Recession is when your neighbor loses a job. Depression is when you lose yours.
While it's true that many people are out of work in America, a better perspective is that many more people have returned to work. A harsh reality is that there will always be some unemployment, as young people enter the work force, others relocate and look for a new job in another region, still others resign for a variety of reasons, and women return to employment after young children enter school.
This is not to say that motherhood is not a full-time job. It is, but in statistical terms such work is not counted as part of the civilian work force. Neither are military personnel, those in prisons, those who are hospitalized or those who have stopped looking for work.
It's also true that the two data sets -- employment and the unemployment rate -- are gathered separately, from different sources. The easier one, employment, is a real number, and is collected simply by counting the number of people on payrolls. The harder, less reliable one, is the unemployment rate, which is gathered from a telephone survey, in which households are asked how many people in the home are not working now but are able to work and actively looking for work.
The unemployment rate is then calculated as a percentage of the total work force.
Recent government reports have shown a continuing rise in total civilian non-farm jobs, easily measured by payroll data. And while it is true that some regions have lost jobs as technology changes or that consumer demand drops -- lower use of coal as an energy source, for example, has put miners out of work -- other regions, both geographical and business, have seen increases in employment as well as higher wages.
This is no consolation to the guy who's out of work, however.
Meanwhile, unemployment rates are declining and payroll jobs are increasing throughout America, even as some regions and labor segments continue to struggle.
Jobless rates in July were down in 279 of the 387 U.S. metropolitan areas, as payroll jobs rose in 331 areas, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unemployment rates were higher in 87 areas and unchanged in 21, the BLS said, while nonfarm payroll employment was down in 52 areas and unchanged in 4.
The nationwide unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for several months, and a new report is due out Friday.
In a separate report. the BLS said consumer spending rose last year by 4.6 percent to an average $55,978. Income, however, did not keep pace with spending, rising by 4.1 percent to an average of $69,629 "per consumer unit." Whatever that is.
Taken together with various other reports released recently, things are not too bad throughout the American economy. And while it's true that they could be better, there is also the hazard that recovery from the Great Recession could go ever slower than it has.
In all, if you have a job and you're not in danger of losing it, you are probably confident and are likely to vote accordingly. But if you're already out of work and not confident of finding another one soon, you're likely to vote for someone who promises better times.
Whether either candidate can deliver on the promise is another issue.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
A Nation of Migrants
Diversity is the heart of America
Much has been ranted recently about the danger of migrants to the U.S. But consider this: Where would America be without migrants?
A brief glance at history reveals this: America would not exist had it not been for migrants.
From its earliest days, newcomers to North America came from dozens of other countries and cultures, each contributing to the diversity that Americans have long considered part of the national experience.
This is not to say there haven't been problems, resentment and controversy, as there are today.
But it is a reminder that America was founded and grew through the work of newcomers, from the Italian navigator Christopher Columbus and his Spanish crew to the Spanish settlers throughout the West and in Florida, to the French in New Orleans and the area that was the Louisiana Purchase, to the Swedes in New Jersey and the Dutch in New York, to the Norwegians in the Midwest, to the English in New England, to the Germans who served the British Army during the War of Independence and then stayed, as well as those who settled in Pennsylvania, to the Italians in the 19th and 20th Centuries, as well as Jewish newcomers from Eastern Europe, plus those from China who helped build the railroad across the continent, in addition to those from Japan and other Far East countries, and the many Africans who were brought to America as slaves, and those from Middle Eastern nations and those from the Indian subcontinent who came in search of opportunity.
And we mustn't forget the Irish and the Scots. After all what kind of a parade or funeral would it be without bagpipes?
So the question becomes, which of these many groups of people has the right to call themselves the only "true Americans," and can relegate all the others to a class of "undesirables"? Perhaps the answer is that the only "true Americans" are the members of the native tribes whose ancestors were already here for many hundreds of years before the European invasion.
It is an accident of history that the most common language in America is English. It could as easily have been Spanish, since they were here first. Or Dutch or Swedish, since they were close behind. Or Norse, since Vikings explored North American shores long before Columbus. Or even Gaelic, since Brendan the Navigator was here even before the Vikings.
