Gullible's Travails

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. -- Shakespeare

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

The best reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.

   Whatever happened to journalistic cynicism?
   Where are the skeptical reporters who used to be so widespread in the news media?
   Where are the editors who achieved fame for their irascibility?
   What happened to the real-life Perry Whites and Lou Grants?
   Do we still have city editors who seem like they came straight out of Central Casting?

   Government leaders ramble on in speeches about the need to deal with economic issues, but one soon realizes that they really don't know what they're talking about. Even more often, especially on social issues, they display outrageous ignorance. But that's another issue.
   Moreover, reporters and commentators in the news media are complicit -- unwittingly perhaps -- in conveying the messages that are really political ploys, and are sometimes downright lies.
   Someone once said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, it could very well be that politicians and their corporate supporters are using political means to gain economic power, which in turn enhances political power, all the while couching their rhetoric in airy phrases that sound good but mean little.
   It has been said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Not so. It is often the first.

   Consider: Political candidates pack their audiences with loyal supporters who cheer every word of a speech, and the campaign staff disallows any questions from reporters. There are no "news conferences" as such. And when in office, the officials limit contact with reporters only to those they deem sympathetic.
   Result: Reporters cooperate and follow rules set by the politician, lest they lose out on a "story," or they get no access to the official at all.
   The question then becomes, who's in charge?

   Officials want to control their message, and go to great lengths to do so. When possible, they talk mainly to those who toss easy questions, and help promulgate the party line. In fairness, it must be said that some so-called reporters are not fair or neutral; they are partisan. Some are for, and some are opposed to the political message. Some in the media have agendas -- messages of their own. And some publications and broadcasters also have political leanings.
   It's no secret that MSNBC leans to the Left and Fox News to the Right, but these views are mostly from the hosts and commentators, who by their nature are political -- they are not neutral. But that's part of the price we pay for our First Amendment freedoms.

   Besides, who gets to decide what's fair?

Sticky Wages and Getting Stuck

Economic decisions are made every day, even in what may seem very mundane circumstances. To the jobless poor, however, the decisions and circumstances are not mundane, but a matter of survival.

   Unemployment benefits, minimum wage laws, and union contracts all interfere with the classical economic theory that wages respond to supply and demand pressures just as any other factor of production. And because of these benefits, laws and contracts, wages are "sticky," and cannot slide downward during economic downturns, either for a firm, an industry, or a society.
   Meanwhile, despite humanitarian concerns, ultra-conservatives condemn public assistance programs as "socialist" -- a dirty word to them, which they use to demonize the opposition. As for the poor, even the working poor, the radical righteous maintain that "It's their own fault. They should have saved for a rainy day, and we should not have to pay for their bad behavior."
   But is it "bad behavior," or are they caught in a fiscal or economic vise not of their making? Granted, some are "irresponsible." But not all. Moreover, this is also true of the ultra-rich; the irresponsible wastrels of the wealthy are forgiven their "bad behavior" more often than the poor.
   Some claim unemployment benefits discourage job-seeking and are a waste of government resources. These payments go to the "takers," they charge, who stay on the jobless rolls rather than accept employment. The reality, of course, is that for some the only jobs available -- if any are available at all during a recession -- pay little more than government benefits. So they make an economic decision, especially if they have minor dependents. Taking a low-wage job and then paying for daycare would mean less money for food.
   An extreme example, perhaps, but not only possible but plausible.

   In any data set, there are outliers -- those 12.5 percent on the edges of the famous bell-shaped curve who are not within three standard deviation units from the mean. In other words, one size never fits all. The best you can hope for is that a standard benefit will help 86 percent of the population.
   In fairness, those who insist that the poor act responsibly should also take responsibility for their own actions, and not hide behind or take refuge in tax breaks or bankruptcy proceedings.
   Laws and options are in place for a purpose. If developers can take advantage of government programs to help them through rough financial straits -- even if, as with banks and mortgage lenders, they brought the problems on themselves -- fairness would stipulate that similar options be available to those without lawyers on corporate staff or without political influence.

   If banks are too big to fail, people are too many to be ignored.

