seek a high degree of proof for what they already believe to be true."
-- Keith Thomas, Oxford University
Tammany Hall is vacant. Nobody goes there anymore.
Big city political machines: Forgotten, but not gone.
The only poll that counts is the one on Election Day.
Ballot stuffing is not a Thanksgiving dinner side dish, even though it does involve political turkeys.
Beware of Qualifiers as ye would Absolutes. -- Pug Mahoney
Qualifiers can creep into text and dilute a writer's prose. Using words and phrases like perhaps, more likely, presumably, probably, a likely hypothesis, would have been, must have been, and similar phrases all indicate that there is not enough certain evidence to support the claim. Most especially, writers should be wary of the word "may," since a skeptic can easily respond, "Or it may not."
Senior citizens have excellent smoke detectors. They have decades of experience deciding when a candidate is Blowing Smoke at them.
Republicans are up in arms about potential election fraud this year. Odd that they were not so concerned about election fraud in Florida 12 years ago.
Euro Perspective
Here's a different perspective on the Euro problem from our correspondent across the pond. It's well done, and adds information that should be seriously considered.
Your piece implies that the Euro Currency is used in all EU members. The EU is made up of 27 member states, but not all are in the Euro Zone and some still use their own currency. Some of the strong economic states that are not in the Euro Zone are Sweden, Denmark, the Czech Republic, and the UK. The European Central Bank is there for the Euro Zone countries but it must also consider the opinions of the non-Euro Zone countries when setting policies and interest rates. The UK is particularly insistent that its opinion be considered; it has threatened to block other things if it does not get its way.
Your opinion of Germany seems a bit harsh. Here is a bit of background. The German Constitution requires that each State (Germany is a federation of States) contributes to the German Federal Government based on its level of prosperity.
The Federal Government will distribute to the various States based on their requirements. Some States are net contributors while others are net receivers. While there was some resentment in the wealthy states to this arrangement it was accepted as a good thing for the nation as a whole. When East Germany was merged into the unified Germany, the old East German States became net receivers while some of the old West German States that were net receivers became net contributors, but it was accepted because most German people thought a reunited Germany was a good thing.
For non-German commentators to suggest that somehow Germany should take on the responsibility for the Greek debt is something the German people simply do not understand and will not tolerate. The German politicians may have a more tolerant view but they must still be re-elected at some time in the future.
Comparisons to the formation of a Federal U.S. are simple to make but should not be made. The several European nations have centuries of cultural and political history that cannot compare to the fledgling U.S.
By and large the original Colonies had a shared language and a similar social history which only went back less than 200 years. The languages in Europe are diverse and while there may be linguistic similarities between some, each is cherished in its own right. The French even go so far as to limit the entry of new foreign words into the language. The social history of Europe shows that borders between nations were rather elastic and some regions were at one time or another a part of up to six different countries. An example is Mario Andretti, the American racing car driver, who was born in Italy. The place where he was born is now part of Slovenia, but it used to be part of Yugoslavia. Before Italy had it the place was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. All this is for one village in the last 100 years. Before that it may have been in the Ottoman empire.
The European Central Bank has a policy of setting interest rates based on the performance of the Euro Zone countries as a whole. Because Germany is such a dynamo its requirements were different than those of, say Ireland. Interest rates were low for the whole Euro Zone, when countries like Ireland should have had higher interest rates. To make matters worse for Ireland, German banks (and others) started lending money in/to Ireland without the due diligence most lenders would have taken.
Progress towards a federal Europe is at a snail's pace. Most EU countries realize that a federal Europe requires the loss of power at a nation-state level. How many politicians can you think of who are prepared to give up power? There was an attempt a few years ago to create an EU Constitution. It got nowhere. Some people saw this as a power grab by the EU, others simply wanted to avoid the formality of a Constitution. The UK, for example, does not have a written Constitution; Churchill once said that he would find that kind of thing too restrictive.
Germany made the final payment for War Reparations for WWI (yes the 1914-1918 event) only a few years ago. Admittedly, there was a period when payments were not made because Herr Hitler would not make them, but the final payment was made in the last ten years. A typical German might wonder what the world expects when the acts and deeds of great-grandfathers are such a burden. They continued to make those payments without complaint, although I wonder if the victors of WWI would have considered their protests.
Your piece implies that the Euro Currency is used in all EU members. The EU is made up of 27 member states, but not all are in the Euro Zone and some still use their own currency. Some of the strong economic states that are not in the Euro Zone are Sweden, Denmark, the Czech Republic, and the UK. The European Central Bank is there for the Euro Zone countries but it must also consider the opinions of the non-Euro Zone countries when setting policies and interest rates. The UK is particularly insistent that its opinion be considered; it has threatened to block other things if it does not get its way.
Your opinion of Germany seems a bit harsh. Here is a bit of background. The German Constitution requires that each State (Germany is a federation of States) contributes to the German Federal Government based on its level of prosperity.
The Federal Government will distribute to the various States based on their requirements. Some States are net contributors while others are net receivers. While there was some resentment in the wealthy states to this arrangement it was accepted as a good thing for the nation as a whole. When East Germany was merged into the unified Germany, the old East German States became net receivers while some of the old West German States that were net receivers became net contributors, but it was accepted because most German people thought a reunited Germany was a good thing.
For non-German commentators to suggest that somehow Germany should take on the responsibility for the Greek debt is something the German people simply do not understand and will not tolerate. The German politicians may have a more tolerant view but they must still be re-elected at some time in the future.
Comparisons to the formation of a Federal U.S. are simple to make but should not be made. The several European nations have centuries of cultural and political history that cannot compare to the fledgling U.S.
By and large the original Colonies had a shared language and a similar social history which only went back less than 200 years. The languages in Europe are diverse and while there may be linguistic similarities between some, each is cherished in its own right. The French even go so far as to limit the entry of new foreign words into the language. The social history of Europe shows that borders between nations were rather elastic and some regions were at one time or another a part of up to six different countries. An example is Mario Andretti, the American racing car driver, who was born in Italy. The place where he was born is now part of Slovenia, but it used to be part of Yugoslavia. Before Italy had it the place was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. All this is for one village in the last 100 years. Before that it may have been in the Ottoman empire.
The European Central Bank has a policy of setting interest rates based on the performance of the Euro Zone countries as a whole. Because Germany is such a dynamo its requirements were different than those of, say Ireland. Interest rates were low for the whole Euro Zone, when countries like Ireland should have had higher interest rates. To make matters worse for Ireland, German banks (and others) started lending money in/to Ireland without the due diligence most lenders would have taken.
Progress towards a federal Europe is at a snail's pace. Most EU countries realize that a federal Europe requires the loss of power at a nation-state level. How many politicians can you think of who are prepared to give up power? There was an attempt a few years ago to create an EU Constitution. It got nowhere. Some people saw this as a power grab by the EU, others simply wanted to avoid the formality of a Constitution. The UK, for example, does not have a written Constitution; Churchill once said that he would find that kind of thing too restrictive.