Periodically in America, there have been waves of resentment against newcomers who did not sound like or look like the self-appointed "real Americans" who by chance happened to be here first. At various times, these "America Firsters" wanted to close the Golden Door of opportunity and snuff out the lamp of freedom held up by the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.
We're seeing that attitude again. The attitude that says, "You can come to America only if you look like me, talk like me and believe like me. Otherwise, stay away or I'll build a wall to keep you out."
Maybe a wall should have been built a long time ago to keep them out. But that would have been un-American.
Much has been ranted recently about the danger of migrants to the U.S. But consider this: Where would America be without migrants?
A brief glance at history reveals this: America would not exist had it not been for migrants.
From its earliest days, newcomers to North America came from dozens of other countries and cultures, each contributing to the diversity that Americans have long considered part of the national experience.
This is not to say there haven't been problems, resentment and controversy, as there are today.
But it is a reminder that America was founded and grew through the work of newcomers, from the Italian navigator Christopher Columbus and his Spanish crew to the Spanish settlers throughout the West and in Florida, to the French in New Orleans and the area that was the Louisiana Purchase, to the Swedes in New Jersey and the Dutch in New York, to the Norwegians in the Midwest, to the English in New England, to the Germans who served the British Army during the War of Independence and then stayed, as well as those who settled in Pennsylvania, to the Italians in the 19th and 20th Centuries, as well as Jewish newcomers from Eastern Europe, plus those from China who helped build the railroad across the continent, in addition to those from Japan and other Far East countries, and the many Africans who were brought to America as slaves, and those from Middle Eastern nations and those from the Indian subcontinent who came in search of opportunity.
And we mustn't forget the Irish and the Scots. After all what kind of a parade or funeral would it be without bagpipes?
So the question becomes, which of these many groups of people has the right to call themselves the only "true Americans," and can relegate all the others to a class of "undesirables"? Perhaps the answer is that the only "true Americans" are the members of the native tribes whose ancestors were already here for many hundreds of years before the European invasion.
It is an accident of history that the most common language in America is English. It could as easily have been Spanish, since they were here first. Or Dutch or Swedish, since they were close behind. Or Norse, since Vikings explored North American shores long before Columbus. Or even Gaelic, since Brendan the Navigator was here even before the Vikings.
Periodically in America, there have been waves of resentment against newcomers who did not sound like or look like the self-appointed "real Americans" who by chance happened to be here first. At various times, these "America Firsters" wanted to close the Golden Door of opportunity and snuff out the lamp of freedom held up by the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.
We're seeing that attitude again. The attitude that says, "You can come to America only if you look like me, talk like me and believe like me. Otherwise, stay away or I'll build a wall to keep you out."
Maybe a wall should have been built a long time ago to keep them out. But that would have been un-American.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Twitter Twits
Social media are a wonderful thing, enabling users to send their thoughts unfiltered to all their friends and family -- indeed, to the entire world -- with no editors to decide what's important or newsworthy and what's not.
In some ways, this is good. There are no government censors or self-appointed monitors to restrict, prevent, or limit publication of what people want to say.
At the same time, there's no solid way to separate truth from innuendo, misleading suggestions, libel or lies from the neutral and objective reports by responsible journalists.
"Congress shall make no law .. abridging the freedom or speech, or of the press ... " goes the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are, of course, practical limitations to this freedom. It is against the law, for instance, to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. And the laws of libel protect citizens from false statements that damage their reputations.
The downside is that these laws only provide for punishment after the act. Unless the perpetrator of a libel can be identified and located, there is little recourse for the victim.
Anonymity, then, is the core of the Internet problem.
The Twitter twits who hide behind this curtain are in effect yelling "Fire!" in a metaphorical theater.
In some ways, this is good. There are no government censors or self-appointed monitors to restrict, prevent, or limit publication of what people want to say.
At the same time, there's no solid way to separate truth from innuendo, misleading suggestions, libel or lies from the neutral and objective reports by responsible journalists.
"Congress shall make no law .. abridging the freedom or speech, or of the press ... " goes the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are, of course, practical limitations to this freedom. It is against the law, for instance, to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. And the laws of libel protect citizens from false statements that damage their reputations.
