Conservative economics maintains that recovery is best accomplished at the local level by private enterprise, without government interference.
By this premise, New Jersey Shore towns and businesses should be left alone to recover as they may, with only their own resources to support redevelopment efforts. However, the fury of the storm has destroyed much of the shoreline and many of the homes and businesses based there. Lower Manhattan is flooded, and nearly a hundred homes in other boroughs were destroyed by fire. There is widespread destruction in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware, as well as heavy snowstorm damage in West Virginia and other states.
Nevertheless, recovery efforts should be done at the local level, say the conservatives. And ideally, recovery should be delegated to private enterprise. There is no need or rationale for a federal coordinating agency.
Reality check: Localities and states do not have resources sufficient to handle the extent of the devastation, and competition in the private sector will allocate resources only to those with the money to pay. Not to mention a lack of coordination. No money, no help. Go away.
The federal government can and should step in to help coordinate and assist relief efforts, since only a larger agency has the resources and the funds needed to do so.
And amid all the destruction, here's a positive note. Many thousands of workers will get jobs clearing, repairing, renovating and rebuilding the areas where Hurricane Sandy struck. Cooperation and coordination is needed among local, state and federal authorities, along with private contractors to recover from the storm.
Hurricane Sandy was one of the most ill of ill winds. But recovery can bring a good lesson.
Laissez-faire economics doesn't cut it.
MESSY METAPHORS -- "The Boardwalk has been washed away," said the TV reporter as the camera showed a pile of lumber. Had the Boardwalk really been "washed away," there would be no pile of lumber to view.
The streets "are inundated by sand." Except that sand buries. Only water can inundate.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
"Pants on Fire"
Last week we noted that reporters have an obligation to bring out Truth and expose Falsehood. This brought a comment that "matters of opinion and identifying the 'big lie' should be left to editors, commentators and columnists."
Yesterday, Page One of the New York Times reported on a Romney ad that said Chrysler "is going to begin producing Jeeps in China ... leaving the misleading impression that the move would come at the expense of jobs here." The reporters also noted that recent Romney statements "stretch or ignore the facts."
The story was immediately followed by denunciations from two major auto executives. "Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different," said Chrysler executive Sergio Marchionne. And General Motors spokesman Greg Martin called the ad "cynical campaign politics at its worst," according to the Times report.
Moreover, it quoted a Romney spokesman as defending the ad for speaking truth: Jeeps are not currently made in China (technically true) and soon will be. (Perhaps. Or perhaps not.) But to suggest that a certain firm will do so, and as a direct result of Washington bailout policies toward the auto industry, earned the ad a "pants on fire" designation from fact checkers.
The position from here is firm: Reporters have an obligation to bring out Truth and expose Falsehood. Stretch the facts too far, and that, too, will go on Page One.
Yesterday, Page One of the New York Times reported on a Romney ad that said Chrysler "is going to begin producing Jeeps in China ... leaving the misleading impression that the move would come at the expense of jobs here." The reporters also noted that recent Romney statements "stretch or ignore the facts."
The story was immediately followed by denunciations from two major auto executives. "Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different," said Chrysler executive Sergio Marchionne. And General Motors spokesman Greg Martin called the ad "cynical campaign politics at its worst," according to the Times report.
Moreover, it quoted a Romney spokesman as defending the ad for speaking truth: Jeeps are not currently made in China (technically true) and soon will be. (Perhaps. Or perhaps not.) But to suggest that a certain firm will do so, and as a direct result of Washington bailout policies toward the auto industry, earned the ad a "pants on fire" designation from fact checkers.
The position from here is firm: Reporters have an obligation to bring out Truth and expose Falsehood. Stretch the facts too far, and that, too, will go on Page One.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Thoughts From The Rim
Some think ill of me because I speak my mind.
I think less of me if I do not.
History is written by selecting facts that best support a predetermined viewpoint.
Refusing to see danger is more hazardous than ignorance.
Clean coal is an oxymoron.
Winning campaign debates does not win over Congress.
The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.
Headline: Romney, Ryan focus on storm relief.
News item: Christie to accept federal aid.
Comment: So much for the feds keeping hands off.
I think less of me if I do not.
History is written by selecting facts that best support a predetermined viewpoint.
Refusing to see danger is more hazardous than ignorance.
Clean coal is an oxymoron.
Winning campaign debates does not win over Congress.
The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.
Headline: Romney, Ryan focus on storm relief.
News item: Christie to accept federal aid.
Comment: So much for the feds keeping hands off.
Blinders
"The country as a whole was hurt by the stimulus, despite the observed effects of the spending." -- Letter to the New York Times.
Let's see. That translates to: Government spending helped stimulate the economy, but the economy was hurt by government spending to help stimulate the economy.
It is true that government borrowing to stimulate the economy can "crowd out" private sector borrowing, but if the private sector is not borrowing, they are by definition not being crowded out.
A job is a job is a job, whether the paycheck comes from a private firm or from government. It sounds good to say, "Cut government payrolls" and to say "We need jobs" and that "The private sector will supply jobs."
But cutting a government payroll means putting people out of work, which contravenes the need for jobs. Yes, the private sector eventually will supply jobs. But when? In a couple of years, when the economy recovers on its own?
The 19th Century notion that left alone, in the long run the economic body will heal itself, is long outdated. But it's still here. A job for food, clothing and shelter is needed now, not in three years time.
And since when did the private sector employ teachers, police and firefighters? Road and bridge construction workers are employed by firms under contract to government.
In a crisis, someone must act. It matters not who. If private investors will not, government must.
Let's see. That translates to: Government spending helped stimulate the economy, but the economy was hurt by government spending to help stimulate the economy.
It is true that government borrowing to stimulate the economy can "crowd out" private sector borrowing, but if the private sector is not borrowing, they are by definition not being crowded out.
A job is a job is a job, whether the paycheck comes from a private firm or from government. It sounds good to say, "Cut government payrolls" and to say "We need jobs" and that "The private sector will supply jobs."
But cutting a government payroll means putting people out of work, which contravenes the need for jobs. Yes, the private sector eventually will supply jobs. But when? In a couple of years, when the economy recovers on its own?
The 19th Century notion that left alone, in the long run the economic body will heal itself, is long outdated. But it's still here. A job for food, clothing and shelter is needed now, not in three years time.
And since when did the private sector employ teachers, police and firefighters? Road and bridge construction workers are employed by firms under contract to government.
In a crisis, someone must act. It matters not who. If private investors will not, government must.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Image Control
Generalizations are like sponges. They're full of holes, yet they hold water.
Some Republicans tend not to like reporters and avoid dealing with them. Why? Because they can't control the questions and often don't know the answers. Result: Embarrassment.
Example: President Barack Obama has appeared for an extensive one-on-one with NBC's Brian Williams. Candidate Mitt Romney has ignored repeated requests for a similar interview. (Williams noted his request on-air.)
Example 2: Both Obamas have appeared with ABC's Barbara Walters and all the ladies of The View. The Romneys have not responded to similar requests. (Walters repeated her request on-air.)
Example 3: Remember Sarah Palin's encounter with ABC's Katie Couric?
Example 4: Public appearances are carefully stage-managed, with only the faithful allowed admittance. Questions from the press covering the event are banned or ignored.
Granted, both sides do it, but that does not make it OK. In any case, consider which side is more likely to respond to questions.
Later, after the event, professional spinners are deployed to redefine, clarify, expand and explain what the candidate "really meant to say."
That's not good enough. Voters are entitled to hear directly from the candidate what the candidate says and means.
Otherwise, all is image, spin and marketing. Like selling soap.
Reporters are obligated to ask questions. Non-answers can be just as revealing as detailed responses.
Candidates and corporate executives believe that if reporters are not advocates for their positions, they are therefore adversaries, to be treated accordingly.
Good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
Some Republicans tend not to like reporters and avoid dealing with them. Why? Because they can't control the questions and often don't know the answers. Result: Embarrassment.
Example: President Barack Obama has appeared for an extensive one-on-one with NBC's Brian Williams. Candidate Mitt Romney has ignored repeated requests for a similar interview. (Williams noted his request on-air.)
Example 2: Both Obamas have appeared with ABC's Barbara Walters and all the ladies of The View. The Romneys have not responded to similar requests. (Walters repeated her request on-air.)