Germany made the final payment for War Reparations for WWI (yes the 1914-1918 event) only a few years ago. Admittedly, there was a period when payments were not made because Herr Hitler would not make them, but the final payment was made in the last ten years. A typical German might wonder what the world expects when the acts and deeds of great-grandfathers are such a burden. They continued to make those payments without complaint, although I wonder if the victors of WWI would have considered their protests.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Romneconomics
Pug Mahoney wants to ask candidate Mitt Romney about his economic strategy, but judging from recent reports, the conversation would be something like this:
Question: "What is your economic strategy?"
Candidate: "Trust me. I'll tell you later."
Question: "When will that be?"
Candidate: "After I'm elected."
Question: "How long after you're elected?"
Candidate: "When I'm ready."
Question: "When will that be?"
Candidate: "When I think you're ready."
Question: "When do you think we'll be ready?'
Candidate: "Trust me. I'll tell you later."
Question: "What is your economic strategy?"
Candidate: "Trust me. I'll tell you later."
Question: "When will that be?"
Candidate: "After I'm elected."
Question: "How long after you're elected?"
Candidate: "When I'm ready."
Question: "When will that be?"
Candidate: "When I think you're ready."
Question: "When do you think we'll be ready?'
Candidate: "Trust me. I'll tell you later."
Money Demand
The Law of Supply and Demand applies to money as strongly as it applies to any other product or service. Last time, we looked at the effect of money supply on the overall economy. Today, let's take a look at money demand.
An increase in the supply of money can drive down interest rates -- the cost of borrowing money -- but if demand remains slack, a nation can find itself wallowing in cash that sits idle. And with interest rates on savings accounts below 1 percent, there's something to be said for stashing cash in a mattress rather than lending it to a bank. An alternate is using what spare cash people have to pay down high-interest credit card debt.
Money is a liquid asset, and unless it flows, the body politic becomes inert, like a person with low blood pressure -- there is no incentive to move. Without movement, atrophy sets in, and the economy remains weak -- a psychological as well as physical depression in the body politic.
Today, despite the ready availability of money at low cost, the economy remains in a psychological as well as an economic depression, drowning in a sea of cash, caught in what John Maynard Keynes called a "liquidity trap."
While the supply of money as increased, demand for it has failed to respond to the lowest interest rates in decades. Indeed, money demand has continued to fall.
What does this mean? Traditional monetary policy -- increasing the money supply to boost the economy by lowering interest rates -- has not worked. Despite the extremely low cost of borrowing, investors, bankers and businesses remain worried about the risk of expanding capacity or increasing production in fear that consumers will not buy. Consequence: Continuing recession, if not full-blown economic depression.
There may have been some recovery in the stock market, and housing prices may have stabilized, but until confidence returns to investors, bankers, business executives and consumers, they will continue to hold on to their cash reserves, strengthening the bottom line against fear of an impending calamity.
Moreover, this fear reinforces itself, further endangering the overall economy. It's worth remembering here the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the early 1930s: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Conclusion: If monetary policy has not worked, it's time for fiscal policy to take charge, stimulating the economy by increasing spending. And if business will not and consumers cannot, government must.
By the way, economists have devised yet another formula for measuring the economic health of a nation, this one using Money supply and its movement, or Velocity, as a base. It looks like this:
But that's a topic for another day.
An increase in the supply of money can drive down interest rates -- the cost of borrowing money -- but if demand remains slack, a nation can find itself wallowing in cash that sits idle. And with interest rates on savings accounts below 1 percent, there's something to be said for stashing cash in a mattress rather than lending it to a bank. An alternate is using what spare cash people have to pay down high-interest credit card debt.
Money is a liquid asset, and unless it flows, the body politic becomes inert, like a person with low blood pressure -- there is no incentive to move. Without movement, atrophy sets in, and the economy remains weak -- a psychological as well as physical depression in the body politic.
Today, despite the ready availability of money at low cost, the economy remains in a psychological as well as an economic depression, drowning in a sea of cash, caught in what John Maynard Keynes called a "liquidity trap."
While the supply of money as increased, demand for it has failed to respond to the lowest interest rates in decades. Indeed, money demand has continued to fall.
What does this mean? Traditional monetary policy -- increasing the money supply to boost the economy by lowering interest rates -- has not worked. Despite the extremely low cost of borrowing, investors, bankers and businesses remain worried about the risk of expanding capacity or increasing production in fear that consumers will not buy. Consequence: Continuing recession, if not full-blown economic depression.
There may have been some recovery in the stock market, and housing prices may have stabilized, but until confidence returns to investors, bankers, business executives and consumers, they will continue to hold on to their cash reserves, strengthening the bottom line against fear of an impending calamity.
Moreover, this fear reinforces itself, further endangering the overall economy. It's worth remembering here the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the early 1930s: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Conclusion: If monetary policy has not worked, it's time for fiscal policy to take charge, stimulating the economy by increasing spending. And if business will not and consumers cannot, government must.
By the way, economists have devised yet another formula for measuring the economic health of a nation, this one using Money supply and its movement, or Velocity, as a base. It looks like this:
MV=PQ
Calculating the Money supply times its Velocity equals the Price times the Quantity of all goods and services, a rough equivalent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).But that's a topic for another day.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Money Supply
By John T. Harding
Money is the lifeblood of a modern economy. Too much of it, however, puts pressure on the body politic, causing high prices for goods and services, eventually creating a bubble which can block a trade artery, leading to an economic aneurysm and the political equivalent of stroke or cardiac arrest.
Not enough money means an anemic economy, unable to grow because people don't have the wherewithal to buy stuff. In extreme cases, this leads to a barter economy.
So how much money is enough, and who decides? A central bank, that's who.
In the U.S., the monetary decider in chief is the Federal Reserve Board, an independent government agency popularly known as the Fed, with headquarters in Washington and twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks throughout the country.
In addition to deciding how much money should be in circulation, the Fed's mission is to be a lender of last resort for local banks that may be strapped for cash, and to monitor the financial health of banks under its supervision to ensure they stay healthy. Along the way, the Fed adjusts the supply of money available, in order to 1/ control inflation and prevent soaring prices for goods and services, and 2/ encourage or discourage lending so the overall economy grows at a moderate, healthy rate.
It's a difficult job, and calls for constant monitoring and tweaking of the money supply and interest rates in the hope that, in a reasonable time, the economy will react as desired. (How long is a reasonable time? Ay, there's the rub. That, too, requires constant monitoring and tweaking.)
So how does the Fed do its tweaking, and why should we care?
Second question first. We should care because what the Fed does, through its monetary policy, can strongly influence the overall economy of the nation. The other major influence is fiscal policy, or the amount of money the government spends.
Tweak this
First, banks cannot lend out all the cash they have on deposit, but must keep a reserve of cash available for depositors to draw on, as well a cash reserve, usually a percentage of assets, which they forward to the Fed for safekeeping. Hence the name Federal Reserve.
The Fed's ability to adjust this percentage is one way of increasing or decreasing the total amount of money in circulation. Another is through its "open market" operation, where the Fed buys or sells government bonds, thus adding to or reducing the money supply. The concept is simple: When the Fed buys, it puts money into circulation; and when it sells, it takes money out. It sells bonds and keeps the cash.
In fiddling with the supply of money in circulation, the central bank does two things: It raises or lowers interest rates, and secondly, it tries to control inflation, which is the price of everything else.