Migrating Workers

"Going home to a place I've never been before." -- John Denver

Everybody needs somebody to feel better than. -- Pug Mahoney, Cynic in Chief

"I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door." -- Emma Lazarus, inscribed on a statue in New York Harbor

   Now that the U.S. government plans to pull American troops out of Afghanistan, we can look forward to an increasing influx of Afghan refugees, especially folks who served with or cooperated with Americans.
   There is historical precedent for this, notably Vietnam and Cambodia. To abandon them to the vagaries of a new regime can be dangerous. Moreover, many of these newcomers will take low wage, low skill, low prestige jobs, doing the scut work that many young Americans pass up.

   Meanwhile, Washington is working on a plan to provide a road to citizenship for children of illegal immigrants already here, who were brought to America as children. Should this be done?
   Consider: Is it right to blame children for the activities, legal or otherwise, of their parents? This program will offer amnesty and a path to citizenship for those brought here as children and know no other country. They are, in fact, Americans in every way except but in law. And many are well educated, skilled and productive. To send them "home" to a place they've never been before would be unfair, counterproductive and cruel.
   In addition, there's a move afoot to allow more workers in, to fill the demand for low-skill, less-educated, low-wage workers, because the supply of native-born Americans willing to take menial jobs is short. Therefore, newcomers are arriving to fill these positions.
   The Law of Supply and Demand has not been repealed.

   At the same time, Washington has inaugurated a program to issue visas and a fast track to citizenship to highly skilled professionals and to investors who lay out as much as $1 million in startup firms that employ at least ten Americans.
   The demand for well educated workers with special skills is high, and the supply of available citizens is low, so competition is driving this program.
   To claim that every job taken by a newcomer is a job lost by an American is not only too simplistic, but also untrue. Statistical data and studies, even those done by anti-immigration groups, back this up.
   Don't believe it? Do your own research. The Internet is a wonderful thing.

Speaking Up

In union there is strength.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

　Of the four major elements that make up any economy, Labor may be the most controversial, partly because Labor is the only one that has a voice. (The other elements, or factors of production as they are formally known, are Land, Capital and Entrepreneurial Skill.)
   The term Land refers to natural resources, and includes not only farm acreage, but also forests, mining, and water.
   To an economist, Capital does not mean money or financial resources, but refers to any improvement or investment in machines, for example, or other things that increase productivity or make production more efficient.
   An entrepreneur, from the French meaning a go-between, is a person who gathers the other elements and organizes their productive capacity.
   In economics, payment for the use of Land resources is called Rent. Payment to Labor is called Wages, return from the use of Capital improvement is called Interest, and payment to the Entrepreneur is called Profit.

   Entrepreneurs gather, organize and exploit the other factors of production for their own benefit as well as to serve society, and their reward for doing so is profit.
   The word "exploit" is used here not in a negative, abusive sense, but as a neutral term to describe what is done. Certainly, some entrepreneurs are abusive, and that's where Labor speaks up in its own defense. The result is controversy with abusive entrepreneurs.

   There was a time when entrepreneurs, the landlords of Capitalism, owned the resources and workers had little or no ability to avoid being exploited in an extreme, abusive way. That changed, however, with the advent of unions. Labor could and did organize into collective bargaining units, since individual bargaining ability was so weak as to be powerless.
   At one time, the entrepreneurs of Capitalism were so powerful and so exploitative -- in a negative sense -- that the downtrodden workers rebelled. In was in this that Karl Marx foresaw the collapse of Capitalism and the rise to power of Labor.
   What he failed to see, however, was that management would accept the rights of workers and would show a willingness to accommodate workers' needs (sometimes forced to do so through government intervention). Meanwhile, unions became so strong that management found it more worthwhile to cooperate with unions to create a more productive, efficient company.
   However, it was also true that some unions became so strong that power corrupted the process, and labor became so dominant as to be abusive. In recent years, union membership has been sliding, labor's power has been weakening, and management has been moving into the power void.
   Somewhere there is a middle ground where both sides can profit.

