Priorities

Millions for defense, but not one cent for education. 

  Or health care. Or housing. Or urban cleanup. Or public safety. Or road and bridge repairs. Or railroad maintenance. Or old age benefits. Or any other social welfare program.
   Unless the money goes to contracts for corporations run by wealthy backers of a political party.
   Meanwhile, whatever it is, the private sector can do it better.
   That seems to be the mantra of many conservative, free-enterprise cheerleaders. That is, of course, as long as there's a profit to be made. Otherwise, the private sector won't do it at all.
   If it ain't broke, don't fix it, they say. Maintenance is costly and eats into profit, they point out.
   Therefore, the policy is to wait until something breaks, then fix it. And if some people suffer injuries or death when something does break, well, unfortunately that's just collateral damage, and compensation can be deducted from the corporate tax bill.

   There are some things that are so important to society that government must provide them, either because the private sector cannot or will not do them, or does them poorly. For starters, these are things such as public safety, police and fire protection, road and bridge construction and maintenance, air traffic control, and perhaps most important, education.
   The private sector has done some of these things in the past, and still does some today. But to a large extent, especially in the field of education, private schooling is out of reach of the many. Public safety and transportation, moreover, are also important and must be provided for all. Left to the private sector, only those able to pay would obtain such services.

   It has long been established that there is a direct correlation between education and prosperity. A well educated, skilled workforce is a key component of economic well being for an entire society. A recent study by the International Monetary Fund has documented "large differences in production efficiency across U.S. states, with states having better educational attainment and greater investment in research and development" doing better economically and having greater productivity.
   For example, productivity declined by more than 3 percentage points in states like New Mexico and South Dakota during the recent economic downturn, but states with higher educational levels and workforce skills suffered dips of less than 1 percent, if at all.
   In addition, "the average years of schooling vary from below 12.5 years in Mississippi and West Virginia to over 14.5 years in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts."
   Therefore, the study concluded there is a "strong positive relation" between education and productivity growth.

   So instead of spending more and more billions of dollars on destructive military armaments, society as a whole would benefit far more from investments in a well educated, healthy population and a skilled workforce.
   Or, as George Bernard Shaw had one of his characters put it in his 1905 play, "Major Barbara," the poor are better served having jobs in the munitions industry than by getting food from charity run soup kitchens. On the other hand, this was written before weapons of mass destruction became common, and the two World Wars counted casualties in the millions.

Slowing Down

   As noted here a month ago, the U.S. economy is big, but it's not big enough to carry the rest of the world, and we posted a warning of a slowdown as the nation's output of goods and services slid from an increase of 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter to barely rising in the first quarter of 2015.
   The initial estimate for the beginning of the year was 0.2 percent, according to government reports. Now comes a second look, and GDP growth went into negative territory for the first quarter, registering a 0.7 percent dip.
   Does this mean another recession? Maybe, but we won't know for several more months, since by definition, it takes two consecutive quarters of negative numbers to qualify as an economic downturn. However, after showing real GDP growth of 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014, then slipping to hover around the zero mark for the first quarter of this year, one has to wonder.
   Meanwhile, corporate profits fell again in the first quarter, according to the government's Economics and Statistics Administration. Profits from current production decreased $125 billion in the first quarter, following a decrease of $30.4 billion in the fourth quarter.
   Productivity growth in America continues to fade, according to an analysis from the International Monetary Fund. The slowdown began some ten years ago, before the Great Recession, the IMF said. And while some blame the change on the information technology industry, the IMF working paper said the slowdown in growth was more widespread, reflecting "a loss of efficiency" over the last two decades. Even so, the states with better education as well as greater investment in research and development do better, the IMF said.

Truthification

Data selectivity can truthify anything

"Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." -- Mark Twain

Presentation is everything. Ask any chef.

   Pick the right set of numbers, present them in the most favorable fashion, and you can market a complete falsehood as a great truth, and a bargain at that.
   We expect such tactics from advertisers and politicians, but sometimes the information is more subtle, and needs to be looked at more closely, or from a different angle.
   Here's an example: How do Americans feel about their economic well-being?
   The answer, according to a survey by the Federal Reserve, is they are "increasingly optimistic," showing an increase of eight percentage points in 2014 from the year before. A closer look at the numbers in the Fed's Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking reveals that 29 percent of Americans expect their income to be higher in the coming year, compared to 21 percent in the prior year's survey.
   Looked at another way, that means less than one-third of those surveyed see better times ahead, compared to only about one-fifth in the earlier survey. In turn, that means most Americans are not optimistic about an income boost.
   Another aspect of the numbers, according to the Fed, is that only 53 percent -- a bit more than half -- of Americans feel they could cover "an emergency expense costing $400 without selling something or borrowing money." In addition, 31 percent reported "going without some form of medical care in the past year because they could not afford it."
   The survey dealt with such issues as economic security, housing and living arrangements, banking and credit access, education and student loan debt, savings behavior, and retirement preparedness.
   What about housing? The Fed survey said the outlook for the housing market "remained generally positive." Some 43 percent believed their home increased in value over the past year, and 39 percent expected home values to rise in the coming year. That's less than half for each question.
   As for renters, half said they could not afford a downpayment, and 31 percent said they would be unable to qualify for a mortgage.
   All in all, when you take a closer look at the numbers, you come up with doubts about the claims of increasing prosperity for the majority of Americans. So while the numbers may well be accurate, and there's no reason to suspect they're not, how the numbers are arranged and presented can make a difference between an appetizing dish and something else.
   Want more details? Here's a link to the Fed web site and its report: http://www.federalreserve.gov/communitydev/shed.htm.