The interest rate is nothing more than the price one pays to borrow money. And money, as with any other commodity, is subject to the Law of Supply and Demand. When the supply goes up, the price (interest rate) goes down. So by increasing the supply of money, the Fed hopes to push the interest rate down. In turn, this is supposed to encourage companies to borrow money for investment in new projects, or for people to purchase homes, automobiles and other stuff, which in turn boosts the economy out of recession.
The risk of too large a money supply (inflation) is that overall prices go up to absorb the amount of money available.
That's not the major problem facing the American economy today, however. The Fed has pushed interest rates to near zero for major borrowers, and home mortgage rates are at an all-time low. But still the economy is in a rut.
Bottom line: Monetary policy has not been enough to restart the American economy. Cheap money is not encouraging new investment by the private sector. What's left is fiscal policy, or new investment by the public sector.
Euro Pinioned
The European Union is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and unless one side yields -- even a fraction -- the pressure will crush the euro and perhaps even cause the entire multi-nation federation to crumble.
In a way, Europe has been trying to do what America did more than 200 years ago -- form a union of independent states, in the process dismantling tariff and passport restrictions and allowing the free movement of goods as well as people across national boundaries, using a single monetary unit to encourage cross-border trade.
But as some of the nation-states suffer economically and the stronger ones remain reluctant to help bolster the finances of the weaker, the euro may collapse -- or at least lose its effectiveness as a single currency for the 27 nations of the EU. Ideally, the EU would function much like the U.S., with a centralized government coordinating rescue efforts when one of the states encounters budgetary problems.
It would be as if the U.S. federal government in Washington refused to lend a fiscal hand to Florida or Louisiana if one of these states faced bankruptcy. And if the euro collapses or if one or more member nation-states drops out of the union, the financial and economic tremors would reverberate worldwide.
However, while the EU does have a central bank to control the number of euros in circulation, it does not have a central treasury to shore up troubled bond issues of member nations. This leaves the member states in the position of issuing euro-based bonds on their own individual faith and credit, but without the support of the stronger nation-states.
Unlike the U.S., the EU has no effective central government, and remains a confederacy of independent nation-states. And just as the American states realized the need for a coordinated monetary system and a stronger centralized government to supervise it -- only the federal government can issue money -- so the EU needs a stronger agency to provide assistance to a member state in financial distress.
For example, the economy in Greece is in danger of collapse, while that in Germany remains strong and growing. Meanwhile, Spain and Italy are also suffering economically. But these countries, as well as the other 23 nations of the EU, all use the same monetary unit, the euro. And while government bonds sold by Germany are a good investment, those sold by some other countries are not.
In the past, each country could change its monetary policy to patch up its troubles, even to the most drastic measure of devaluing its currency. But with a single currency -- the euro -- they cannot. And without a central treasury to buy up the bonds of troubled members regardless of risk, government bonds will not be sold, the nation-states that issue them will be unable to raise funds, and the governments of those nation-state will go bankrupt and collapse.
The international financier George Soros, writing in the New York Review of Books (Sept. 27, 2012), warns that unless Germany takes a lead in helping to settle budget accounts, a severe depression looms for Europe as a whole. Since Germany is the healthiest nation-state in economic terms, Soros writes, officials in Bonn should lead efforts to rescue the euro. Failure to do so, he adds, threatens the existence of the entire European Union.
Yet Germany is reluctant to act. Why? It may be for historical reasons. Many Germans may not want to be perceived as planning a new attempt at political domination of all Europe, a fear likely shared by many others throughout the EU.
But the reality is that Germany today is the dominant economic power in Europe, and that power can be used in friendship for the political survival of the entire union.
The question is, will it.
In a way, Europe has been trying to do what America did more than 200 years ago -- form a union of independent states, in the process dismantling tariff and passport restrictions and allowing the free movement of goods as well as people across national boundaries, using a single monetary unit to encourage cross-border trade.
But as some of the nation-states suffer economically and the stronger ones remain reluctant to help bolster the finances of the weaker, the euro may collapse -- or at least lose its effectiveness as a single currency for the 27 nations of the EU. Ideally, the EU would function much like the U.S., with a centralized government coordinating rescue efforts when one of the states encounters budgetary problems.
It would be as if the U.S. federal government in Washington refused to lend a fiscal hand to Florida or Louisiana if one of these states faced bankruptcy. And if the euro collapses or if one or more member nation-states drops out of the union, the financial and economic tremors would reverberate worldwide.
However, while the EU does have a central bank to control the number of euros in circulation, it does not have a central treasury to shore up troubled bond issues of member nations. This leaves the member states in the position of issuing euro-based bonds on their own individual faith and credit, but without the support of the stronger nation-states.
Unlike the U.S., the EU has no effective central government, and remains a confederacy of independent nation-states. And just as the American states realized the need for a coordinated monetary system and a stronger centralized government to supervise it -- only the federal government can issue money -- so the EU needs a stronger agency to provide assistance to a member state in financial distress.
For example, the economy in Greece is in danger of collapse, while that in Germany remains strong and growing. Meanwhile, Spain and Italy are also suffering economically. But these countries, as well as the other 23 nations of the EU, all use the same monetary unit, the euro. And while government bonds sold by Germany are a good investment, those sold by some other countries are not.
In the past, each country could change its monetary policy to patch up its troubles, even to the most drastic measure of devaluing its currency. But with a single currency -- the euro -- they cannot. And without a central treasury to buy up the bonds of troubled members regardless of risk, government bonds will not be sold, the nation-states that issue them will be unable to raise funds, and the governments of those nation-state will go bankrupt and collapse.
The international financier George Soros, writing in the New York Review of Books (Sept. 27, 2012), warns that unless Germany takes a lead in helping to settle budget accounts, a severe depression looms for Europe as a whole. Since Germany is the healthiest nation-state in economic terms, Soros writes, officials in Bonn should lead efforts to rescue the euro. Failure to do so, he adds, threatens the existence of the entire European Union.
Yet Germany is reluctant to act. Why? It may be for historical reasons. Many Germans may not want to be perceived as planning a new attempt at political domination of all Europe, a fear likely shared by many others throughout the EU.
But the reality is that Germany today is the dominant economic power in Europe, and that power can be used in friendship for the political survival of the entire union.
The question is, will it.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Boosting Growth
By John T. Harding
It's a simple equation, taught in every Econ 101 course: Gross Domestic Product equals Consumption plus Investment plus Government expenditures plus Net Exports (Exports minus Imports). Expressed as a formula, it looks like this:
GDP = C+ I + G + (Ex-Im)
The economy grows when GDP grows. When the economy (GDP) recedes, one or more of the contributing factors can be leveraged to get the economy growing again. The question then becomes, which one? Since Consumption accounts for some 80 percent of the economy, this is usually the target to encourage a recovery. In turn, this raises the question from which one, to how to use the other factors to push Consumption out of its rut.
Classical economics of the 19th Century says leave things alone, and eventually consumers will start buying more stuff. Thus, the economy recovers.
The "trickle-down" theory of the Reagan years pointed to Investment as the best lever, and claimed the way to encourage leverage is through tax breaks or lower interest rates, thus making investment in additional production capacity more attractive.