Jabberwocky

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
-- Lewis Carroll

Mass altruism ain't gonna happen.
　
   Those who prattle about the evil nature of all things socialistic speak jabberwocky in their efforts to demonize the opposition.
   Politicians assail those in the news media who report information that contradicts their positions as being part of the "reality based community," and their tone tries to imply something negative. But how is being in touch with reality a bad thing?
   "It is when you disagree with me!"

   When the evidence contradicts the message, ignore the evidence. Why let solid numbers interfere with the message? When you say something often enough, loud enough and long enough to enough people, many will start to believe it. Currently, when reality based information contradicts the message, conservatives call it a conspiratorial plot by the liberal media elite.
   One example of language-bending to serve a political end is the assault on "socialism." The reality is that any social benefit program is socialistic, and such programs have been part of American life from the beginning.
   When the Pilgrims taught all members of the group to read, that was socialism. Their motivation, of course, was that members read the Bible, but the idea of universal basic public education endures. And government supported schools is socialism.
   When government builds roads, to be freely used by all, that is socialism.
   When government builds bridges and airports, that is socialism.
   When government operates flood control programs, that is socialism.
   When government hires teachers, police and firefighters, that is socialism.
   When government sponsors unemployment benefit programs, that is socialism.
   When government sponsors old-age pension programs under its Social Security program, that is socialism.
   And when government offers universal health insurance, that is socialism. Otherwise, the indigent seek health care in emergency rooms, and when they cannot pay, the hospital and/or taxpayers pick up the tab. That, too, is socialism.
   Any program run by government that benefits society is by its nature socialistic.

   Is there is a difference between Socialism and Communism? In a political sense, yes, since nations that attempted socialist/communist forms became dictatorships. Karl Marx, the 19th Century philosopher who wrote extensively on the issue, used the two terms interchangeably. The problem is that while communal living may be functional on a small, local level, it does not work at a national level.

   And locally, they do work. In America, the communal living movement was well known in the 19th Century, and some of the names endure. Amana and Oneida were two successful 19th Century communes whose names are still familiar, even though they no longer function as communes.
   In the mid-20th Century, many hippies formed communes as they dropped out of the larger society.
   Meanwhile, communes remain, and number in the many hundreds, if not thousands. They even have their own organization and magazine.
   Want a definition? "We use commune only when referring to communities that share their income and resources completely, or nearly so," according to the Fellowship for Intentional Community.
   A successful commune or socialistic society needs a widespread sense of sharing. But on a national level, mass altruism ain't gonna happen.

Politics, Economics and Government

It ain't what you got, it's the way how you use it.

   Economics, at its root, is the study of what people do with what's available to them. The term originated in Ancient Greece. and referred to a household manager. And well into the 20th Century, high school girls in America took courses in "home economics." (That was back in the day when girls learned typing and shorthand so they could get jobs as secretaries, and boys took shop courses to become carpenters or auto mechanics. And never the twain did switch. Fairness didn't enter into it.)
   In the 19th Century, the academic discipline became known as Political Economics, meaning it dealt with how the polis, or city-state, managed its resources, and it expanded the study from the household level to the regional and national, making it more scholarly.
   Modern economics got its start with the work of Adam Smith, the 18th Century Scottish philosopher whose major effort, The Wealth of Nations, was published in 1776.
   Today, the field continues to expand, as economists look at more and more things that influence what people do with what they've got. The better economists, moreover, base their research, analysis and reports on the Five Ws of journalism -- Who, What, Where, When and Why. The first four are relatively easy to research and write about. The last, however -- Why -- is just as difficult in academia as it is in news reporting.
   Nonetheless, it's right to keep trying.
   Sometimes, of course, even with the best of intentions, some so-called experts go astray, especially when they start with preconceived notions of what "should be" and proceed to find evidence to prove what they already "know" to be true.