Example 3: Remember Sarah Palin's encounter with ABC's Katie Couric?
Example 4: Public appearances are carefully stage-managed, with only the faithful allowed admittance. Questions from the press covering the event are banned or ignored.
Granted, both sides do it, but that does not make it OK. In any case, consider which side is more likely to respond to questions.
Later, after the event, professional spinners are deployed to redefine, clarify, expand and explain what the candidate "really meant to say."
That's not good enough. Voters are entitled to hear directly from the candidate what the candidate says and means.
Otherwise, all is image, spin and marketing. Like selling soap.
Reporters are obligated to ask questions. Non-answers can be just as revealing as detailed responses.
Candidates and corporate executives believe that if reporters are not advocates for their positions, they are therefore adversaries, to be treated accordingly.
Good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
False Balance
Thousands of scientists point to global warming, and document man's contribution to it.
A handful claim global warming does not exist, and therefore man cannot contribute to what does not exist.
Nonetheless, members of this vocal few are given an outlet for their views every time a story on global warming comes up. This is a false balance, since what little evidence they do provide is overwhelmingly outnumbered by the accumulated documentation of the many.
Moreover, casual observers can remember outdoor ice skating in Northern New Jersey in the winter. It can't be done today, because ponds fail to freeze over long enough to allow skating. These same observers see mockingbirds year-round, and can remember when none were seen north of Virginia.
Does global warming exist? Clearly, the answer is yes. The real question is what part man plays, and what can be done to lessen that contribution.
A handful claim global warming does not exist, and therefore man cannot contribute to what does not exist.
Nonetheless, members of this vocal few are given an outlet for their views every time a story on global warming comes up. This is a false balance, since what little evidence they do provide is overwhelmingly outnumbered by the accumulated documentation of the many.
Moreover, casual observers can remember outdoor ice skating in Northern New Jersey in the winter. It can't be done today, because ponds fail to freeze over long enough to allow skating. These same observers see mockingbirds year-round, and can remember when none were seen north of Virginia.
Does global warming exist? Clearly, the answer is yes. The real question is what part man plays, and what can be done to lessen that contribution.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
News Judgment
COMMENT: "Reporting of information as it happens is the job of reporters. Matters of opinion and identifying the 'big lie' should be left to editors, commentators, and columnists.
"Exposing semi-true statements would deviate from the simple reporting aspect of the job."
RESPONSE: Just because someone says it does not make it worth reporting. Included in that is deciding what information is worth reporting. And if that information is a blatant falsehood, reporters can and should provide additional information showing it to be false.
Reporters have a duty to report fact as well as falsehood, and to provide evidence of their truth or falsity.
Reporting only one side implies advocacy. Reporting two or more sides can lead to a "false balance," when one of the sides is sheer nonsense.
Sometimes, that can be a tough line to walk. But when we are criticized by both sides, we know we're doing our job right.
"Exposing semi-true statements would deviate from the simple reporting aspect of the job."
RESPONSE: Just because someone says it does not make it worth reporting. Included in that is deciding what information is worth reporting. And if that information is a blatant falsehood, reporters can and should provide additional information showing it to be false.
Reporters have a duty to report fact as well as falsehood, and to provide evidence of their truth or falsity.
Reporting only one side implies advocacy. Reporting two or more sides can lead to a "false balance," when one of the sides is sheer nonsense.
Sometimes, that can be a tough line to walk. But when we are criticized by both sides, we know we're doing our job right.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Send in the Clowns
"Note to Donald: Stop making a fool of yourself."
Do they really deserve the media exposure they get? Or is it that we all enjoy laughing?
John Sununu says the only reason Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama is because they're both black. Donald Trump has given up on the birther bit, and now wants to see Obama's college transcripts.
Richard Mourdock, Republican candidate in Indiana, claims he knows "what God intended" about rape and abortion.
It is a supreme arrogance to presume to know what God intends for other people.
If not so dangerous, they would be funny.
SOUPY SEZ: Do the math.
Mitt Romney proposes a $5 billion tax cut (that means less revenue), plus $2 billion in additional defense spending (total $7 billion), on the way to a balanced budget.
Let's see. Less revenue plus more spending equals a balanced budget. Huh?
This is to be done by closing loopholes (unspecified) and eliminating the capital gains tax. Or was I the only one listening when Romney said so during the last presidential debate?
COME BACK, SHAME -- A politician's favorite comeback when caught wrong is along this line: "I was misquoted. The media misquoted me. What I really meant was ... "
That won't work, guys. Roll the tape.
We only hear what you say. If that's what you mean, shame on you. If not, shame on you for being unable to express yourself and say what you mean.
Either way, the shame is yours, either because you're wrong or because you're incompetent.
You're playing in the Big League now. The American people deserve better.
Whatever happened to erudition among political candidates?
Too often, we hear this: "Look, y'know, uh, I think, uh, y'know, uh ..."
Erudite?
Yes, I are dite.
Er you dite, too?
-- Barbara Walters
John Sununu says the only reason Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama is because they're both black. Donald Trump has given up on the birther bit, and now wants to see Obama's college transcripts.
Richard Mourdock, Republican candidate in Indiana, claims he knows "what God intended" about rape and abortion.
It is a supreme arrogance to presume to know what God intends for other people.
If not so dangerous, they would be funny.
SOUPY SEZ: Do the math.
Mitt Romney proposes a $5 billion tax cut (that means less revenue), plus $2 billion in additional defense spending (total $7 billion), on the way to a balanced budget.
Let's see. Less revenue plus more spending equals a balanced budget. Huh?
This is to be done by closing loopholes (unspecified) and eliminating the capital gains tax. Or was I the only one listening when Romney said so during the last presidential debate?
COME BACK, SHAME -- A politician's favorite comeback when caught wrong is along this line: "I was misquoted. The media misquoted me. What I really meant was ... "
That won't work, guys. Roll the tape.
We only hear what you say. If that's what you mean, shame on you. If not, shame on you for being unable to express yourself and say what you mean.
Either way, the shame is yours, either because you're wrong or because you're incompetent.
You're playing in the Big League now. The American people deserve better.
Whatever happened to erudition among political candidates?
Too often, we hear this: "Look, y'know, uh, I think, uh, y'know, uh ..."
Erudite?
Yes, I are dite.
Er you dite, too?
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Fame Begets Wisdom (Not)
Fame in one field does not beget skill in another.
Result: Snooki's words of wisdom are sought (and devoured) on topics ranging from Jersey Shore tanning beaches to politics and government to child rearing and foreign affairs.
Another result: Donald Trump uses his fame to celebrate his opinions on things unrelated to his success in commercial real estate. He is especially single-minded on the topic of Barack Obama's citizenship. The Donald refuses to hear any information contrary to his pre-formed belief, and uses his notoriety to disseminate his propaganda.
A more important issue is that the media play into his hand and spread his beliefs without checking the veracity thereof.
Consider: There are three kinds of U.S. citizenship; Native Born, Natural Born and Naturalized.
-- Native born citizens are those born in America regardless of parental status.
-- Natural born citizens are those born to one or both American citizens, regardless of location (place of birth).
-- Naturalized citizens are those born elsewhere to non-citizens, but come to America and apply for U.S. citizenship.
Donald Trump enjoys U.S. citizenship under Rule One.
John McCain (born in Panama), George Romney (born in Mexico), and all children of Americans traveling or serving in the U.S. military in foreign countries are Natural Born citizens under Rule Two.
Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen based on Rule One -- he was born in Hawaii. Or, if you do not accept that, Rule Two applies: His mother was a Native Born citizen, from Kansas.
Only those holding citizenship under Rules One or Two may serve as President or Vice President. It's in the Constitution. Look it up. The Donald either refuses to do so or ignores those who do and continues his rant. It therefore falls to the media to either ignore his rant or provide the relevant constitutional facts.
Journalists too often parrot the rantings of the famous and notorious as if celebrity begets wisdom.
It doesn't.
It may attract readers and viewers, and make good copy and great headlines, but wisdom it ain't.
Journalists have a responsibility to expose those who try to spread "wisdom" through the guise of their notoriety.
Otherwise, they participate in a fraud on the American public.