The downside is that these laws only provide for punishment after the act. Unless the perpetrator of a libel can be identified and located, there is little recourse for the victim.
Anonymity, then, is the core of the Internet problem.
The Twitter twits who hide behind this curtain are in effect yelling "Fire!" in a metaphorical theater.
Fiscal vs Monetary Policy
"Elect me and I'll revitalize the economy!" -- Any candidate.
That promise assumes two things: One, the economy is sick and needs to recover, and Two, a single government official can actually do it.
Heroic assumptions, at best.
First question: Can a national economy be managed? Second question: Who can or should do it?
The first question is often answered yes or no, depending on someone's political leanings. Conservatives will say no, because it's too big, and they believe in free markets, which means no one should try. Left alone, and in the long run the economy will find its own equilibrium.
Liberals will say yes, it can be managed, and in fact it's a government responsibility to do just that, to even out the inevitable economic cycle and thus protect lower-income workers who suffer during severe downturns.
So both questions are answered.
Those who insist that government has no role in an economy ignore the reality that government is one of the major components of an economy, because it spends money on such things as road and bridge construction and maintenance, police, fire and military protection, as well as hiring many thousands of employees to do the work that governments must do. Indeed, without government there is anarchy and chaos.
How big is government's role? That's accounted for when measuring the size of a national economy, usually in terms of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or the value of goods and services produced in the country.
The other elements include Consumption by homes and businesses, Investment by firms, and net Exports.
When people delay buying stuff, and firms lower their production because people don't buy as much stuff, it's called a recession. And if the decline is deep enough and long enough, it's called a depression. The problem then becomes, how to induce companies to make more stuff or invest in additional capacity, and to encourage people to buy more stuff.
There are two classic ways to do this: One is to lower interest rates, which will enable firms to borrow more money to invest in more capacity, and also to allow consumers to borrow more easily so they can buy more stuff.
That's called monetary policy, which is done by a nation's central bank as it manipulates the money supply. More money available means lower rates, which should stimulate demand.
Economics 101 -- the Law of Supply and Demand applies to money just as it does to stuff.
But if cheaper money doesn't do the job of stimulating a slow economy, what's next? That would be fiscal policy, which falls to government. When people and businesses in the private sector stop buying or selling stuff, or delays investing in buildings for increased capacity, government can step in to spend money, hiring people to build bridges, roads, museums, hospitals and do other things that will reduce unemployment and provide wages so workers can buy stuff.
Currently, the Federal Reserve, America's central bank, has trimmed a key lending rate to near zero in its efforts to stimulate the economy. But it hasn't had enough effect to boost growth to a healthy level. And a political stalemate has prevented the federal government from acting in ways to boost economic growth.
Meanwhile, some experts on economic trends are warning that if downward trends return, the Fed will have little or no room to kickstart the economy, since its chief strategic weapon -- monetary policy -- is already near zero. Moreover, central banks in a few other nations have put their key rates below zero. The possible consequence will be another international Great Depression, much like the one that preceded World War II.
At that time, it took massive fiscal policy efforts by the federal government to rescue the nation from economic catastrophe.
As it is, the low interest rates engineered by the Fed will easily enable the national government to borrow funds to finance new projects, hire workers, pay their salaries, and resolve a difficulty before it becomes a serious problem.
Assuming, of course, legislators in Washington have the spirit of political cooperation to agree to such a fiscal policy.
And that, however, could well be another heroic assumption.
That promise assumes two things: One, the economy is sick and needs to recover, and Two, a single government official can actually do it.
Heroic assumptions, at best.
First question: Can a national economy be managed? Second question: Who can or should do it?
The first question is often answered yes or no, depending on someone's political leanings. Conservatives will say no, because it's too big, and they believe in free markets, which means no one should try. Left alone, and in the long run the economy will find its own equilibrium.
Liberals will say yes, it can be managed, and in fact it's a government responsibility to do just that, to even out the inevitable economic cycle and thus protect lower-income workers who suffer during severe downturns.
So both questions are answered.