   Logic 101: If the premise is valid and the process correct, the conclusion must be valid. But if the premise is questionable or false, the conclusion may not be valid.
   In Law, there is what's known as the Prosecutor's Fallacy, in which investigators believe up front that a suspect is guilty, and then find the evidence to support that belief. What investigators should do, of course, is to gather all the evidence and then conclude from that who the perpetrator might be.
   Formally, the difference is between inductive logic and deductive logic. In the first, one gathers information, seeks a pattern and then forms an opinion or conclusion. In the second, one starts with a premise (hopefully a valid one), then deduces downward from that to a conclusion.

   Back to economics.
   Academics, as people, are often led off-track by prior beliefs and cultural leanings. Even if they are not, in presenting their conclusions to other academics and to the general public, they must overcome other folks' beliefs and cultural leanings.
   The same applies to journalists and especially to politicians, since they play to the opinions and preferences of voters in order to be re-elected.
   Whether the whole thing is a good system depends partly on your own preconceived notions and beliefs.
   In any case, this is the system we've got, so the choice is to dance with the guy what brung ya, or leave the party. Put another way, if you don't like it, your choice is to change it, learn to live with it, or leave it.

   In ancient times, the highest honor in the tribe was to carry the sacred rune stone during the Solstice Celebration. But to achieve that honor, a warrior first had to kill a venomous reptile that endangered the village. For as it was truly spoken by the Chief Druid: "He who slays the viper hauls the rune."

Perspectives

The stock market has about as much influence on my daily life as baseball.

   Both activities, the stock market and baseball, may be interesting and fun to watch, but for some folks, so is Honey Boo Boo.
   Even for those who own corporate stocks, the gyrations of the market as a whole matter little. The only thing that really matters is whether the stock or stocks someone owns goes up or down, and by how much. And even that matters only if the owner plans to buy or sell.
   Daily traders, of course, are another breed. For them, a small movement of pennies per share is important when dealing with many hundreds of shares. In that respect, it's like foreign exchange rates or commodities trading. When dealing with a million dollars, a shift in the decimal point price per unit can mean a profit or loss totaling thousands of dollars.
   Similarly, whether a major league player has a batting average of .190 or .195 has no financial effect on the general public, fan or non-fan. Granted, a batting average may influence a player's salary discussions, but it doesn't change my paycheck.
   Moreover, the best players score a hit less than half or even one-third the number of times they are at bat. Even Ted Williams in his best year (1941), with a batting average of .406, scored a hit only four out of ten times at bat. And his career batting average of .344, one of the best in baseball, means he failed to get a hit two-thirds of the time.
   Financial markets affect a person's daily life more than stock markets, because fluctuations there result in changes in interest rates. In turn, this means home mortgage rates change, savings rates change, and credit card interest rates rise or fall.
   But even here, if one does not own a home or does not plan on buying; if savings are in long-term CDs; and if one pays cash or has no credit card debt, it doesn't matter.

Mimimum Wages

Try finding a plumber, electrician or auto mechanic who works for the minimum wage. Even if it could be done, would you trust your house or car to such a worker?
   Foes protest that raising the wage floor will prevent employers from hiring, and thus harm the very people it's supposed to help.
   Or they claim this only rewards the "takers," who don't deserve higher pay or more benefits, and that it will harm small business employers by cutting into their business.
   Both are mistaken.
   Employers have at least two options when the minimum wage is increased. One is to raise prices, to make up for the additional wage cost. Another is to become more efficient, in order to maintain profits.
   The economic Law of Supply and Demand does not fully apply when it comes to labor. In other areas, excess supply and/or lower demand would push down prices (read: wages). Or a short supply and/or rising demand would drive up the prevailing wage/price. But with the advent of labor unions and minimum wage laws, this core economic principle has been suspended or bypassed at the entry level. For skilled workers, however, the principle still applies. Quality costs money.
   In any case, raising the minimum has little or no effect on skilled workers or professionals, since they already earn at higher levels. Moreover, union constracts and market demand establish wage rates above the legal floor. The proposed minimum of $9 an hour will have little effect on those. It will, however, drive up the pay for entry level workers, and force employers to become more efficient in their operations, as well as encourage workers to become more productive at their jobs.
   Both will be a good thing, since the result will be better products and services as well as workers with more disposable income. In turn, the extra money flow will benefit the entire economy and all of society.