Keynesians believe Government should step in, stimulating growth by increasing its expenditures, especially in situations where laissez-faire or trickle-down strategies don't succeed.
Finally, devaluing a currency can make Exports less expensive for overseas buyers, thus increasing sales.
Let's consider each strategy.
"Eventually" can be a long time, so the strategy of non-intervention can leave a large part of the population -- except for the very wealthy -- in economic pain for many months, if not years. An example here is the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Tax breaks for the wealthy are not enough to boost the overall economy, since they spend plenty as it is, and making even more money available to them is no guarantee they will actually spend it on additional consumption. Instead, the extra money is likely to be stashed in a safe banking haven.
Granted, this makes more money available for Investment, but if bankers are reluctant to lend and manufacturers reluctant to borrow for additional capacity because the economy is in a rut, (Why make more stuff if nobody's buying anyway?) lower interest rates may not help. This is the current problem. Interest rates are already near zero, so increasing the money supply will only cause inflation. Moreover, credit card interest rates remain as high as 25 percent, so many consumers are paying down this debt rather than buy more stuff.
Devaluing a currency is politically unpalatable, and in any case, Net Exports don't amount to a large enough portion of GDP to make a significant difference. Moreover, in a declining world economy, consumers in other countries are also pinched for cash.
That leaves the strategy proposed by economist John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression. If no other strategy is increasing the flow of goods and services (GDP), Government can and should step in to "prime the pump," pouring money into things like infrastructure improvements, thus providing jobs and wages so workers can pay for food, clothing, shelter and whatever extras they may want.
This strategy worked in the 1930s, and can work again today if the government avoids the mistake of 1936-37, when government pulled back too soon on expenditures, causing another dip in the economy. It took the onset of World War II, with astronomical government spending, to finally end the Great Depression. With care, the current administration in Washington can continue its stimulus program without the trauma of a major war.
One danger, of course, is that pumping more money into the economy will bring higher prices. (This happened in the 1940s, but once again, government intervened with a price control program.) As economist Milton Friedman so succinctly put it, "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."
Or, put less formally by our resident philosopher Pug Mahoney, "Prices rise to absorb the amount of money available. Ask any tourist."
Doing nothing, however, is not an acceptable option.
Granted, inflating the money supply increases the risk of a sharp rise in prices, but the wealthy will have an incentive to buy now before prices rise even higher, and the unwealthy -- those working in the shops where the wealthy buy -- will have wages to pay for more basic needs.
And finally, once the economy is rolling again, government expenditures can be scaled back and those who control the money supply can reduce it, thereby stabilizing prices.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Politics and Religion
"Never talk politics or religion." -- Pug Mahoney's Golden Rule for Bartenders
"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," and it has "no character of enmity" toward Islam. (Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by Congress in 1797.)
"I have only one prayer. Protect me from your True Believers." -- Dinty Ramble
When politics and religion are mixed, the result is a toxic brew that can poison any relationship, ranging from two people to an entire society.
In America, the Founders rightly tried to keep the two separate, deeming the issue so important that it was written into the main body of the Constitution itself. (Article VI: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.")
Thus, while the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, the Constitution itself guarantees freedom from religion.
Voters may decide to vote for (or against) any candidate for any reason, including religion, but to mandate a particular spiritual path as a qualification for office is not only unconstitutional, it is foolish.
To any True Believer, "the opponent is not merely in error but in sin. Dissent is disapproved of not only intellectually for also morally. There cannot be any excuse for it once the Message has been revealed." So wrote economist Joseph Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Moreover, while he was referring specifically to Marxists, he noted that the "religious quality of Marxism also explains a characteristic attitude ... of any believer in a Faith."
The almost fanatically religious fervor that has infected the self-righteous few who have convinced themselves that their way is the only right way, is in danger of spreading like a fatal virus in the body politic of American democracy.
"America is a Christian nation," say the zealots. Except for the 6 million Jews, 5 million Muslims, 3 million Buddhists, 1.5 million Hindus, and the millions more who are members of some 310 religions and denominations throughout America, including those who follow the Zoroastrian, Shinto, Tao, Baha'i, or the Native American traditions, not to mention the 2 million atheists or the 33 million who say they are non-religious, or even the Druids and Wiccans.
So while it may be possible to say that, strictly in terms of population, there are more Christians -- if in name only -- throughout the country, thus justifying the "Christian nation" claim, it is not possible to say that the government of the United States of America is Christian.
"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," and it has "no character of enmity" toward Islam. (Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by Congress in 1797.)
"I have only one prayer. Protect me from your True Believers." -- Dinty Ramble
When politics and religion are mixed, the result is a toxic brew that can poison any relationship, ranging from two people to an entire society.
In America, the Founders rightly tried to keep the two separate, deeming the issue so important that it was written into the main body of the Constitution itself. (Article VI: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.")
Thus, while the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, the Constitution itself guarantees freedom from religion.
Voters may decide to vote for (or against) any candidate for any reason, including religion, but to mandate a particular spiritual path as a qualification for office is not only unconstitutional, it is foolish.
To any True Believer, "the opponent is not merely in error but in sin. Dissent is disapproved of not only intellectually for also morally. There cannot be any excuse for it once the Message has been revealed." So wrote economist Joseph Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Moreover, while he was referring specifically to Marxists, he noted that the "religious quality of Marxism also explains a characteristic attitude ... of any believer in a Faith."
The almost fanatically religious fervor that has infected the self-righteous few who have convinced themselves that their way is the only right way, is in danger of spreading like a fatal virus in the body politic of American democracy.
"America is a Christian nation," say the zealots. Except for the 6 million Jews, 5 million Muslims, 3 million Buddhists, 1.5 million Hindus, and the millions more who are members of some 310 religions and denominations throughout America, including those who follow the Zoroastrian, Shinto, Tao, Baha'i, or the Native American traditions, not to mention the 2 million atheists or the 33 million who say they are non-religious, or even the Druids and Wiccans.
So while it may be possible to say that, strictly in terms of population, there are more Christians -- if in name only -- throughout the country, thus justifying the "Christian nation" claim, it is not possible to say that the government of the United States of America is Christian.
Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
"Free complimentary gift" can only be called a double redundancy. If something is complimentary, it is by definition free. Likewise, a gift is free.
Redundancy for emphasis is one thing, and used in moderation this usage is fine, but when repetition distracts the reader, it drags down the prose.
"Each has their own unique style." Unique, by definition, is one of a kind. Unless the person is using someone else's style, in which case it's not unique.
"In my own personal opinion, I really and truly believe..."
This, no doubt, is a way of differentiating the speaker's opinion from someone else's opinion, or perhaps to distinguish a personal opinion from an impersonal one, or to contrast "truly believe" with "falsely believe," adding "really" to compare with "not really."
In any case, that ten-word redundancy can be reduced to just two words: "I believe."
Redundancy for emphasis is one thing, and used in moderation this usage is fine, but when repetition distracts the reader, it drags down the prose.
"Each has their own unique style." Unique, by definition, is one of a kind. Unless the person is using someone else's style, in which case it's not unique.
"In my own personal opinion, I really and truly believe..."