-- Pug Mahoney
Celebrities often fall victim to their own self-importance. They come to believe the hype that surrounds them, perpetrated by those whose task is to market the product -- in this case a person and whatever "talent" that person may have.Result: Snooki's words of wisdom are sought (and devoured) on topics ranging from Jersey Shore tanning beaches to politics and government to child rearing and foreign affairs.
Another result: Donald Trump uses his fame to celebrate his opinions on things unrelated to his success in commercial real estate. He is especially single-minded on the topic of Barack Obama's citizenship. The Donald refuses to hear any information contrary to his pre-formed belief, and uses his notoriety to disseminate his propaganda.
A more important issue is that the media play into his hand and spread his beliefs without checking the veracity thereof.
Consider: There are three kinds of U.S. citizenship; Native Born, Natural Born and Naturalized.
-- Native born citizens are those born in America regardless of parental status.
-- Natural born citizens are those born to one or both American citizens, regardless of location (place of birth).
-- Naturalized citizens are those born elsewhere to non-citizens, but come to America and apply for U.S. citizenship.
Donald Trump enjoys U.S. citizenship under Rule One.
John McCain (born in Panama), George Romney (born in Mexico), and all children of Americans traveling or serving in the U.S. military in foreign countries are Natural Born citizens under Rule Two.
Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen based on Rule One -- he was born in Hawaii. Or, if you do not accept that, Rule Two applies: His mother was a Native Born citizen, from Kansas.
Only those holding citizenship under Rules One or Two may serve as President or Vice President. It's in the Constitution. Look it up. The Donald either refuses to do so or ignores those who do and continues his rant. It therefore falls to the media to either ignore his rant or provide the relevant constitutional facts.
Journalists too often parrot the rantings of the famous and notorious as if celebrity begets wisdom.
It doesn't.
It may attract readers and viewers, and make good copy and great headlines, but wisdom it ain't.
Journalists have a responsibility to expose those who try to spread "wisdom" through the guise of their notoriety.
Otherwise, they participate in a fraud on the American public.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Journalism Mandate
One of the functions of modern news media is to bring out Truth and expose Falsehood.
Politicians and candidates have been using more of the Big Lie technique than has been seen in many years. If you say something loud enough, often enough and long enough to enough people, it will gain credibility.
Example: Governors who tout the wonderfulness of having balanced state budgets every year they were in office -- the implication being that others did not.
Of course they balanced their budgets -- so did their predecessors and their successors, of every party, every year. Left unsaid is the reality that they had no choice. All governors must present a balanced budget every year.
So why brag about something that is not really an accomplishment, but something they are constitutionally mandated to do? Because they hope people listen only to them, and will not listen to reporters or fact-checkers or will not look it up themselves. Try it: Search (your state) constitution budget. It's long past time for moderators, news anchors, reporters and editors to call out candidates and politicians when they mouth something that may be technically true, but means nothing and may well be false.
Who's doing it?
Mitt Romney does it every chance he gets, bragging that he balanced the state budget when he was in office. He's a candidate, so we can expect a certain amount of balderdash and malarkey. But Chris Christie of New Jersey is doing it also, and he's not a candidate. Or is he?
It's time for journalists to stop ignoring the semi-true statements that politicians make and bring back credibility.
George Orwell, in his novel 1984, knew the value of constant propaganda.
As did Goebbels.
Politicians and candidates have been using more of the Big Lie technique than has been seen in many years. If you say something loud enough, often enough and long enough to enough people, it will gain credibility.
Example: Governors who tout the wonderfulness of having balanced state budgets every year they were in office -- the implication being that others did not.
Of course they balanced their budgets -- so did their predecessors and their successors, of every party, every year. Left unsaid is the reality that they had no choice. All governors must present a balanced budget every year.
So why brag about something that is not really an accomplishment, but something they are constitutionally mandated to do? Because they hope people listen only to them, and will not listen to reporters or fact-checkers or will not look it up themselves. Try it: Search (your state) constitution budget. It's long past time for moderators, news anchors, reporters and editors to call out candidates and politicians when they mouth something that may be technically true, but means nothing and may well be false.
Who's doing it?
Mitt Romney does it every chance he gets, bragging that he balanced the state budget when he was in office. He's a candidate, so we can expect a certain amount of balderdash and malarkey. But Chris Christie of New Jersey is doing it also, and he's not a candidate. Or is he?
It's time for journalists to stop ignoring the semi-true statements that politicians make and bring back credibility.
George Orwell, in his novel 1984, knew the value of constant propaganda.
As did Goebbels.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Job Creationism
"Trenton Makes, The World Takes." -- Obsolete slogan on a Delaware River Bridge.
"And the candidate said, Let there be jobs. And there were jobs."
Jobs are not created fully formed from the minds of wishful politicians. Nor do they spring, geyser-like, from the groundwork of backyard inventors or entrepreneurs and innovators.
Moreover, the prime directive of labor unions is to preserve existing jobs and improve wages, benefits and working conditions. Adding jobs is to some extent an adjunct to increasing membership.
An employer's decision to hire more workers depends on the demand for the firm's product or service, not on an altruistic desire to help mankind. (There are exceptions, of course, but altruism is an expensive commodity, not generally available to startup companies.)
Political candidates may praise the can-do spirit of a bootstrap tradition, but that is no solace to those without shoes.
The job market is Darwinian. As society and technology change, workplace skills evolve and grow in response to changing demand.
Here's an example.
Fifty years ago, publishing a daily newspaper was labor intensive, requiring dozens of typesetters, compositors, proofreaders and engravers to prepare the copy and get printing plates ready for the press room
Then came computers.
Today, typesetting, composition and page makeup are often done by non-union employees in the art department adjacent to the newsroom, and there are fewer workers in the composing room. Yet the overall employment throughout the building is higher, so that there are more reporters and editors gathering more stories, and the newspaper is able to publish more pages, faster and more efficiently, every day.
In addition, laptop computers enable reporters in the field to transmit stories directly to newsroom computers, bypassing teletype operators and the need for additional workers to set type so the story can start on its way to the presses.
What happened to Linotype operators and compositors? Some learned the new skill of paste-up, which replaced hot-metal typesetting. Attrition accounted for some other workforce reductions, through retirement and, in some cases, buyout offers.
Even so, the total employment level and the size of the newspaper increased.
Granted, the Great Recession that began in 2008 affected newspapers as much as it affected business generally. But it's important to keep in mind that a newspaper's primary source of revenue is advertising; the cover price of a newspaper barely pays for the paper it's printed on. It follows, then, that as advertisers cut back on expenses, there is a direct effect on newspaper revenue.
In any event, while political candidates prattle about the need for more jobs and their supposed ability to create them, government is not the private sector. The only way government can create jobs is through public works projects, or by subsidizing the private sector. Either one requires more government revenue, which calls for an increase in taxes. The alternative is deficit spending, to stimulate the economy until it revives. Government can then step back and turn its focus to balancing its budget.
It's a matter of priorities.
In the 1920s, President Calvin Coolidge cut government spending, reduced taxes, focused on balancing the federal budget, and showed little interest in foreign policy.
History records what happened next.
"And the candidate said, Let there be jobs. And there were jobs."
Jobs are not created fully formed from the minds of wishful politicians. Nor do they spring, geyser-like, from the groundwork of backyard inventors or entrepreneurs and innovators.
Moreover, the prime directive of labor unions is to preserve existing jobs and improve wages, benefits and working conditions. Adding jobs is to some extent an adjunct to increasing membership.
An employer's decision to hire more workers depends on the demand for the firm's product or service, not on an altruistic desire to help mankind. (There are exceptions, of course, but altruism is an expensive commodity, not generally available to startup companies.)
Political candidates may praise the can-do spirit of a bootstrap tradition, but that is no solace to those without shoes.
The job market is Darwinian. As society and technology change, workplace skills evolve and grow in response to changing demand.
Here's an example.
Fifty years ago, publishing a daily newspaper was labor intensive, requiring dozens of typesetters, compositors, proofreaders and engravers to prepare the copy and get printing plates ready for the press room
Then came computers.