Euronomics

It works for me, so I know it will work just as well for everyone else.

"Greed is good." -- Gordon Gekko

"Every individual ... intends only his own gain ... " and in doing so promotes the good of society "more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." -- Adam Smith

   The USA began not only as a political union, but also as a free trade association with a common currency and a ban on trade barriers between states.   The EU began in a similar fashion, but without a political union. The European Common Market was a plan to remove trade and migration barriers, and later, many of the EU members -- but not all -- agreed to a common currency, the euro.
   NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Association, was agreed to as a pact to enhance trade among the U.S., Canada and Mexico, but without a common currency and without sacrificing political independence. Whether doing so, to achieve "a more perfect union," as the U.S. Constitution puts it, will ever happen is an issue another, far distant day.

   Now President Obama wants to open EU markets to U.S. firms. In a way, this could be a first step toward expanding NAFTA to an intercontinental Common Market. Intercontinental maybe, since there is something of a cultural base of compatibility. But a larger question is whether the movement will gain enough momentum to gather others into the free trade fold.
   The economic system known as Capitalism may work well enough (more or less) on a Western European base -- and that cultural base includes North America -- but whether it works equally well in areas like Russia, Asia or the Middle East is questionable.
   For that matter, it's not even clear that Socialism will work everywhere. Karl Marx himself felt that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution, since it was still a feudal society, and had not gone through an Industrial Revolution similar to what had happened in England and Germany.
   And in China, leaders have said for years that their country was moving to its own form of Capitalism, even as it adapts elements of Socialism for use in China.
   Marx may have been right about some things (even The Economist newspaper, that British bastion of conservative capitalism, has acknowledged this), but while the theory may have been sound, the practice was out of tune.
   In short, Marxist Socialism doesn't work. Russia, China and Cuba have tried it on a national scale, and have moved away.
   While communes may work on a small scale for a brief time -- there were several in America during the 19th Century -- but on a national level, they fail. Why? Greed. The fictional Gordon Gekko was more blunt than the real-life philosopher Adam Smith.
   Meanwhile, though pure Socialism (or Communism, if you prefer that label) doesn't work, neither does pure, unfettered, free-market Capitalism. Widespread government-sponsored social welfare programs have become a major part of American life and are not likely to go away, despite the plaints and wails of conservatives touting the benefits of a totally free market. Some of these social welfare programs popular in America include Social Security pensions, Medicare and Medicaid health benefits for the aged and the poor, unemployment benefits for those in need, universal basic public education, and now, universal health care insurance.
   Nor are these programs peculiar to the U.S. Similar and more comprehensive programs were set up in Canada, Britain and other nations decades ago.
   A major function of government is to stabilize society and protect all citizens, but a lack of control allows a powerful few to ride rough-shod over the many.

Poverty

True or False: More money equals a stronger, healthier economy.
Answer: Sometimes.

   Much has been said in recent years about the New Gilded Age, where a small number of Americans own a disproportionate amount of the total wealth of the country. The number being batted around is the 1 percent who have more than half America's wealth, and the comparison is to the 1890s, when a few families were super-rich, and most families were not.
   (The phenomenon is not unique to America. Watch the TV series Downton Abbey for a depiction of the difference.)
   So to raise the economic health of the many, President Obama has called for an increase in the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour, and tie it to the cost of living also. In his State of the Union address, Obama noted that a family supporter working full time and earning the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, makes a total of $14,500 in a year. That's well below the national poverty level of $22,000. Something to consider, though, is that many states already have mandated higher minimums, so raising the federal floor will have no effect in those states. Also, the market minimum may be even higher, making the national figure even less meaningful.
   It's important to remember that the term "poverty level" can imply a different number in various levels. For example, a family of four in Manhattan with an annual income of $22,000 would have a difficult time, while that same amount in rural Appalachia may be more than sufficient.

   There is a correlation between money supply and economic growth, and while it is true that money fuels an economic engine, it does not always follow that pumping more cash can make the engine go faster.
   Equally true, it does not follow that raising the minimum wage changes the poverty rate.
   Consider this question: Is it true that since Americans have more money than they did 40 years ago, they are wealthier?
   Answer: Some are, but many are not.