Those who insist that government has no role in an economy ignore the reality that government is one of the major components of an economy, because it spends money on such things as road and bridge construction and maintenance, police, fire and military protection, as well as hiring many thousands of employees to do the work that governments must do. Indeed, without government there is anarchy and chaos.
How big is government's role? That's accounted for when measuring the size of a national economy, usually in terms of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or the value of goods and services produced in the country.
The other elements include Consumption by homes and businesses, Investment by firms, and net Exports.
When people delay buying stuff, and firms lower their production because people don't buy as much stuff, it's called a recession. And if the decline is deep enough and long enough, it's called a depression. The problem then becomes, how to induce companies to make more stuff or invest in additional capacity, and to encourage people to buy more stuff.
There are two classic ways to do this: One is to lower interest rates, which will enable firms to borrow more money to invest in more capacity, and also to allow consumers to borrow more easily so they can buy more stuff.
That's called monetary policy, which is done by a nation's central bank as it manipulates the money supply. More money available means lower rates, which should stimulate demand.
Economics 101 -- the Law of Supply and Demand applies to money just as it does to stuff.
But if cheaper money doesn't do the job of stimulating a slow economy, what's next? That would be fiscal policy, which falls to government. When people and businesses in the private sector stop buying or selling stuff, or delays investing in buildings for increased capacity, government can step in to spend money, hiring people to build bridges, roads, museums, hospitals and do other things that will reduce unemployment and provide wages so workers can buy stuff.
Currently, the Federal Reserve, America's central bank, has trimmed a key lending rate to near zero in its efforts to stimulate the economy. But it hasn't had enough effect to boost growth to a healthy level. And a political stalemate has prevented the federal government from acting in ways to boost economic growth.
Meanwhile, some experts on economic trends are warning that if downward trends return, the Fed will have little or no room to kickstart the economy, since its chief strategic weapon -- monetary policy -- is already near zero. Moreover, central banks in a few other nations have put their key rates below zero. The possible consequence will be another international Great Depression, much like the one that preceded World War II.
At that time, it took massive fiscal policy efforts by the federal government to rescue the nation from economic catastrophe.
As it is, the low interest rates engineered by the Fed will easily enable the national government to borrow funds to finance new projects, hire workers, pay their salaries, and resolve a difficulty before it becomes a serious problem.
Assuming, of course, legislators in Washington have the spirit of political cooperation to agree to such a fiscal policy.
And that, however, could well be another heroic assumption.
Monday, August 29, 2016
Message Control
Politicians complain that the news media devote too much time and space to negative aspects of their doings and not enough to the good things they do. At the same time, they object that the reverse is true for coverage of their opponents.
They do this even as staffers try to control the political message and limit press access to the candidate.
You can't have it both ways, guys.
A free press is essential in a free society, and voters have a right to expect full information about what a political candidate says and does, and what that candidate proposes to do if elected.
Vague hints are not enough, and assurances like, "Trust me, I'll get it done" fail to explain the how.
News reporting depends on the classic Five W's -- Who, What, Where, When and Why -- plus another, equally important question -- How.
Refusal to answer these questions, or to even provide access that would enable reporters to put specific aspects of these questions directly to the candidate, is tantamount to attempting to control the news media.
It's one thing for a candidate, or any politician in or out of office, to try to put the best face on his positions and policies, but it's quite another to minimize journalistic access and maximize attacks on opponents.
Message control is to be expected of anyone in the public eye. Media control, by refusing to meet the press and attacking journalists who try to ask tough questions, is unacceptable.
Inevitably, citizens will begin to ask, "How dumb do they think we are?" The answer, unfortunately, seems to be, "Very."
COME BACK, SHAME -- A politician's favorite comeback when called out on something 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.
They do this even as staffers try to control the political message and limit press access to the candidate.
You can't have it both ways, guys.
A free press is essential in a free society, and voters have a right to expect full information about what a political candidate says and does, and what that candidate proposes to do if elected.
Vague hints are not enough, and assurances like, "Trust me, I'll get it done" fail to explain the how.
News reporting depends on the classic Five W's -- Who, What, Where, When and Why -- plus another, equally important question -- How.
Refusal to answer these questions, or to even provide access that would enable reporters to put specific aspects of these questions directly to the candidate, is tantamount to attempting to control the news media.