Today, typesetting, composition and page makeup are often done by non-union employees in the art department adjacent to the newsroom, and there are fewer workers in the composing room. Yet the overall employment throughout the building is higher, so that there are more reporters and editors gathering more stories, and the newspaper is able to publish more pages, faster and more efficiently, every day.
In addition, laptop computers enable reporters in the field to transmit stories directly to newsroom computers, bypassing teletype operators and the need for additional workers to set type so the story can start on its way to the presses.
What happened to Linotype operators and compositors? Some learned the new skill of paste-up, which replaced hot-metal typesetting. Attrition accounted for some other workforce reductions, through retirement and, in some cases, buyout offers.
Even so, the total employment level and the size of the newspaper increased.
Granted, the Great Recession that began in 2008 affected newspapers as much as it affected business generally. But it's important to keep in mind that a newspaper's primary source of revenue is advertising; the cover price of a newspaper barely pays for the paper it's printed on. It follows, then, that as advertisers cut back on expenses, there is a direct effect on newspaper revenue.
In any event, while political candidates prattle about the need for more jobs and their supposed ability to create them, government is not the private sector. The only way government can create jobs is through public works projects, or by subsidizing the private sector. Either one requires more government revenue, which calls for an increase in taxes. The alternative is deficit spending, to stimulate the economy until it revives. Government can then step back and turn its focus to balancing its budget.
It's a matter of priorities.
In the 1920s, President Calvin Coolidge cut government spending, reduced taxes, focused on balancing the federal budget, and showed little interest in foreign policy.
History records what happened next.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Jobless in America
"The business of America is business." -- Calvin Coolidge, ca. 1928
"The economy is fundamentally sound." -- Herbert Hoover, 1931
"The fundamentals of our economy are strong." -- John McCain, 2008
"A Country is not a Company." -- Paul Krugman, 1996
Even in a boisterous, thriving economy, there will be some unemployment. An unemployment rate of zero is possible only in a dictatorship, where workers are assigned to job slots and lose the Freedom to Quit.
There will always be some folks -- recent graduates, for example -- who are entering the workforce and seeking their first jobs. Or students looking for summer work. Or women who return to work as their children mature. Or people who are put out of work when a company shuts down. Or those who relocate. Or those who complete military service. Or those who face mandatory retirement but are still productive. Or caregivers who return to the workforce when they are no longer needed at home. Or show business wannabes waiting for their big break. Or farm workers waiting for crops to ripen. Or spouses who resign to go with their partners to a new assignment.
So the question becomes how much unemployment a society is willing to tolerate -- another name for full employment. What percentage of the labor force -- those who are ready, willing, able and actively seeking work -- is acceptable as an unemployment rate?
(To some extent, this is a political issue -- how many jobless people is a society willing to tolerate. That, in turn, brings in cultural issues. Some employers prefer to hire one of their own, even of lower competence, rather than hire someone of a different cultural, social or ethnic background.)
If the unemployment rate is too low -- say less than 5 percent -- competition for labor will drive up wages -- good for workers, but not for companies. This causes either lower profits or higher prices as wage costs are passed on to consumers.
If the jobless rate is too high -- call it more than 10 percent -- an excess supply of labor in the face of lower demand for workers causes downward pressure on wages as the unemployed compete for the few jobs that are available. Union contracts, however, offset this downward pressure, but in a prolonged recession employers gain strength in their ability to negotiate better -- for them -- terms. In its extreme form, this strength can lead to union busting.
A corporate turnaround specialist can bring a firm back to profitability, but there are only two ways to do it: Reduce costs or increase revenue. With luck and skill, the successful manager can do both. Since labor is a major part of a firm's budget, reducing the number of employees -- firing workers -- becomes a quick way to cut costs.
This strategy, however, while quite successful at a corporate level, only adds to a nation's unemployment. As Princeton economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman succinctly put it in his essay for the Harvard Business Review in 1996: "An executive who has made $1 billion is rarely the right person to turn to for advice about a $6 trillion economy."
What works at the company level -- saving money by reducing the workforce -- only shifts the problem to society in general by increasing unemployment. And while people in need of work are no longer a company's problem, rising unemployment becomes a major problem for the country.
"The economy is fundamentally sound." -- Herbert Hoover, 1931
"The fundamentals of our economy are strong." -- John McCain, 2008
"A Country is not a Company." -- Paul Krugman, 1996
Even in a boisterous, thriving economy, there will be some unemployment. An unemployment rate of zero is possible only in a dictatorship, where workers are assigned to job slots and lose the Freedom to Quit.
There will always be some folks -- recent graduates, for example -- who are entering the workforce and seeking their first jobs. Or students looking for summer work. Or women who return to work as their children mature. Or people who are put out of work when a company shuts down. Or those who relocate. Or those who complete military service. Or those who face mandatory retirement but are still productive. Or caregivers who return to the workforce when they are no longer needed at home. Or show business wannabes waiting for their big break. Or farm workers waiting for crops to ripen. Or spouses who resign to go with their partners to a new assignment.
So the question becomes how much unemployment a society is willing to tolerate -- another name for full employment. What percentage of the labor force -- those who are ready, willing, able and actively seeking work -- is acceptable as an unemployment rate?
(To some extent, this is a political issue -- how many jobless people is a society willing to tolerate. That, in turn, brings in cultural issues. Some employers prefer to hire one of their own, even of lower competence, rather than hire someone of a different cultural, social or ethnic background.)
If the unemployment rate is too low -- say less than 5 percent -- competition for labor will drive up wages -- good for workers, but not for companies. This causes either lower profits or higher prices as wage costs are passed on to consumers.
If the jobless rate is too high -- call it more than 10 percent -- an excess supply of labor in the face of lower demand for workers causes downward pressure on wages as the unemployed compete for the few jobs that are available. Union contracts, however, offset this downward pressure, but in a prolonged recession employers gain strength in their ability to negotiate better -- for them -- terms. In its extreme form, this strength can lead to union busting.
A corporate turnaround specialist can bring a firm back to profitability, but there are only two ways to do it: Reduce costs or increase revenue. With luck and skill, the successful manager can do both. Since labor is a major part of a firm's budget, reducing the number of employees -- firing workers -- becomes a quick way to cut costs.
This strategy, however, while quite successful at a corporate level, only adds to a nation's unemployment. As Princeton economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman succinctly put it in his essay for the Harvard Business Review in 1996: "An executive who has made $1 billion is rarely the right person to turn to for advice about a $6 trillion economy."
What works at the company level -- saving money by reducing the workforce -- only shifts the problem to society in general by increasing unemployment. And while people in need of work are no longer a company's problem, rising unemployment becomes a major problem for the country.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Standup Chameleons
Government is about doing something. Politics is about getting elected. -- Pug Mahoney
Perception becomes reality. -- Dinty Ramble.
We're not selling bread, we're selling packaging. -- Marketing executive.
A similar strategy applies to politics, which means that candidates are standup chameleons -- they vary their appearance according to the background. It's no surprise, then, that candidates say one thing in Des Moines and another in Philadelphia.
Leading business schools teach that corporate leaders become whatever is necessary to make a company profitable. But it's questionable that what works well for one firm will necessarily work for others. Logic 101 calls this the Fallacy of Composition, that the attributes of one are the same for all. Another fallacy is known as a non sequitur -- it does not follow that what works in business will necessarily work in government.
Statistically, it can be shown that what works for some in a sampling will very likely work for 87.5 percent of the entire population. However, this is only a probability, not a guarantee. There is still the 12.5 percent for whom it does not work -- the "outliers" on the famous bell-shaped curve beloved of statisticians and teachers.
So figure the odds. And remember that in politics and government, as well as in business or life in general, there are only possibilities and probabilities of success. No guarantees.
That said, there are some who like being outliers. We are always "outside the box."
Perception becomes reality. -- Dinty Ramble.
We're not selling bread, we're selling packaging. -- Marketing executive.
A similar strategy applies to politics, which means that candidates are standup chameleons -- they vary their appearance according to the background. It's no surprise, then, that candidates say one thing in Des Moines and another in Philadelphia.
Leading business schools teach that corporate leaders become whatever is necessary to make a company profitable. But it's questionable that what works well for one firm will necessarily work for others. Logic 101 calls this the Fallacy of Composition, that the attributes of one are the same for all. Another fallacy is known as a non sequitur -- it does not follow that what works in business will necessarily work in government.