   Try some numbers. In 1970, the total amount of cash and cash equivalents circulating in America was just of $54 trillion, and the economy generated $1 trillion worth of goods and services (GDP). Forty years later, in 2010, the money supply was about $945 trillion, and GDP was $16 trillion. Each had grown by a factor of 16. Meanwhile, the population was half again as big, expanding from 203 million to just over 300 million.
   So with all that money kicking around, were Americans richer? Yes and no.
   While the cutoff line to define poverty for a family of four rose from almost $4,000 yearly to more than $22,000, the percentage of Americans living in poverty remained about the same -- 12.6 percent in 1970, and 14 percent in 2010. And the number of Americans living in poverty increased from 25 million to 44 million -- numerically, nearly doubling.
   The issue now becomes this: Are we really better off, if income rises by a factor of 10, and prices increase proportionately?

Goldilocks Economics

Scientific method: Let's try this. If it works, do it again. If not, try something else.

Differential diagnosis: Eliminate what it ain't. What's left, is what it is.

Thomas Edison said he did not fail 99 times before he succeeded. He found 99 things that did not work.

   Which is better as a way to bolster economic growth, monetary or fiscal policy? Or should it be a combination of both? If so, how much of each?
   Start with some definitions: Monetary policy is what the Federal Reserve does to control the money supply. Fiscal policy is what government does in spending money. And since money is the lifeblood of a modern economy, analysis of a nation's money can reveal the health of the economic body politic.
   Insufficient money stunts economic growth. Weak money means an anemic economy. Too much money equals inflation, raising prices and threatening hyperactivity and the economic equivalent of a stroke. And if a monetary unit is too strong, relative to other nations' currencies, stuff become expensive, and foreign trade suffers.
   What's wanted, then, is a Goldilocks Economy, where the ingredients are neither too hot nor too cold, too much nor too little, too spicy nor too bland, but "just right."
   In turn, however, "just right" depends on the cultural preferences of the citizens. Just as New Yorkers want ketchup on their burgers and Chicagoans prefer mustard, so economics consumers expect things to suit their tastes.
   All of which leaves the chefs at Club Fed as well as the congressional and administration culinarians in a monetary and fiscal stew.
   The questions, then, become how much of each? Which dominate? When, how, and why?
   One problem, of course, is that the Fed, Congress and the Executive branch are independent entities, and you know what they say about too many cooks ...
   Whether they should be independent entities is another issue. Other countries at other times have combined government and central bank operations, and results have been questionable, if not disastrous. When government controls the money supply (monetary policy), as it did in inter-war Germany, rampant inflation can destroy an economy and bring dictatorship. Alternatively, austerity -- severe cutbacks in spending (fiscal policy) can also destroy an economy. Or, tight controls on the amount of money available can produce poverty, resulting in a two-class society -- those with money, and those without. The very rich and the very poor.
   So there are two extremes, and neither is a cure-all. At times, one is a more effective tool. Sometimes, the other is more appropriate. Usually, both techniques should be used. The trick is in best-guessing how much of each to use, when and how.
   Economics is not an exact science, in the sense of being able to predict what will happen to X if we change Y. It is a social science, with all the flaws, foibles and variables found in any society. In short, there are too many variables in the economic equation to say anything with certainty.
   The ceteris paribus (other things equal) assumption is a heroic assumption at best, since in the real world, other things never remain equal for long.

   You can't step into the same river twice.

Battling Buzzwords

He must be brilliant. I didn't understand a word he said.