This, no doubt, is a way of differentiating the speaker's opinion from someone else's opinion, or perhaps to distinguish a personal opinion from an impersonal one, or to contrast "truly believe" with "falsely believe," adding "really" to compare with "not really."
In any case, that ten-word redundancy can be reduced to just two words: "I believe."
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Subjunctivitis
One of the least understood verb forms in English is the subjunctive. But despite the widespread lack of understanding, the reality is that we use it often, even as we can't explain how it works.
In a way, it's like driving a car or operating a computer. Many of us do both without the least understanding of what goes on under the hood or behind the screen.
Put simply, there are only three of what grammarians call moods in the English language: Indicative, imperative and subjunctive. Loosely translated from the Latin labels they were given centuries ago, they mean: Show me, tell me, and maybe. More specifically, "indicative" comes from the same root as "indicate," or "point to," and is used for verbs indicating what is. "Imperative" is related to "imperious" and "imperial," and is used to command someone to do or say something. Finally, the subjunctive. The roots of the term tell us that the mood is somehow "sub-joined" to something else, often through an "if" phrase. That is, its existence depends on something or someone else.
Shakespeare was a master of the form. Consider this famous line, from Julius Caesar: "An it be so, it were a grievous fault." (The word "an" is only a very early form of "if.")
Or this, from an old Irish adage:
If if's and an's were pots and pans
We'd have no use for tinkers.
The thing about studying grammar in elementary school and high school is that it gives you names for things you already know. And by giving these things Latin-based labels, teachers impart more prestige to themselves and to the subject.
The medical and legal professions do the same thing. Ask a doctor for the name of the indentation, or pit, in front of the elbow, and he will tell you it's the "ante-cubital fossa." Which is Latin for "pit in front of the elbow."
But I digress. Be not afraid of the subjunctive. (That sentence is an imperative.) It is a useful mood. (That's indicative.) If this were not so, the mood would have disappeared long since. (Subjunctive -- one condition depends on another.)
In a way, it's like driving a car or operating a computer. Many of us do both without the least understanding of what goes on under the hood or behind the screen.
Put simply, there are only three of what grammarians call moods in the English language: Indicative, imperative and subjunctive. Loosely translated from the Latin labels they were given centuries ago, they mean: Show me, tell me, and maybe. More specifically, "indicative" comes from the same root as "indicate," or "point to," and is used for verbs indicating what is. "Imperative" is related to "imperious" and "imperial," and is used to command someone to do or say something. Finally, the subjunctive. The roots of the term tell us that the mood is somehow "sub-joined" to something else, often through an "if" phrase. That is, its existence depends on something or someone else.
Shakespeare was a master of the form. Consider this famous line, from Julius Caesar: "An it be so, it were a grievous fault." (The word "an" is only a very early form of "if.")
Or this, from an old Irish adage:
If if's and an's were pots and pans
We'd have no use for tinkers.
The thing about studying grammar in elementary school and high school is that it gives you names for things you already know. And by giving these things Latin-based labels, teachers impart more prestige to themselves and to the subject.
The medical and legal professions do the same thing. Ask a doctor for the name of the indentation, or pit, in front of the elbow, and he will tell you it's the "ante-cubital fossa." Which is Latin for "pit in front of the elbow."
But I digress. Be not afraid of the subjunctive. (That sentence is an imperative.) It is a useful mood. (That's indicative.) If this were not so, the mood would have disappeared long since. (Subjunctive -- one condition depends on another.)
Friday, September 14, 2012
Lies, Damn Lies, and Politicians
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -- H.L. Mencken
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." -- Aide to Mitt Romney
"How dumb do they think we are?" -- Mad Dog O'Shaughnessy
"Very." -- Dinty Ramble
When it comes to bending or deliberately ignoring facts to conform to the message du jour, political campaigners win hands down. That's no surprise.
As a young reporter once said to the Samurai Rim Man, "Did you ever get the feeling when you're working on a story that someone's lying to you?"
Response: "Of course. It happens all the time. But it's not our job to say which side is lying. Sometimes they both are. Our job is to report accurately what each side says, and provide enough background information so the reader can decide which one is lying."
This year, however, the level of prevarication has reached a new high/low (pick one), and "blatant" only begins to describe the problem.
But here's a larger question: Is it that the candidates and their staffs are avoiding facts and flat-out lying, or is it that they are so ignorant of basic truths that they think noise and bluster will enable them to bully their way to victory?
Three qualities have been strongly evident among candidates in recent years. They are: Attractive, aggressive, and ignorant. The first two help to prove Dinty Ramble's observation of many years standing: Shake enough hands with enough people long enough and anybody can get elected to anything.
As for the third, consider this. Attractive and aggressive may win elections, but ignorance devastates a nation.
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." -- Aide to Mitt Romney
"How dumb do they think we are?" -- Mad Dog O'Shaughnessy
"Very." -- Dinty Ramble
When it comes to bending or deliberately ignoring facts to conform to the message du jour, political campaigners win hands down. That's no surprise.
As a young reporter once said to the Samurai Rim Man, "Did you ever get the feeling when you're working on a story that someone's lying to you?"
Response: "Of course. It happens all the time. But it's not our job to say which side is lying. Sometimes they both are. Our job is to report accurately what each side says, and provide enough background information so the reader can decide which one is lying."
This year, however, the level of prevarication has reached a new high/low (pick one), and "blatant" only begins to describe the problem.
But here's a larger question: Is it that the candidates and their staffs are avoiding facts and flat-out lying, or is it that they are so ignorant of basic truths that they think noise and bluster will enable them to bully their way to victory?
Three qualities have been strongly evident among candidates in recent years. They are: Attractive, aggressive, and ignorant. The first two help to prove Dinty Ramble's observation of many years standing: Shake enough hands with enough people long enough and anybody can get elected to anything.
As for the third, consider this. Attractive and aggressive may win elections, but ignorance devastates a nation.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Sesame Street Dialect
There's a widespread use of the pronouns "him and me" as the subject of a sentence, as in "Him and me went to the store."
Hmmm. "Me go to store, get cookie."
The Cookie Monster would be proud.
Hmmm. "Me go to store, get cookie."
The Cookie Monster would be proud.
Gender Neutrality
The English language does not have a gender-neutral singular pronoun for use with people, so speakers and writers often use the plural "they," even when referring to individuals.
Consider:
"Everyone must do their part."
"Each one of us should cast their vote on Election Day"
"Each has their own unique style."
To some, mixing the plural pronoun (they) with a singular referent (everyone, each), jars the ear. But the politically correct "his or her" or "his/her" jars even more, partly because it seems clumsy. And, of course, using "its" in reference to people is right out.
So, what to do? As the king said, "Is a puzzlement."
Consider the options:
1/ Defy the objectors, and continue using "everyone ... their."
2/ Satisfy the politically sensitive and use "his or her," and alternate the genders throughout the text, running the risk of confusing readers even more.
3/ Use the neuter pronoun "its," traditionally used for things, not people or other creatures.
4/ Revive the Anglo-Saxon singular neutral "hem."
5/ Rewrite to the clearly plural, such as "All voters should cast their ballots," or "Each has a unique style," or "All of us must do our parts," thereby pluralizing "ballots" to agree with the plural "us."
When in doubt, rephrase.