It's one thing for a candidate, or any politician in or out of office, to try to put the best face on his positions and policies, but it's quite another to minimize journalistic access and maximize attacks on opponents.
Message control is to be expected of anyone in the public eye. Media control, by refusing to meet the press and attacking journalists who try to ask tough questions, is unacceptable.
Inevitably, citizens will begin to ask, "How dumb do they think we are?" The answer, unfortunately, seems to be, "Very."
COME BACK, SHAME -- A politician's favorite comeback when called out on something 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.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Brexit With Tiffany
The candidate last week cozied up to Nigel Farage, a leader of the campaign to have Britain leave the European Union.
At a rally in Mississippi, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for President, praised Farage, former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), as the man largely responsible for the Brexit vote, and suggested that a similar effort is in store for the U.S. "They will soon be calling me Mr. Brexit," Trump tweeted.
In the context of Trump's repeated calls for renegotiating U.S. trade deals with other countries, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and warning of the supposed dangers of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), it would be no surprise if he named a family member to talk with Farage about strategy in leaving international trade partnerships and how to rewrite or tear up existing contracts.
Not that Trump needs any advice on the latter, since his business career is loaded with examples of doing just that. That is, after all, a Trump tradition, as detailed in his book, "The Art of the Deal."
Who better, then, to carry on the family tradition than daughter Tiffany, newly graduated and in need of a job?
That's how Trump got his start, learning at his own father's elbow how to build and expand the family business.
Now it's time to sharpen the elbows of a new generation, this time on an international level. And the most likely candidate to take the deal-making art to an international level could be Tough Tiffany, as she might become known from her strong negotiating tactics, learned from her father's example. She has already made her name known, introducing Daddy Don at the Republican National Convention when he was nominated.
So with name recognition and her father's support, young Tiffany could well be named to the post of chief international trade representative, charged with building a new Business Fortress America, immune to such trivial details as complex trade treaties.
After all, if there are no trade agreements, or just a few that overwhelmingly favor the U.S., then experience won't matter.
Total lack of experience in government, politics, diplomacy or international relations hasn't stopped Trump from rising to the top of the Republican Party.
Why should it stop or even slow young Tiffany?
At a rally in Mississippi, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for President, praised Farage, former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), as the man largely responsible for the Brexit vote, and suggested that a similar effort is in store for the U.S. "They will soon be calling me Mr. Brexit," Trump tweeted.
In the context of Trump's repeated calls for renegotiating U.S. trade deals with other countries, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and warning of the supposed dangers of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), it would be no surprise if he named a family member to talk with Farage about strategy in leaving international trade partnerships and how to rewrite or tear up existing contracts.
Not that Trump needs any advice on the latter, since his business career is loaded with examples of doing just that. That is, after all, a Trump tradition, as detailed in his book, "The Art of the Deal."
Who better, then, to carry on the family tradition than daughter Tiffany, newly graduated and in need of a job?
That's how Trump got his start, learning at his own father's elbow how to build and expand the family business.
Now it's time to sharpen the elbows of a new generation, this time on an international level. And the most likely candidate to take the deal-making art to an international level could be Tough Tiffany, as she might become known from her strong negotiating tactics, learned from her father's example. She has already made her name known, introducing Daddy Don at the Republican National Convention when he was nominated.
So with name recognition and her father's support, young Tiffany could well be named to the post of chief international trade representative, charged with building a new Business Fortress America, immune to such trivial details as complex trade treaties.
After all, if there are no trade agreements, or just a few that overwhelmingly favor the U.S., then experience won't matter.
Total lack of experience in government, politics, diplomacy or international relations hasn't stopped Trump from rising to the top of the Republican Party.
Why should it stop or even slow young Tiffany?
The Cookie Jar Candidate
"America First ... and devil take the hindmost."
Competitiveness in sports is a valuable trait, and competition in business can benefit consumers by ensuring wider choice and lower prices. Taken to an extreme, however, when the goal is solely to win, to defeat the other guy regardless of cost, both sides lose.