Religion Update

When it comes to spirituality, no one has a monopoly on Truth.

   Religion and politics don't mix. Whenever it has been tried, the result has been bigotry, discrimination and violence.
   One result of this politicization of religion, as some have put it, is that many Americans are dropping out of formal church affiliation in favor of what pollsters call "none of the above."
   Two months ago, we posted some thoughts on religion, politics and freedom from religion, noting that there are many other faiths active in America besides Christianity, and rebutting the notion that America is a Christian nation.
   The posting challenged the claim that America is a Christian nation, pointing out that there are an estimated 9 million Jews, 2.7 million Muslims, 1.4 million Buddhists, 586,000 Hindus, 582,000 Native Americans, 186,000 Sikhs, 340,000 Wiccans, 342,000 Pagans, 35 million Atheists and Agnostics, 31 million who say they are Non-Religious, and 12 million who refused to answer. Not to mention the millions of others who are Zoroastrian, Confucian, Shinto, Tao, Baha'i, or the odd Druid here and there. And those numbers are probably ten years old or more.
   Comes now a report from the Pew Research Center citing a sharp decline in the percent of Americans identifying themselves as Christian, while the unaffiliated and those adhering to other faiths continue to grow.
   In seven years, from 2007 to 2014, the Pew report said, "the Christian share of the population fell from 78.4 percent to 70.6 percent, driven mainly by declines among mainline Protestants and Catholics."
   Moreover, "the unaffiliated experienced the most growth, and the share of Americans who belong to non-Christian faiths also increased," Pew reported.
   For details, go to http://pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study.
   In short, the Christian share of the population is fading, while the number of organized religion dropouts is rising.
   Why? Some blame the politicization of religion, so some folks are disillusioned with the idea of using religion as a political weapon. Moreover, the Pew researchers point out that the numbers cited by churches themselves may be unreliable, because they don't delete dropouts from the list. Once a member, always a member, seems to be the policy. And the U.S. Census doesn't ask about religious affiliation.
   Want some numbers? Those calling themselves "unaffiliated" rose by 6.7 percentage points, Catholic identifiers declined by 3.1 percentage points, mainline Protestants dropped 3.4 points, and Evangelicals faded nearly a full point (0.9).
   Meanwhile, those of non-Christian faiths showed an increase from 4.7 percent to 5.9 percent. And the percentage of Americans describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular," according to the Pew survey, "jumped more than six points, from 16.1 percent to 22.9 percent."
   So what does it all mean? It means it's time to rethink notions about religion-based politics. When it comes to spirituality, no one has a monopoly on Truth.

Isolationism

   The time may be ripe for renewed demands from the Radical Righteous to isolate America from alleged dangers posed by dealings with other nations.
   "Close the borders," they say. "America for the Americans," they chant, insisting that the U.S. is big enough and strong enough to survive and grow on its own, with no need to have anything to do with others.
   That may have been true in the 19th Century, when there was plenty of room to expand westward. But that's not true today.
   It's tempting to withdraw into one's shell, like some kind of national turtle or armadillo. On a personal level, it may be psychologically or emotionally helpful, short term. If no one can get in, you can't get hurt. The downside is that you have few, if any, personal relationships.
   On a national economic level, this strategy may also be helpful for a brief time. But, like the turtle or armadillo, eventually the creature must come out of its shell or unwind and extend itself beyond the protective shell in order to survive.
   Just as a person cannot grow emotionally without a strong relationship, a nation cannot grow economically without strong trading relationships with others. History has shown that economic isolationism doesn't work.
   Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, knew that, and said as much some 250 years ago. The principle of growth through trade remains a solid theme in economics. This was proven again nearly 100 years ago, when the U.S. tried to shield itself from a worldwide economic slide by withdrawing into its shell and hardening a protective tariff wall to prevent imports. However, other nations did the same, so international trade tanked and the worldwide Depression worsened.
   
   Business executives are often the first to lead the cheer for free competition, but usually only to the extent that the game is rigged in their favor. Similarly, politicians supported by corporate donations follow the "free enterprise" line and do their paid-for best to smooth the high road to profits for their corporate donors and supporters.
   Mercantilism, the dominant economic policy in the 17th and 18th Centuries, at root has this basic theme: Whoever gathers the most gold wins. To do this, nations in the colonial era limited imports to raw materials and imposed high tariffs to keep out competition. At the same time, the finished products were exported to the colonies and to other nations at high profits, making the home country more wealthy at the expense of others.
   Eventually, however, the imbalance was so strong as to bring poverty to others at their own expense while the dominant country had plenty of cash but little else. It reduced others to beggary while the wealthy wallowed in money.
   So as the gap between the super-wealthy one percent and the rest of the working population widens, we can expect to hear more cries from the top that the way to prosperity is to strengthen the tariff walls, keep out competition, ease the alleged burden on the wealthy and wait while the benefits trickle down to the rest of the population.
   Except for one thing. Voodoo economics, as it was called during the era of Reaganomics, doesn't work, and it never has.