Another advantage: You eliminate the conflict and the redundancy in the phrase "their own unique ... " By definition, "unique" is one of a kind.
Consider:
"Everyone must do their part."
"Each one of us should cast their vote on Election Day"
"Each has their own unique style."
To some, mixing the plural pronoun (they) with a singular referent (everyone, each), jars the ear. But the politically correct "his or her" or "his/her" jars even more, partly because it seems clumsy. And, of course, using "its" in reference to people is right out.
So, what to do? As the king said, "Is a puzzlement."
Consider the options:
1/ Defy the objectors, and continue using "everyone ... their."
2/ Satisfy the politically sensitive and use "his or her," and alternate the genders throughout the text, running the risk of confusing readers even more.
3/ Use the neuter pronoun "its," traditionally used for things, not people or other creatures.
4/ Revive the Anglo-Saxon singular neutral "hem."
5/ Rewrite to the clearly plural, such as "All voters should cast their ballots," or "Each has a unique style," or "All of us must do our parts," thereby pluralizing "ballots" to agree with the plural "us."
When in doubt, rephrase.
Another advantage: You eliminate the conflict and the redundancy in the phrase "their own unique ... " By definition, "unique" is one of a kind.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Conventioneer or Convention Ear Ache?
By John T. Harding
The quadrennial marketing of presidential candidates got a comeuppance this year as the major broadcast TV networks opted out of gavel-to-gavel coverage, thus depriving the partygoers of free advertising for their campaigns.
The politico-marketers howled when the networks cut coverage to just one hour for each of three nights. GOPlanners howled loudly because they had planned a four-night marketplace. Their outcry was drowned out, however, by even louder howling in the wind and rain of Hurricane Isaac as it roared past Tampa on its way to New Orleans.
The GOProtesters may have been mollified a bit by NBC's decision to carry a football game instead of an hour of Democratic convention frivolatry (read: frivolous idolatry).
For all the howling, however, it's not like viewers were bereft -- sports fans had their football fix, while those who wanted convention coverage could choose one of the other two broadcast networks -- ABC or CBS -- or CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, PBS or CSPAN for even more coverage time and analysis.
As for why NBC chose the NFL over convention coverage, try this reason: Money. An hour's worth of game time, with commercials, is infinitely more profitable than an hour's worth of speechifying with no commercial breaks.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Clear, Concise, and Complete
5W + 3C = A+
A Maryland politician known for his opposition to same-sex marriage protested when a professional football player endorsed gay rights, and urged the team owner to make him stop such "injurious" talk.
The New York Times reported that a Baltimore Ravens linebacker, Brendon Ayanbadejo, in supporting gay rights, incurred the wrath of Emmett C. Burns Jr., a Maryland delegate. The legislator wrote to Steve Bisciotti, the team owner, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions."
In turn, the politician's statement infuriated another NFL player, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who posted on the Internet this diatribe: "Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level."
The Times report added many other reaction comments from gay rights activists supporting the players and criticizing the politician.
The story, which appeared in the Sunday Sports Section, was pegged to the idea stated in the headline and on the Times Web site that the "players' support of gay marriage" is changing the "homophobic image" of the NFL.
A good story in itself, but there's a lot more to it, beginning with First Amendment rights.
Consider:
-- There was no mention of the Free Speech issue, nor any comment from lawyers specializing in First Amendment rights.
-- There was no comment from the state legislator whose letter to the team owner initiated the fuss.
-- There was no comment from the team owner.
The "homophobic image" was a good angle to pursue, but it would have been a much better, more complete story with comments from the man who lit the flame of controversy, as well as from the team owner. Or at least a line or two indicating that some attempt was made to contact them.
The journalism-school formula for good news writing has long relied on the Five Ws: Who, what, where, when and why. Adding the Three Cs to the formula -- clear, concise and complete -- equals better writing, a better story, and an A+ for the day.
A Maryland politician known for his opposition to same-sex marriage protested when a professional football player endorsed gay rights, and urged the team owner to make him stop such "injurious" talk.
The New York Times reported that a Baltimore Ravens linebacker, Brendon Ayanbadejo, in supporting gay rights, incurred the wrath of Emmett C. Burns Jr., a Maryland delegate. The legislator wrote to Steve Bisciotti, the team owner, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions."
In turn, the politician's statement infuriated another NFL player, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who posted on the Internet this diatribe: "Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level."
The Times report added many other reaction comments from gay rights activists supporting the players and criticizing the politician.
The story, which appeared in the Sunday Sports Section, was pegged to the idea stated in the headline and on the Times Web site that the "players' support of gay marriage" is changing the "homophobic image" of the NFL.
A good story in itself, but there's a lot more to it, beginning with First Amendment rights.
Consider:
-- There was no mention of the Free Speech issue, nor any comment from lawyers specializing in First Amendment rights.
-- There was no comment from the state legislator whose letter to the team owner initiated the fuss.
-- There was no comment from the team owner.
The "homophobic image" was a good angle to pursue, but it would have been a much better, more complete story with comments from the man who lit the flame of controversy, as well as from the team owner. Or at least a line or two indicating that some attempt was made to contact them.
The journalism-school formula for good news writing has long relied on the Five Ws: Who, what, where, when and why. Adding the Three Cs to the formula -- clear, concise and complete -- equals better writing, a better story, and an A+ for the day.
Coincidence vs Irony
From across the pond, a story that stumbled over two of the Three Cs for good writing. The story was concise, but neither clear nor complete.
Here's the entire text of the story, from the Irish Times of Sept. 5:
Sponsors of the Irish Paralympic Team have paid almost £10,000 to settle a discrimination case taken by a disabled woman.
Carol Ann Armstrong, from Ballymena, Co Antrim, has a disability because of a stroke.
She was one of three women paid £9,500 each after they were made redundant by fuel company Topaz Energy in July last year when the business made their sales posts full time.
-- Was the disabled woman who brought the case also on the Paralympic Team?
-- Were the other two women also disabled or on the team?
-- Was the discrimination based on disability, or was gender bias or some other form of discrimination involved?
-- Was it a coincidence that the company was a sponsor of the Paralympic team, or can the theme of irony be emphasized?
-- Finally, it's not fully clear that Topaz Energy was a Paralympic Team sponsor.
Here's the entire text of the story, from the Irish Times of Sept. 5:
Carol Ann Armstrong, from Ballymena, Co Antrim, has a disability because of a stroke.
She was one of three women paid £9,500 each after they were made redundant by fuel company Topaz Energy in July last year when the business made their sales posts full time.
-- Was the disabled woman who brought the case also on the Paralympic Team?
-- Were the other two women also disabled or on the team?
-- Was the discrimination based on disability, or was gender bias or some other form of discrimination involved?
-- Was it a coincidence that the company was a sponsor of the Paralympic team, or can the theme of irony be emphasized?
-- Finally, it's not fully clear that Topaz Energy was a Paralympic Team sponsor.
Fallacies
"If I can do it, you can do it." It ain't necessarily so. Picture Shaquille O'Neal telling Danny DeVito that he too can succeed in professional basketball.
Anyone can be taught to play the piano, but there is only one Dave Brubeck.
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
As well say, "Those who can, play. Those who can't, coach."
Or, "Those who can, play. Those who can't, conduct."