When that happens, the supposed winner, no matter his boasting, is really a loser. Financially, he may have gained, but he did so by reducing his competitors to beggary, as well as bankrupting contractors and impoverishing customers.
In the end, what's the point of taking in all the money if there is no one left to buy your product?
Ironically, that can be an advantage to a businessman-turned politician, because he can then blame others for the problems that he himself created. Assuming people believe him.
Sound familiar?
Call him the Cookie Jar Candidate. When a child is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, taking something when he was not entitled to it, the childish defense is to blame someone else for leaving the cookie jar unguarded.
When the cookie culprit grows up (physically, if not emotionally), the practice of faulting others has become habit. He is never wrong, about anything, in any detail, and the responsibility for any problems resulting from misappropriated cookies -- or failed business ventures -- is always passed on to others.
Meanwhile, the goal of the Inner Cookie Culprit is always "Me first," and to defeat any and all challengers by whatever means it takes. And when those means cause pain to others and the Cookie Man is called out on his behavior, he may express "regret."
That's not an apology, or a way of saying, "I'm sorry." His only regret is being caught with his hand in the Cookie Jar.
Competitiveness in sports is a valuable trait, and competition in business can benefit consumers by ensuring wider choice and lower prices. Taken to an extreme, however, when the goal is solely to win, to defeat the other guy regardless of cost, both sides lose.
When that happens, the supposed winner, no matter his boasting, is really a loser. Financially, he may have gained, but he did so by reducing his competitors to beggary, as well as bankrupting contractors and impoverishing customers.
In the end, what's the point of taking in all the money if there is no one left to buy your product?
Ironically, that can be an advantage to a businessman-turned politician, because he can then blame others for the problems that he himself created. Assuming people believe him.
Sound familiar?
Call him the Cookie Jar Candidate. When a child is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, taking something when he was not entitled to it, the childish defense is to blame someone else for leaving the cookie jar unguarded.
When the cookie culprit grows up (physically, if not emotionally), the practice of faulting others has become habit. He is never wrong, about anything, in any detail, and the responsibility for any problems resulting from misappropriated cookies -- or failed business ventures -- is always passed on to others.
Meanwhile, the goal of the Inner Cookie Culprit is always "Me first," and to defeat any and all challengers by whatever means it takes. And when those means cause pain to others and the Cookie Man is called out on his behavior, he may express "regret."
That's not an apology, or a way of saying, "I'm sorry." His only regret is being caught with his hand in the Cookie Jar.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Pressing Issues
Diagnosis: Political Goose-Gander Syndrome
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party presidential nominee, has been heavily criticized for not holding a news conference in months.
Question: When was the last time Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee, met with a roomful of reporters and faced a barrage of inquiries?
It's one thing to talk to mass rallies of supporters and answer one or two questions from reporters on the way out of the meeting, or to call in to favored TV commentators, who are always pressed for time, but it's quite another issue to open up for a full hour of questioning by the entire press corps assigned to follow the candidate's doings.
Off hand, the last time Trump fielded questions from the press corps, he ejected a reporter from Univision, insisting that "You weren't called on. Sit down."
In addition, he has pulled credentials from half a dozen media outlets because he didn't like the coverage he was getting.
Memo to the Don: You do not control the press. It's called the First Amendment. You are certainly free to refuse credentials to individual reporters, or to their news outlets. But you cannot keep them from a public meeting.
As for Hillary avoiding news conferences, she too should be more open to questions from the assembled press corps, rather than selectively talking briefly, one on one, with those she is comfortable with.
There is also the issue of health reports. Voters have come to expect some detail on candidate health, in the form of medical records. But to make public a three-paragraph statement allegedly signed by a personal physician that reads more like it was dictated by the candidate himself, praising the candidate as the healthiest person ever to seek or become the President, raises an ethical issue in itself.
It may well be that Trump is extraordinarily healthy. But voters have already seen more detail on Hillary's health. To insist that she release a full report first before you explain any is the sort of behavior typical of juveniles.
Both candidates appear to be quite healthy, but it has become customary to provide evidence. Where is it?
"You go first!" is not an acceptable response.
Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party presidential nominee, has been heavily criticized for not holding a news conference in months.