Statistically, it can be shown that what works for some in a sampling will very likely work for 87.5 percent of the entire population. However, this is only a probability, not a guarantee. There is still the 12.5 percent for whom it does not work -- the "outliers" on the famous bell-shaped curve beloved of statisticians and teachers.
So figure the odds. And remember that in politics and government, as well as in business or life in general, there are only possibilities and probabilities of success. No guarantees.
That said, there are some who like being outliers. We are always "outside the box."
Health Care
"Read my lips. No new taxes." -- George H.W. Bush
What's said during a political campaign often is abandoned when a candidate encounters governmental reality.
Candidate Mitt Romney wants to control health care costs.
Incumbent Barack Obama wants universal health care coverage.
Insurance only works if everyone participates. That was the lesson Romney learned as governor of Massachusetts.
The concept of insurance against loss began in London, as merchants considered the risk of losing a cargo if a ship was loss to storms or piracy.
Consider: There are ten ship owners, each with a cargo valued at $1,000. The odds of a ship being lost are ten to one. If a ship is lost, the owner loses the entire $1,000 value of the cargo.
But if each owner contributes $100 to a pool, considering the ten to one odds of a total loss, then that owner would be out only $100 if the ship returns safely. And if the ship is lost, that owner is compensated the full $1,000 loss.
Good number-crunchers that they were, the ship owners got together at a coffee shop in London owned by a man named Lloyd, and organized a plan based on the risk of losing a ship's cargo. Thus was the insurance industry born.
Conclusion: The way to control costs is through universal coverage. In Massachusetts, expert number-crunchers advised Gov. Romney that the existing system was going bankrupt because the cost of health care for the uninsured was being paid through higher fees at hospitals and higher premiums for those who did have insurance. There was a choice of having X number of people insured at X amount of policy premiums, or having everyone insured at a lower rate per person. And the only way to achieve that was through a mandate that everyone join the plan. Therefore, universal insurance is more cost effective, a concept that would appeal to any Harvard Business School graduate.
Insurance only works if everyone participates. That is the basic premise of the insurance industry, as learned at Lloyd's coffee house in London more than 200 years ago, and as learned in Massachusetts less than ten years ago.
Other major Western nations, including Canada and the UK, have universal health care. The view from here is that no matter who wins the election next month, universal health care in America, with a mandate that everyone participate, will remain.
What's said during a political campaign often is abandoned when a candidate encounters governmental reality.
Candidate Mitt Romney wants to control health care costs.
Incumbent Barack Obama wants universal health care coverage.
Insurance only works if everyone participates. That was the lesson Romney learned as governor of Massachusetts.
The concept of insurance against loss began in London, as merchants considered the risk of losing a cargo if a ship was loss to storms or piracy.
Consider: There are ten ship owners, each with a cargo valued at $1,000. The odds of a ship being lost are ten to one. If a ship is lost, the owner loses the entire $1,000 value of the cargo.
But if each owner contributes $100 to a pool, considering the ten to one odds of a total loss, then that owner would be out only $100 if the ship returns safely. And if the ship is lost, that owner is compensated the full $1,000 loss.
Good number-crunchers that they were, the ship owners got together at a coffee shop in London owned by a man named Lloyd, and organized a plan based on the risk of losing a ship's cargo. Thus was the insurance industry born.
Conclusion: The way to control costs is through universal coverage. In Massachusetts, expert number-crunchers advised Gov. Romney that the existing system was going bankrupt because the cost of health care for the uninsured was being paid through higher fees at hospitals and higher premiums for those who did have insurance. There was a choice of having X number of people insured at X amount of policy premiums, or having everyone insured at a lower rate per person. And the only way to achieve that was through a mandate that everyone join the plan. Therefore, universal insurance is more cost effective, a concept that would appeal to any Harvard Business School graduate.
Insurance only works if everyone participates. That is the basic premise of the insurance industry, as learned at Lloyd's coffee house in London more than 200 years ago, and as learned in Massachusetts less than ten years ago.
Other major Western nations, including Canada and the UK, have universal health care. The view from here is that no matter who wins the election next month, universal health care in America, with a mandate that everyone participate, will remain.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Gold Standard
"I don't give a damn for a greenback dollar, spend it fast as I can." -- American folk song.
"Bad money drives out good." -- Gresham's Law.
"Prices rise to absorb the amount of money available. Ask any tourist." -- Pug Mahoney
A return to the gold standard will force government to balance the federal budget, and that's a good thing.
So goes the claim. But is it a good thing? By definition, the gold standard limits the amount of money in circulation because it specifies that all money be either made of something of value in itself (gold or silver coins), or that it be backed by an equivalent amount of gold or silver.
Some of us can remember when the U.S. government issued silver certificates, specifying, "This certifies that there is on deposit in the Treasury of the United States one dollar in silver, payable to the bearer on demand." That was back in the day when one silver dollar coin was made of roughly one ounce of silver, and other coins (half-dollar, quarter and dime) were also made of silver, a metal with intrinsic value.
The value of gold, moreover, was fixed by international agreement at $35 an ounce. Therefore, government could print only as many paper dollars as could be supported, or backed, by the amount of gold the government had in its possession.
If government had no gold in its vaults, it could print no paper money. Or if it did print paper money, it would have no value and people would refuse to use it. Hence the fate of the 19th Century "greenback dollar," which was supported, or backed, only by the green ink used to print it.
The spot price of gold on international metal markets currently is roughly $1,764 an ounce. Silver is trading at about $34 an ounce.
Therefore, if government printed as many dollars as could be supported by gold on hand, it would print more dollars, and consumer prices would rise by a factor of at least a thousand. Alternatively, if no paper currency were issued, people would use only coins, since they have some value in and of themselves. And with a severe limit on the number of coins in circulation, the result would be economic disaster for the entire nation.
Gresham's Law has not been repealed. If a person has two pieces of money with equivalent stated value, a silver dollar and a paper dollar bill backed only by the ink used to print it, what will happen? That person will spend the bill and hoard the silver. In today's market, that coin could be taken to a coin dealer and exchanged for many times its face value.
In short, no modern economy can survive with such a system. A return to the gold standard would limit not only government activity, but also the economy as a whole.
"Bad money drives out good." -- Gresham's Law.
"Prices rise to absorb the amount of money available. Ask any tourist." -- Pug Mahoney
A return to the gold standard will force government to balance the federal budget, and that's a good thing.
So goes the claim. But is it a good thing? By definition, the gold standard limits the amount of money in circulation because it specifies that all money be either made of something of value in itself (gold or silver coins), or that it be backed by an equivalent amount of gold or silver.
Some of us can remember when the U.S. government issued silver certificates, specifying, "This certifies that there is on deposit in the Treasury of the United States one dollar in silver, payable to the bearer on demand." That was back in the day when one silver dollar coin was made of roughly one ounce of silver, and other coins (half-dollar, quarter and dime) were also made of silver, a metal with intrinsic value.
The value of gold, moreover, was fixed by international agreement at $35 an ounce. Therefore, government could print only as many paper dollars as could be supported, or backed, by the amount of gold the government had in its possession.
If government had no gold in its vaults, it could print no paper money. Or if it did print paper money, it would have no value and people would refuse to use it. Hence the fate of the 19th Century "greenback dollar," which was supported, or backed, only by the green ink used to print it.
The spot price of gold on international metal markets currently is roughly $1,764 an ounce. Silver is trading at about $34 an ounce.
Therefore, if government printed as many dollars as could be supported by gold on hand, it would print more dollars, and consumer prices would rise by a factor of at least a thousand. Alternatively, if no paper currency were issued, people would use only coins, since they have some value in and of themselves. And with a severe limit on the number of coins in circulation, the result would be economic disaster for the entire nation.
Gresham's Law has not been repealed. If a person has two pieces of money with equivalent stated value, a silver dollar and a paper dollar bill backed only by the ink used to print it, what will happen? That person will spend the bill and hoard the silver. In today's market, that coin could be taken to a coin dealer and exchanged for many times its face value.