"Verbs must always agree with nouns."
True enough, but a noun is not always a single word. It could be an entire phrase. Consider the following, which appeared in a New York Times story about student loan defaults: "Only a small fraction of defaulters even tries" to get the loan amount reduced or forgiven. The editor or writer decided that the ruling noun is "fraction," and used the singular verb "tries." But that clashes with the nearest noun, "defaulters," who are clearly numerous people, and this plural noun requires the plural verb "try." Moreover, it's not at all clear that a "fraction are people." Or is it "fraction is people"?
There are several ways to resolve the problem. One is to consider that the governing noun is not the single word "fraction," but the entire noun phrase, "fraction of defaulters." Another is to consider that the verb should agree with the nearest noun, in this case, "defaulters." Still another is to rewrite the sentence, such that any doubt is eliminated, thereby following the Samurai Rim Man's mantra, "When in doubt, rephrase."
In any case, the construction "defaulters ... tries" compels the reader to stop and wonder which verb usage is appropriate. The idea of good writing is induce continued reading, not to force pauses to ponder usage.
In short, collective nouns can take either a singular or a plural verb, depending on whether its members are acting as a group or as many individuals.
Anyone can be taught to play the piano, but there is only one Dave Brubeck.
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
As well say, "Those who can, play. Those who can't, coach."
Or, "Those who can, play. Those who can't, conduct."
"Verbs must always agree with nouns."
True enough, but a noun is not always a single word. It could be an entire phrase. Consider the following, which appeared in a New York Times story about student loan defaults: "Only a small fraction of defaulters even tries" to get the loan amount reduced or forgiven. The editor or writer decided that the ruling noun is "fraction," and used the singular verb "tries." But that clashes with the nearest noun, "defaulters," who are clearly numerous people, and this plural noun requires the plural verb "try." Moreover, it's not at all clear that a "fraction are people." Or is it "fraction is people"?
There are several ways to resolve the problem. One is to consider that the governing noun is not the single word "fraction," but the entire noun phrase, "fraction of defaulters." Another is to consider that the verb should agree with the nearest noun, in this case, "defaulters." Still another is to rewrite the sentence, such that any doubt is eliminated, thereby following the Samurai Rim Man's mantra, "When in doubt, rephrase."
In any case, the construction "defaulters ... tries" compels the reader to stop and wonder which verb usage is appropriate. The idea of good writing is induce continued reading, not to force pauses to ponder usage.
In short, collective nouns can take either a singular or a plural verb, depending on whether its members are acting as a group or as many individuals.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Extremism, Government, and Liberty
By John T. Harding
Politics and government cannot be separated, since -- in a democracy at least -- those in government can't get anything done without first getting elected.
Problems arise, however, when the desire to get elected (and re-elected) overwhelms the desire to get things done, for the benefit of all, not just the few who support the candidates. And when the imbalance is extreme, the result can be either chaos or dictatorship.
Too much politics causes chaos, and too much government brings oppression. As the political pendulum swings, a nation can find itself leaning to either extreme.
With awareness and some luck, however, society can slow or reverse a trend to extremism and restore the social and political, as well the governmental, balance.
Barry Goldwater, leader of the modern conservative movement, knew this. In his acceptance speech for the 1964 Republican nomination for president, he noted that freedom needs to be "balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the slavery of the prison cell; balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the license of the mob and of the jungle."
But unlike many in today's Republican Party -- especially the radical right-wing Tea Party movement -- Goldwater knew that "Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth."
Moreover, equality, "rightly understood, ... leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, ... it leads first to conformity and then to despotism," he said.
And in a phrase that should be remembered by today's Radical Righteous, the founder of the modern conservative movement pointed out that "it is the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power, private or public, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism."
And unlike many ultraconservatives today, Goldwater insisted that the Republican Party should be "a party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists."
It's time for today's conservatives to remember the words of their founder, and make room in their ranks for disagreement. "We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion," Goldwater told the nominating convention 48 years ago. "Our Republican cause," he added, is not to level out the world or make its people conform in computer regimented sameness."
Unfortunately, one sentence in an otherwise thoughtful acceptance speech is the one most remembered: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." And that line alone may well have frightened many voters and cost him the election, even though the sentence was followed by what, to some, was an even more important thought: "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Demand-Side Economics
By John T. Harding
In the long run, economics dictates politics" -- Unknown
This year's presidential election is not only a political contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It is also a competition between the followers of J.M. Keynes and F.A. Hayek. And while many voters may not have heard of Keynes and Hayek, the ideas of these long-dead economists live on in the policies of the two rival political parties.
Republican supply-siders are "Field of Dreams" economists: "If you build it, they will come," and its corollary, "If you make it, they will buy." But jobless workers cannot increase their demand, since they have no money for purchases.
Democrats tend to be demand-siders; encourage consumption and suppliers will respond by increasing production.How to accomplish this?
The Keynesian answer: Government intervention.
For Keynes, the way to boost a faltering economy is to encourage consumer spending through government-sponsored projects -- "priming the pump" of money by providing jobs, which pay wages, which workers can use to buy stuff.
This is a "demand side" strategy. Government-sponsored jobs inject money into the economic stream and thereby boosts "demand energy," with increases in supply to follow.
This strategy worked in the 1930s, helping to bring America out of the Great Depression. A similar strategy was adopted in 2009, with a government stimulus program activated to help bring the economy out of its doldrums. Whether this recent pump-priming was enough remains an open question.
On the other hand, adherents of Hayek warn that government involvement in the economy puts the nation on "The Road to Serfdom," which was the title of Hayek's best-known book, published in 1945. What's more, the book reflected the widespread fear of Soviet-style communism.
Keynes did his major work in the early 1930s, and provided a framework used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to ease the pain of the Great Depression.
Hayek, in contrast, stressed the virtues of free-market capitalism and the benefits of perfect competition.
Keynes recognized that market forces do not always work at peak efficiency, and sometimes a government mechanic must intervene to oil the market machine and "prime the pump" to get things moving again.
Who was right? Both and neither.
Market drivers can be faster and more efficient than government control, but when the market engine stalls or the drivers go off the track and sit in the stands, government must temporarily take the wheel.
Perfect competition does not exist in the real world, and at the other extreme, total government control leads to dictatorship and oppression. Moreover, both can be havens of corruption.
Somewhere in between is a balance, with free enterprise to promote innovation and market efficiency, and government regulation to prevent corruption, abuse, and to ensure product and environmental safety.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Comma-tose
By John T. Harding
The point of a comma is to indicate a pause. It's used in music notation to tell instrumentalists and singers when to take a breath. In text, the comma serves a similar purpose, separating clauses by a very short pause.
Hint: Commas often come in pairs, so if you have a phrase that can be lifted out and moved elsewhere in text, you need both commas. If, however, the phrase limits the description of something, do not use commas.
Example: The man who was struck told police ... This indicates that there was at least one other man, who was not struck.
Example B: The President, who was born in Hawaii, appeared yesterday ... Without commas, the sentence would suggest that there was another president who was not born in Hawaii.
There is also a difference between titles and job descriptions. Titles in front of a name do not earn a comma. Examples: President John Smith. Sergeant Joe Friday. General Herman Munster.