   Every group has its jargon. It's meant to facilitate communication among members of the profession, but jargon also serves to deny access to trade secrets for the uninitiated.   Newsrooms are famous (or notorious) for it, but other trades and professions use jargon as well. And instead of changing, shortening, corrupting or inventing words in English,, some groups use Latin or French terms to show their "expertise" and keep out non-members.
   Teenagers, for example, use words and phrases to distinguish themselves from their parents. Musicians invent jargon to prove they are hip. Corporate executives abbreviate terms regularly used in board rooms to show they are insiders. Doctors and nurses scatter Latin and French terms to illustrate their expertise.
   There is something to be said for standard definitions within a group so all can agree on word usage. And there is historical precedent for using certain sets of terms. Law and medicine, for instance, grew up in an age when Latin was the language of the educated elite. Those who could read and write did so in Latin. But that was 500 years ago, when English was not considered to be a worthwhile language. It was one of the non-Latin, or Vulgate (vulgar) languages used by the "common" people and Latin was the language of the educated elite.
   So jargon does more than facilitate communication and identify members of groups that consider themselves special, however. It can also establish or reinforce a hierarchy, or even obscure the fact that a speaker has no idea what he's talking about.
   Men may be more prone to such foggery than women. Often, if a man doesn't know the answer to a question, he'll make one up. (Heaven forfend that he admit he doesn't know; it's like stopping to ask directions.)
   And politicians are notorious for using circumlocution (Latin: "talk around"). It's also known as "Blowing Smoke."
   Another medieval leftover conceit was that since Latin was the language of the Church, it was therefore the "perfect" language, and all others were subservient to it. That's one reason grammar was taught based on Latin forms, notwithstanding that some forms common in Latin do not exist in English.
   An example here is the case system -- nominative, genitive, dative and accusative, etc. In a case system, nouns change their form according to their function in a sentence. That is, whether to indicate possession or to be the object or target of something else. The case system, with as many as seven different forms for nouns, is still used in German and Russian, but no longer exists in English, except for one small set of words: pronouns. Thus, I, me, mine; he, him, his, etc.

   But I digress. One of the latest Budget Buzzword Battles among politicians is over "sequestration," or the setting aside of money to be used later for some designated purpose. Just why this has become a battleground we're not sure, unless there's an attempt to disallow the spending of money that has already been authorized and the funds set aside, or sequestered.
   In other words, the money is there, it's been budgeted and authorized, but some are thundering, "Don't spend it," even though the expenditure has already been cleared.
   So what's the fight really about? In Washington, fights are often about who gets to take credit for spending on a worthwhile purpose. Ultimately, the losers in this fiscal finagling fight are the people the programs are intended to help.

Marketing Memo

   Voters take note: Changing the message doesn't always change the product. GOP leaders are changing their presentations after November's defeat, but while the names and strategies have changed, the themes and goals have not.

   Heard on TV: Even though he's 90 years old, he can still talk. This was in reference to a talk by Henry Kissinger, but it suggests surprise that older citizens are ever lucid. Health care professionals, especially, seem to believe that anyone over 60 is either deaf, senile, stupid, or all of the above.

   Whatever happened to respect for experience and a store of knowledge that can only be acquired over time? This is not, of course, to be confused with wisdom, which is knowing how to use acquired knowledge.

Guns

   The head of the National Rifle Association keeps insisting that "law abiding citizens will not accept blame for gun violence." True enough. But who's asking them to? The issue is violence, using guns, and one way to reduce the violence is to reduce the guns.
   Another NRA claim is that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Therefore, the reasoning goes, we need more guns for more good guys. Equally valid reasoning, however, is that we need fewer guns in the hands of fewer bad guys.
   Or we could use the simplistic solution from early B movie westerns -- have all the good guys wear white hats.
   As for the issue of assault rifles, they are what the label says -- assault weapons, not for defense or hunting.

Trivial They Ain't

   Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric are the three legs of the medieval seat of higher learning. They formed the trivium, the first part of the Seven Liberal Arts. (The other four, known as the Quadrivium, were Arithmetic, Geometry, Music and Astronomy. All seven were then to be applied to Philosophy.)
   The threesome were "trivial" in the sense of being basic, but there was -- and is -- nothing unimportant about them.
   Logic teaches how to organize ideas and thoughts.
   Grammar identifies the parts of speech and writing, and shows how to set them into clear sentences.
   Rhetoric demonstrates how to arrange sentences to persuade readers and listeners.
   Taken together, the three teach how to write and present information, thoughts and ideas in a well organized way to effectively inform and persuade readers and listeners.
   Problem: Rhetoric got a bad rap when marketers and politicians used the techniques to get folks to agree to things they didn't know they wanted.
   Meanwhile, grammar and logic became dull, victims as teachers fell into formulaic techniques that didn't work, and became poor substitutes for competence.