In short, no modern economy can survive with such a system. A return to the gold standard would limit not only government activity, but also the economy as a whole.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Zingers
The Zinger of the Week Award goes to the prosecutor in the Jerry Sandusky case, who said of the defense attorney, "I congratulate him on his occasional forays into the proximity of reality."
Here's a thought: The centerfold of a magazine for agnostics would be a question mark facing a blank page.
Knowing literature does not make you literate.
Wisdom is knowing how to use what you know.
Here's a thought: The centerfold of a magazine for agnostics would be a question mark facing a blank page.
Knowing literature does not make you literate.
Wisdom is knowing how to use what you know.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Media Bias
Strategy: When you have a losing hand, play the victim card.
We hear many complaints about "liberal elite media bias" dominating coverage of social and political issues, to the extent that conservative views do not get adequate, or even fair, exposure.
So where is the dominance of liberals and suppression of conservatives if the Number One slots in many of the leading media outlets are occupied by conservatives?
To claim that liberals dominate the media is to say that nobody can hear Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly, or Ann Coulter, or can read their books. To say that liberal newspapers set the national agenda is to say that the Wall Street Journal is not the largest-selling newspaper in America (it is), or that the Fox News channel does not have more viewers than its competitors (it does). And those are just the outlets with nationwide exposure. There are also the many local and regional newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations and commentators with their significant following.
Sure, there are liberal voices in newspapers, radio and television. But do they have such clout that they drown out the conservatives?
Try saying, "Shush, Rush" and see how far you get.
We hear many complaints about "liberal elite media bias" dominating coverage of social and political issues, to the extent that conservative views do not get adequate, or even fair, exposure.
So where is the dominance of liberals and suppression of conservatives if the Number One slots in many of the leading media outlets are occupied by conservatives?
To claim that liberals dominate the media is to say that nobody can hear Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly, or Ann Coulter, or can read their books. To say that liberal newspapers set the national agenda is to say that the Wall Street Journal is not the largest-selling newspaper in America (it is), or that the Fox News channel does not have more viewers than its competitors (it does). And those are just the outlets with nationwide exposure. There are also the many local and regional newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations and commentators with their significant following.
Sure, there are liberal voices in newspapers, radio and television. But do they have such clout that they drown out the conservatives?
Try saying, "Shush, Rush" and see how far you get.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Migration
"They're coming to America." -- Neil Diamond
Popular music is filled with songs proclaiming the wonderfulness of coming to America. Political candidates are fond of pointing to their immigrant roots, and praising newcomers who succeed. Yet many of these same politicians go to great lengths to endorse barricades proposed by nativist know-nothings to keep out those who "look funny" or those who "talk funny."
Can you say "hypocrisy"?
I knew you could.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is above that of neighboring Canada and Mexico, as well as Australia and several countries in Europe. However, we don't hear of Americans emigrating to other countries that seem to have a labor shortage.
For some, however, the migration has already started.
Our Dublin correspondent reports that the unemployment rate of 15 percent in Ireland represents those who are out of work and still living in the country. It does not count the many thousands who have already started seeking employment in another country.
Tens of thousands have left Ireland each year for the past few years, seeking employment in other countries. Some 80,000 left in 2010 and another 80,000 in 2012. Because they are no longer in Ireland they are not counted and are not included in the unemployment rate for Ireland. I do not know when they are counted or where they are counted. Many have gone to the UK, and others to Canada, some to Australia and others to New Zealand. A few have managed to go to the U.S. For those who have languages other than English a number of other countries can be added to the list. The most recent figures available show an unemployment rate in Canada of 7.4 percent in September, below that of the U.S. (There's also far less gun violence in Canada., and no language barrier.) In Australia, the jobless rate is 5.1 percent, and in Mexico, the rate for the second quarter of this year was 5.0 percent. Granted, there is a language issue in moving to Mexico, but that would be true also of emigrating to Austria or Germany, where the unemployment rates are 4.5 percent and 5.5 percent.
Consider this: In relocating to Australia or some parts of Britain, the American would be the one who "talks funny."
It's an accident of history that English is the dominant language in the U.S. Depending on who won control of the early settlements, the American language could have been Dutch (New York and Northern New Jersey), Swedish (Southern New Jersey), Gaelic (Irish and Scots settlers in Appalachia), French (New Orleans and the Louisiana Territory as well as areas south of Montreal), or Spanish (most of the Southwest and Far West).
Spanish is not a foreign language in America, and never has been, since Spanish-speaking settlers were here more than a hundred years before the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts. (And they were renegades, but that's another story.)
Moreover, the Vikings were exploring North America some 500 years before Columbus, so if they had continued and expanded their activities, Norse would be the dominant American language.
Or, if the peoples already here had succeeded in turning back the invaders, we all could be speaking Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Iroquois, Mohawk, Lenape of any of the dozens of other languages spoken by the Native American tribes.
Consider also that observance of Columbus Day as a national holiday was a political ploy in 1937 by Franklin D. Roosevelt to gather up the Italian-American vote.
Popular music is filled with songs proclaiming the wonderfulness of coming to America. Political candidates are fond of pointing to their immigrant roots, and praising newcomers who succeed. Yet many of these same politicians go to great lengths to endorse barricades proposed by nativist know-nothings to keep out those who "look funny" or those who "talk funny."
Can you say "hypocrisy"?
I knew you could.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is above that of neighboring Canada and Mexico, as well as Australia and several countries in Europe. However, we don't hear of Americans emigrating to other countries that seem to have a labor shortage.
For some, however, the migration has already started.
Our Dublin correspondent reports that the unemployment rate of 15 percent in Ireland represents those who are out of work and still living in the country. It does not count the many thousands who have already started seeking employment in another country.
Consider this: In relocating to Australia or some parts of Britain, the American would be the one who "talks funny."
It's an accident of history that English is the dominant language in the U.S. Depending on who won control of the early settlements, the American language could have been Dutch (New York and Northern New Jersey), Swedish (Southern New Jersey), Gaelic (Irish and Scots settlers in Appalachia), French (New Orleans and the Louisiana Territory as well as areas south of Montreal), or Spanish (most of the Southwest and Far West).
Spanish is not a foreign language in America, and never has been, since Spanish-speaking settlers were here more than a hundred years before the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts. (And they were renegades, but that's another story.)
Moreover, the Vikings were exploring North America some 500 years before Columbus, so if they had continued and expanded their activities, Norse would be the dominant American language.
Or, if the peoples already here had succeeded in turning back the invaders, we all could be speaking Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Iroquois, Mohawk, Lenape of any of the dozens of other languages spoken by the Native American tribes.
Consider also that observance of Columbus Day as a national holiday was a political ploy in 1937 by Franklin D. Roosevelt to gather up the Italian-American vote.
Friday, October 5, 2012
The Golden Door
Send me your tired, your poor ... I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door. -- Emma Lazarus
As the U.S. economy begins to recover and the military winds down its foreign involvement, look for an influx of refugees in search of survival.
Especially, we can expect among the new arrivals those who worked with Americans in war-torn areas, and who would be subject to persecution, punishment and death if they stay behind. There is historical precedent for a sense of obligation to those who risked their lives in their homelands in the cause of freedom. When U.S. troops left Cambodia and Vietnam, the new rulers cracked down hard on any who were thought to have cooperated with Americans. This will also be true in Afghanistan.
Moreover, as was the case with many newcomers in the past, they will take whatever jobs are available, including the scut work that young Americans shun.
The signs are clear. The unemployment rate in America has dropped below 8 percent for the first time since January 2009, even as millions in Europe cope with rates as high as 25 percent in Spain, and 53 percent for young workers in that country. Throughout the European Union, the jobless rate is above 10 percent.
The Help Wanted ads will soon appear. Let's hope there won't be a return of the post-script "NINA" -- No Immigrants Need Apply.
As the U.S. economy begins to recover and the military winds down its foreign involvement, look for an influx of refugees in search of survival.
Especially, we can expect among the new arrivals those who worked with Americans in war-torn areas, and who would be subject to persecution, punishment and death if they stay behind. There is historical precedent for a sense of obligation to those who risked their lives in their homelands in the cause of freedom. When U.S. troops left Cambodia and Vietnam, the new rulers cracked down hard on any who were thought to have cooperated with Americans. This will also be true in Afghanistan.