Where a pause is useful to encourage overall flow, commas help to do that. Too many commas, however, can slow the flow and put the reader to sleep.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Reality Check
"Why did you come to this country, Dad?"
"There was no work."
"The times, they are a-changin' " -- Bob Dylan
"There was no work."
"The times, they are a-changin' " -- Bob Dylan
By John T. Harding
For all the warnings about jobs being "sent overseas," the reality is that jobs and workers have always traveled and relocated to wherever conditions are better, either for the employer or the worker.
Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, called it "absolute advantage," and used the example of Spanish wine and British textiles. It's possible for both countries to make both products, but those who have tasted English wine will recognize immediately that Spain has an absolute advantage in climate for growing grapes. Britain, meanwhile, had the advantage of more workers, and later, the advantage of coal reserves to power textile mills.
In 19th Century America, New England had rivers and streams to power the mills, while the South had a better climate to grow cotton. Each region, therefore, had an absolute advantage in one aspect of the overall industry, so by focusing on what it did best and trading with the other region, both would benefit.
By the mid-19th Century, however, British mills were bidding up the price of raw cotton, so Southern planters preferred to ship their product overseas, rather than sell to Northern mill owners. And this may have been one underlying factor precipitating the Civil War. (The slavery issue may have been the publicized excuse, but economics also played a significant role.)
Later, in the early 20th Century, as labor unions brought higher wages to workers in New England, mill owners relocated to the Carolinas, where wages were lower and proximity to rivers and streams as power sources was less important when coal could be used to drive the mills.
And still later in the 20th Century, textile manufacturing moved again, to lower-wage countries in Asia. Meanwhile, American workers were acquiring other skills, which they applied to higher paying jobs than mill work. Moreover, mill workers encouraged their children to get more education, so they would not be "stuck" in lower-skill, lower-paying jobs.
In the mid-19th Century, agriculture accounted for more than half America's economic output. By the mid-20th Century, manufacturing led as the main driver of America's economic engine. But as the rest of the world recovered from World War II and nations built new, more efficient manufacturing facilities with lower wage costs, the American economy changed its focus to the service sector, emphasizing finance, distribution, transportation and other areas of manufacturing requiring higher degrees of knowledge, expertise and skills than were available in the rest of the world.
Even so, there are still jobs available that many young Americans feel are beneath them. Yet, rather than take them, they protest when newcomers "take jobs away from Americans."
Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, called it "absolute advantage," and used the example of Spanish wine and British textiles. It's possible for both countries to make both products, but those who have tasted English wine will recognize immediately that Spain has an absolute advantage in climate for growing grapes. Britain, meanwhile, had the advantage of more workers, and later, the advantage of coal reserves to power textile mills.
In 19th Century America, New England had rivers and streams to power the mills, while the South had a better climate to grow cotton. Each region, therefore, had an absolute advantage in one aspect of the overall industry, so by focusing on what it did best and trading with the other region, both would benefit.
By the mid-19th Century, however, British mills were bidding up the price of raw cotton, so Southern planters preferred to ship their product overseas, rather than sell to Northern mill owners. And this may have been one underlying factor precipitating the Civil War. (The slavery issue may have been the publicized excuse, but economics also played a significant role.)
Later, in the early 20th Century, as labor unions brought higher wages to workers in New England, mill owners relocated to the Carolinas, where wages were lower and proximity to rivers and streams as power sources was less important when coal could be used to drive the mills.
And still later in the 20th Century, textile manufacturing moved again, to lower-wage countries in Asia. Meanwhile, American workers were acquiring other skills, which they applied to higher paying jobs than mill work. Moreover, mill workers encouraged their children to get more education, so they would not be "stuck" in lower-skill, lower-paying jobs.
In the mid-19th Century, agriculture accounted for more than half America's economic output. By the mid-20th Century, manufacturing led as the main driver of America's economic engine. But as the rest of the world recovered from World War II and nations built new, more efficient manufacturing facilities with lower wage costs, the American economy changed its focus to the service sector, emphasizing finance, distribution, transportation and other areas of manufacturing requiring higher degrees of knowledge, expertise and skills than were available in the rest of the world.
Even so, there are still jobs available that many young Americans feel are beneath them. Yet, rather than take them, they protest when newcomers "take jobs away from Americans."
Adam Smith was a free trade economist. He believed that when two nations focus on what they do best, without import restrictions to interfere with competition, both nations benefit, since each will provide workers with jobs and wages to buy the produce of the other.
It's time for a reality check.
It's time for a reality check.
Financial Dysfunction
How does economic recovery start?
One theory says the best way is to provide incentives to the "job creators," the entrepreneurs and investors, and eventually, the benefits will trickle down to the rest of the people.
This is true enough, but only if the wealthy, the investors, the bankers and the entrepreneurs actually do take action to stimulate the economy by increasing production, starting new projects, hiring more workers and providing wages so the un-wealthy can pay for food, clothing, shelter and perhaps a few extras.
Money is the lifeblood of a modern economy, but if the flow stops, the economic body suffers what can be called financial cardiac arrest; if the money flow stops, so does the economy.
When consumers reduce their purchases, for whatever reason, producers slow their output because they don't want to be stuck with excess, unsold inventory. As the economy shows signs of slowing, manufacturers abandon plans to expand, and entrepreneurs delay plans to start new companies, partly because bankers and investors are wary of backing new projects.
So begins what economists call a "vicious cycle." Consumption slows, production slows, expansion slows, investment slows, employment slows, consumption slows, and the cycle continues.
Henry Ford had the right idea when he paid workers well above subsistence wages, on the theory that they would have enough money to buy the cars the company was making -- a "virtuous cycle."
It's a fine idea to encourage job creators in the private sector to hire workers and expand production, but if they won't or can't because bankers and investors refuse to finance new projects, then it's time for a higher power to step in.
And since divine intervention is not likely, that leaves government.
One theory says the best way is to provide incentives to the "job creators," the entrepreneurs and investors, and eventually, the benefits will trickle down to the rest of the people.
This is true enough, but only if the wealthy, the investors, the bankers and the entrepreneurs actually do take action to stimulate the economy by increasing production, starting new projects, hiring more workers and providing wages so the un-wealthy can pay for food, clothing, shelter and perhaps a few extras.
Money is the lifeblood of a modern economy, but if the flow stops, the economic body suffers what can be called financial cardiac arrest; if the money flow stops, so does the economy.
When consumers reduce their purchases, for whatever reason, producers slow their output because they don't want to be stuck with excess, unsold inventory. As the economy shows signs of slowing, manufacturers abandon plans to expand, and entrepreneurs delay plans to start new companies, partly because bankers and investors are wary of backing new projects.
So begins what economists call a "vicious cycle." Consumption slows, production slows, expansion slows, investment slows, employment slows, consumption slows, and the cycle continues.
Henry Ford had the right idea when he paid workers well above subsistence wages, on the theory that they would have enough money to buy the cars the company was making -- a "virtuous cycle."
It's a fine idea to encourage job creators in the private sector to hire workers and expand production, but if they won't or can't because bankers and investors refuse to finance new projects, then it's time for a higher power to step in.
And since divine intervention is not likely, that leaves government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)