Marginal Thinking

   It is an economic truism that changes occur at the margin. But while each change should be noted, not all are consequential.
   Marginal thinkers focus on changes at the edge, and too many assume that any shift at the margin inevitably brings change to the whole.
   Granted, sometimes it does. But sometimes is not always, and superimposing already held convictions, assumptions and Truths onto preconceived notions of what "should be" is a path of perceived glory that leads but to grave consequences.
   Therefore, examine each tree, but consider the effect of change on the entire forest, and remember that it may be minimal, monumental, or none.

The Laffer Curveball

"It ain't necessarily so." -- from Porgy and Bess, by George and Ira Gershwin

"It's a long, long time, from May to December." -- September Song, by Maxwell Anderson and Kurt Weill
　
   One of the key concepts of supply-side economics is the Laffer Curve, which illustrates the tradeoff between tax rates and revenues. The idea itself is not new -- Professor Arthur Laffer himself has pointed out that it goes back at least to the 14th Century. The curve shows that as tax rates go up, so do government revenues, but at a slower rate. Eventually, a boost in tax rates produces zero additional revenue, so at that point -- according to supply-siders -- the way to increase revenue is to reduce taxes.
   The catch is, however, that supply-siders focused solely on that latter part, that the way to increase revenue is to reduce taxes. And much to Professor Laffer's dismay, that was the part that got all the attention.
   The story goes back to 1974, when a Wall Street Journal editor named Jude Wanniski attended a dinner with Laffer, of the University of Chicago; Donald Rumsfeld, then chief of staff with President Gerald Ford; and Dick Cheney, a member of Rumsfeld's staff. Laffer outline the concept for the others, and Wanniski later (1978) wrote a magazine piece extolling the virtues of tax cuts to boost revenues.
   This is the part that conservatives to this day hold dear -- that raising taxes reduces economic activity and eventually erodes government revenue. Therefore, the way to encourage economic growth and boost revenue is to cut taxes, especially at the top, and the benefits will -- eventually -- trickle down to the rest.
   Any excuse to reduces taxes.
   The part they leave out is the part that says there is no rule that a tax cut will increase revenues. Instead, the curve notes that a reduction will bring only a smaller loss in revenue.
   So the trio of conservatives -- Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wanniski -- picked up the idea and threw a curveball. Tax cuts pay for themselves, they and their followers chant. It ain't necessarily so, as the song goes. It's possible that reducing a tax can result in economic growth, more employment and higher income for workers. But it may take a while, and there are no guarantees, especially since the beneficiaries of the tax cuts are likely to keep the extra cash for themselves, and not pass on the benefits in the form of investment in more production and employment.

One Bump or Two?

   NEWS ITEMS: Economic growth in America slowed during the fourth quarter, as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the standard measure of performance, registered a negative one-tenth of a percent on the econ scale. Meanwhile, unemployment was up a notch in January, to 7.9 percent. And the housing industry, often used as a barometer of economic health, has not been as reliable as in the past. Building permits and housing starts are up, but "the rebound has not created a lot of construction jobs," according to a report by USA Today. And the number of workers applying for unemployment benefits rose in January.
   As noted here last month, there's a bumpy road ahead.
   All of which means Punxsutawney Phil might be as good at forecasting the economy as he is at the weather.

   ODD THOUGHTS: Let's be cautious, and raise things only to a half new level. Strangers are never perfect. Being human, they are imperfect at best.

   STATUS REPORT: Editor's Revenge is read regularly in more than a dozen countries beyond the U.S. and Canada, ranging from Ireland to Australia, with stops along the way in the UK, Germany, France, Russia, China and Hong Kong, among others.
   If you like it, pass it on. If you disagree, pass it on anyway, but at least think on the points made.