Moreover, as was the case with many newcomers in the past, they will take whatever jobs are available, including the scut work that young Americans shun.
The signs are clear. The unemployment rate in America has dropped below 8 percent for the first time since January 2009, even as millions in Europe cope with rates as high as 25 percent in Spain, and 53 percent for young workers in that country. Throughout the European Union, the jobless rate is above 10 percent.
The Help Wanted ads will soon appear. Let's hope there won't be a return of the post-script "NINA" -- No Immigrants Need Apply.
Trap Talk
Conversational gambits from those who don't really want answers:
A/ "Don't you think ... ?" Translation: "I don't want your opinion. I want agreement."
B/ "You have to understand ... "
Translation: "You're delusional in your ignorance. Listen carefully and I will enlighten you, so that when you do understand you will agree with me."
These gambits are haughty strategies that deserve these responses:
A/ "Don't you think ... ?"
R/ No. What's more, I don't care.
B/ "You have to understand ... "
R/ I do understand, completely, but you're still completely wrong.
A/ "Don't you think ... ?" Translation: "I don't want your opinion. I want agreement."
B/ "You have to understand ... "
Translation: "You're delusional in your ignorance. Listen carefully and I will enlighten you, so that when you do understand you will agree with me."
These gambits are haughty strategies that deserve these responses:
A/ "Don't you think ... ?"
R/ No. What's more, I don't care.
B/ "You have to understand ... "
R/ I do understand, completely, but you're still completely wrong.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Wall Street Fear
The following essay was initially published in the Fall 2010 issue of Phi Kappa Phi Forum, the member magazine of the National Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi.
By John T. Harding
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
— Franklin D. Roosevelt, from his 1933 presidential inaugural address
By John T. Harding
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
— Franklin D. Roosevelt, from his 1933 presidential inaugural address
Fear is a major factor that drives Wall Street. Financial history is full of examples of investors succumbing to it and causing widespread economic damage, including fallout from the Great Crash of 1929 and the lesser-known Panic of 1907.
A cynic might say that while Wall Street is populated by bulls and bears, investors are sheep and cattle, often driven by fear — and its companion, euphoria. Despite many financial history lessons showing that neither is a reliable motivation for fiscal decisions, investors continue to delude themselves into thinking that “this time is different” and that they’ve defeated the inevitable business cycle, thus changing the rules forever.
“The U.S. subprime crisis of 2008 followed the script of scores of banking crises past,” wrote Paul Krugman and Robin Wells in their review of Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff’s This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly (for The New York Review of Books, May 13 edition). The core of that folly, Krugman and Wells noted, is that “too much debt is always dangerous,” whether the borrowing is by governments, financial institutions or individuals. “Yet people — both investors and policymakers — tend to rationalize away these dangers,” the reviewers added; “they either forget history or invent reasons to believe that historical experience is irrelevant,” thus setting themselves up for disaster.
Economic historian Charles P. Kindleberger put it this way in his often-reprinted 1978 book, Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises: “Asset price bubbles — at least the large ones — are almost always associated with economic euphoria.”
At some point, however, the delusion fades. And as John Maynard Keynes wrote in his 1936 classic book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, “It is of the nature of organized investment markets ... (that) when disillusion falls upon an over-optimistic and over-bought market, it should fall with sudden and catastrophic force.”
This happened in the Panic of 1907 when rumors — some true, some false — sent frightened herds of depositors stampeding to banks, brokerages, and other financial institutions to rescue their cash before firms went belly up. Such a run, however, only made things worse. For example, the stock of United Copper Co. fell from $62 to $15 in only two days after a failed effort by a speculator to corner the company’s shares. And depositors withdrew $8 million in three hours from the Knickerbocker Trust Co. in New York City before the bank suspended operations, according to an historical pamphlet prepared by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
There was no deposit insurance or investor protection for customers; there was no government agency or central bank to bail out troubled firms. So as the panic spread, financier J. P. Morgan rounded up colleagues to organize a rescue operation, depositing cash with troubled banks and brokerage firms.
Some six years later, the Federal Reserve Act was signed by President Woodrow Wilson, establishing an independent central banking system to regulate the nation’s financial institutions, monitor the economy, and control the supply of money.
Disillusion, Keynes noted, “comes because doubts suddenly arise concerning the reliability of the prospective yield,” among other reasons. And when the investment herd perceives a lack of reliability, fear kicks in, as in, most famously, the stock market crash of 1929.
The tsunami of stock market speculation that led to the Great Depression began to build early in 1928, according to Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith in his 1954 bestseller The Great Crash of 1929. This “mass escape into make-believe, so much a part of the true speculative orgy,” Galbraith wrote, “started in earnest,” and as the words of brokers and investment counselors “became golden,” audiences listened “with the truly rapt attention of those who expect to make money by what they hear.”
Eventually, however, the foggy air of overconfidence was blown away by the winds of economic reality, and the panicked populace demanded their money back, rushing to retrieve what little may have been left of their invested hopes and dreams. By mid-October 1929, disillusioned investors lost confidence, dumped their stocks, and the market crashed.
While the 1907 episode is also known as “the Rich Man’s Panic” because it directly affected mostly wealthy people, during the 1920s, millions of average Americans had poured their savings into the stock market. Hundreds of banks failed in the first six months of 1929 and hundreds more during the ensuing Great Depression; stocks lost an estimated $50 billion over the two years following the crash; and the jobless rate during the Great Depression soared to a staggering 25 percent.
Just as the Panic of 1907 led to the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Great Crash of 1929 led in 1934 to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, also an independent entity, whose mission is to cover the assets of depositors, easing their fears when banks become insolvent.
And it may be coincidence, but it is curious that the last four major financial crises in America happened in October (1907, 1929, 1987, 2008) — just before Halloween.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Style
For writers and editors, style is nothing more than consistency of usage. It's not a question of which form is "correct," but which form the editor in chief prefers. And that, by definition, is subjective.
If the editor says percent is one word, not two, that's the form you use. Other editors may prefer two words (per cent), or the abbreviation (pct.), or the symbol (%). The writer's appropriate response is, "whatever sharpens your pencil" (or floats your boat, of lights your fire, or fills your cup, or creams your coffee, etc.).
For guidelines on style and usage, Strunk & White's Elements of Style remains a best seller, even after a hundred years. Otherwise, consult the Associated Press Style Manual, or any of the academic stylebooks such as those required for Freshman Comp classes. (You remember, the book you had to buy but never read?)
Keep in mind that style manuals are guide books, not law books, and each represents the choices and biases of the editors who compiled them. But they all have the aim of consistency of usage and improved communication.
One other thing to keep in mind: The problem with academic style manuals is that in trying to be complete and comprehensive, they become unwieldy. Moreover, too strict adherence to arbitrary rules can stifle creativity.
Ralph Waldo Emerson was right in calling consistency a hobgoblin, but here's the full quote, with emphasis on "foolish":
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
If the editor says percent is one word, not two, that's the form you use. Other editors may prefer two words (per cent), or the abbreviation (pct.), or the symbol (%). The writer's appropriate response is, "whatever sharpens your pencil" (or floats your boat, of lights your fire, or fills your cup, or creams your coffee, etc.).
For guidelines on style and usage, Strunk & White's Elements of Style remains a best seller, even after a hundred years. Otherwise, consult the Associated Press Style Manual, or any of the academic stylebooks such as those required for Freshman Comp classes. (You remember, the book you had to buy but never read?)
Keep in mind that style manuals are guide books, not law books, and each represents the choices and biases of the editors who compiled them. But they all have the aim of consistency of usage and improved communication.
One other thing to keep in mind: The problem with academic style manuals is that in trying to be complete and comprehensive, they become unwieldy. Moreover, too strict adherence to arbitrary rules can stifle creativity.
Ralph Waldo Emerson was right in calling consistency a hobgoblin, but here's the full quote, with emphasis on "foolish":
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Match, Don't Mix
Fractions and percentages don't mix well. Using both in the same sentence forces the reader to translate one or the other to get them to match. Even if the reader chooses not to translate, the inconsistency forces a pause while figuring out what's meant.
Here's an example, from a CNN Web site: "About three-quarters of Americans are Internet users, compared with about 90% of Sweden's population."
Hans Auf, our correspondent in Munich, called such a usage "very strange." And while technically not incorrect, "it's less efficient, so why do it?"
Indeed. It's not efficient, because it slows reading and interferes with communication, so it should not be done.
The purpose of good writing is to communicate, to transfer information efficiently. Don't put translation barriers in the way. In defense of the mix-and-match usage, some say it forces the reader to think. Perhaps, but it's better that the reader think about the concept, and not spend time on the mechanics of translating or transposing varying sets of numbers to the lowest common denominator. (Some of us haven't dealt with LCD translation since fifth grade, and hated it even then.)
As for which is better or more efficient, fractions or percentages, the answer is neither and both. Writers should choose the one that most efficiently conveys the message. And once chosen, stay with it.
So how to choose. If you select percentages, the rule of consistency applies. And in general, it's better to use numerals and decimals in all cases. This is especially true with a range, such as 8.4 to 9.5. Conceivably, you could write eight-point-four to nine-and-a-half, or 8.4 to 9 1/2, but mixing the forms can only jar and distract the reader.
The goal is communication, not confusion. Unless you're running for political office.
Here's an example, from a CNN Web site: "About three-quarters of Americans are Internet users, compared with about 90% of Sweden's population."
Hans Auf, our correspondent in Munich, called such a usage "very strange." And while technically not incorrect, "it's less efficient, so why do it?"
Indeed. It's not efficient, because it slows reading and interferes with communication, so it should not be done.
The purpose of good writing is to communicate, to transfer information efficiently. Don't put translation barriers in the way. In defense of the mix-and-match usage, some say it forces the reader to think. Perhaps, but it's better that the reader think about the concept, and not spend time on the mechanics of translating or transposing varying sets of numbers to the lowest common denominator. (Some of us haven't dealt with LCD translation since fifth grade, and hated it even then.)
As for which is better or more efficient, fractions or percentages, the answer is neither and both. Writers should choose the one that most efficiently conveys the message. And once chosen, stay with it.
So how to choose. If you select percentages, the rule of consistency applies. And in general, it's better to use numerals and decimals in all cases. This is especially true with a range, such as 8.4 to 9.5. Conceivably, you could write eight-point-four to nine-and-a-half, or 8.4 to 9 1/2, but mixing the forms can only jar and distract the reader.
The goal is communication, not confusion. Unless you're running for political office.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Austerity
Demanding austerity in the name of a balanced budget may sound good in principle, but on a national level it can be not only counter-productive but also socially dangerous.
Conservatives insist that all citizens pay their own way in all things all the time, to take responsibility for their own welfare. This, however, is a fallacy.
In extreme form, austerity means stop spending money. And while this may be a good idea in the short term for a family, it is not for a government. Why? Because if government stops spending money -- or at least sharply reduces expenditures -- many thousands of government employees are put out of work, lose their wages and end up unable to pay for food, clothing and shelter -- unable to support their families.
Result: The general economic downturn that initiated the demand for government austerity becomes worse.
Conservatives insist that all citizens pay their own way in all things all the time, to take responsibility for their own welfare. This, however, is a fallacy.
In extreme form, austerity means stop spending money. And while this may be a good idea in the short term for a family, it is not for a government. Why? Because if government stops spending money -- or at least sharply reduces expenditures -- many thousands of government employees are put out of work, lose their wages and end up unable to pay for food, clothing and shelter -- unable to support their families.
Result: The general economic downturn that initiated the demand for government austerity becomes worse.
Balancing Act
It may be coincidence, and keep in mind that correlation is not necessarily causation, but consider this:
For the past 50 years, the balance of payments in international trade has been more strongly negative during Republican administrations than when a Democrat occupied the White House.
During the 1960s, when John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson were in office, the foreign trade balance of payments favored the U.S. by $6 billion. It then began a decline, to a negative $152 billion in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was President, and to a negative $753 billion in 2006, under George W. Bush -- an all-time low.
Meanwhile, Bush took office with a surplus of $236 billion in the federal budget. Eight years later, that surplus was not only gone, but his budget for Fiscal Year ending in 2009 showed a deficit of $1.4 trillion.
For the past 50 years, the balance of payments in international trade has been more strongly negative during Republican administrations than when a Democrat occupied the White House.
During the 1960s, when John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson were in office, the foreign trade balance of payments favored the U.S. by $6 billion. It then began a decline, to a negative $152 billion in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was President, and to a negative $753 billion in 2006, under George W. Bush -- an all-time low.
Meanwhile, Bush took office with a surplus of $236 billion in the federal budget. Eight years later, that surplus was not only gone, but his budget for Fiscal Year ending in 2009 showed a deficit of $1.4 trillion.
Industry and Capitalism
It ain't what you got, it's the way that you use it.
The wealth of a nation lies not only in its available natural resources, but to a greater extent in what people choose to do with those resources.
Economics is the study of what we do with what we've got. It is properly a social science, first known as "political economics," an expansion of the ancient Greek term for household management, from an estate to an entire city.
The Industrial Revolution helped to bring about capitalism, the use of money to invest in equipment that enabled greater production by fewer workers. But this does not mean that the workers, who become more efficient by using machines, should not share in the benefits of increased productivity.
Early capitalists -- those who invested in the machines -- believed that since they undertook some of the risk, they were "entitled" to all of the rewards. (There's that word again.)
The wealth of a nation lies not only in its available natural resources, but to a greater extent in what people choose to do with those resources.
Economics is the study of what we do with what we've got. It is properly a social science, first known as "political economics," an expansion of the ancient Greek term for household management, from an estate to an entire city.
The Industrial Revolution helped to bring about capitalism, the use of money to invest in equipment that enabled greater production by fewer workers. But this does not mean that the workers, who become more efficient by using machines, should not share in the benefits of increased productivity.
Early capitalists -- those who invested in the machines -- believed that since they undertook some of the risk, they were "entitled" to all of the rewards. (There's that word again.)
Job Seekers
Jobs may be scarce in America, but they're even more scarce elsewhere in the world. The unemployment rate in the U.S. is slightly above 8 percent, and that's a bad thing. But the unemployment rate in Spain is 25 percent, and among the youth in that country, it's 53.1 percent.
So what do you do when you can't find a job near home? You move to where the odds of finding a job are better. And historically, that's why many workers came to America: This is where the jobs were and, comparatively, still are.
The latest figures from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, shows an overall unemployment rate in August for the 17 countries that use the euro as its monetary unit of 11.4 percent. The jobless rate for all 27 nations of the EU was 10.5 percent. Following Spain with the highest jobless rate is Greece, at 24.4 percent.
Austria has the lowest unemployment rate, 4.5 percent, with Luxembourg (5.2 percent), the Netherlands (5.3 percent) and Germany (5.5 percent) following. The unemployment rate in the UK is at 8 percent, just below America's 8.1 percent, while in Ireland, the percentage of workers without jobs is 15 percent.
Granted, an unemployment rate above 8 percent is no picnic, but the odds of finding a job in America are a lot better than finding a job in Spain, Greece, Portugal, or Ireland.
So it follows that workers in those countries will try first in Northern Europe, and then -- if they are lucky enough to get a visa or have family here -- will come to America, still, relatively speaking, the land of opportunity.
So what do you do when you can't find a job near home? You move to where the odds of finding a job are better. And historically, that's why many workers came to America: This is where the jobs were and, comparatively, still are.
The latest figures from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, shows an overall unemployment rate in August for the 17 countries that use the euro as its monetary unit of 11.4 percent. The jobless rate for all 27 nations of the EU was 10.5 percent. Following Spain with the highest jobless rate is Greece, at 24.4 percent.
Austria has the lowest unemployment rate, 4.5 percent, with Luxembourg (5.2 percent), the Netherlands (5.3 percent) and Germany (5.5 percent) following. The unemployment rate in the UK is at 8 percent, just below America's 8.1 percent, while in Ireland, the percentage of workers without jobs is 15 percent.
Granted, an unemployment rate above 8 percent is no picnic, but the odds of finding a job in America are a lot better than finding a job in Spain, Greece, Portugal, or Ireland.
So it follows that workers in those countries will try first in Northern Europe, and then -- if they are lucky enough to get a visa or have family here -- will come to America, still, relatively speaking, the land of opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)