Question: When was the last time Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee, met with a roomful of reporters and faced a barrage of inquiries?
It's one thing to talk to mass rallies of supporters and answer one or two questions from reporters on the way out of the meeting, or to call in to favored TV commentators, who are always pressed for time, but it's quite another issue to open up for a full hour of questioning by the entire press corps assigned to follow the candidate's doings.
Off hand, the last time Trump fielded questions from the press corps, he ejected a reporter from Univision, insisting that "You weren't called on. Sit down."
In addition, he has pulled credentials from half a dozen media outlets because he didn't like the coverage he was getting.
Memo to the Don: You do not control the press. It's called the First Amendment. You are certainly free to refuse credentials to individual reporters, or to their news outlets. But you cannot keep them from a public meeting.
As for Hillary avoiding news conferences, she too should be more open to questions from the assembled press corps, rather than selectively talking briefly, one on one, with those she is comfortable with.
There is also the issue of health reports. Voters have come to expect some detail on candidate health, in the form of medical records. But to make public a three-paragraph statement allegedly signed by a personal physician that reads more like it was dictated by the candidate himself, praising the candidate as the healthiest person ever to seek or become the President, raises an ethical issue in itself.
It may well be that Trump is extraordinarily healthy. But voters have already seen more detail on Hillary's health. To insist that she release a full report first before you explain any is the sort of behavior typical of juveniles.
Both candidates appear to be quite healthy, but it has become customary to provide evidence. Where is it?
"You go first!" is not an acceptable response.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Likeability
"Sure, he's liked, but he's not well liked." -- Willy Loman, in "Death of a Salesman," by Arthur Miller.
"In your heart, you know he's right." -- Barry Goldwater campaign slogan.
Many political campaigns are settled more on the basis of likeability rather than competence. And when it comes to electing a President of the United States, perhaps more attention should be paid to competence and experience in government, than to how well a candidate is a personable, well liked person.
This year, however, neither of the two main candidates for the White House is known for a high likeability quotient. Unfortunately, many voters substitute their feelings for a rational judgement on competence.
Moreover, there may even be some gender bias, or a size bias in voter decisions, both of which act on a subconscious level.
Consider the Great American Fallacy, that "bigger equals better." Americans tend to prefer sports that emphasize large players and high scores, such as basketball and footfall. Compare that to soccer, the most popular sport in the rest of the world, where a player's legs need only be long enough to reach the ground.
Consider the proverb of days gone by, when it was said that "a woman's place is in the home." And remember that the U.S. women's soccer team was the first American team to win the World Cup. The men's team has yet to do so.
Women now serve as corporate chiefs, governors, senators and representatives on the state and national levels. They are also likely to get caught for misfeasance and malfeasance, just as men are caught. This, too, is equality.
In the current presidential election campaign, both major party candidates face a likeability problem. There are many folks who have taken a personal dislike for one or the other.
Or as someone once said when asked why he disliked another person, "I don't need a reason, I just don't like him/her."
"In your heart, you know he's right." -- Barry Goldwater campaign slogan.
Many political campaigns are settled more on the basis of likeability rather than competence. And when it comes to electing a President of the United States, perhaps more attention should be paid to competence and experience in government, than to how well a candidate is a personable, well liked person.
This year, however, neither of the two main candidates for the White House is known for a high likeability quotient. Unfortunately, many voters substitute their feelings for a rational judgement on competence.
Moreover, there may even be some gender bias, or a size bias in voter decisions, both of which act on a subconscious level.
Consider the Great American Fallacy, that "bigger equals better." Americans tend to prefer sports that emphasize large players and high scores, such as basketball and footfall. Compare that to soccer, the most popular sport in the rest of the world, where a player's legs need only be long enough to reach the ground.
Consider the proverb of days gone by, when it was said that "a woman's place is in the home." And remember that the U.S. women's soccer team was the first American team to win the World Cup. The men's team has yet to do so.
Women now serve as corporate chiefs, governors, senators and representatives on the state and national levels. They are also likely to get caught for misfeasance and malfeasance, just as men are caught. This, too, is equality.
In the current presidential election campaign, both major party candidates face a likeability problem. There are many folks who have taken a personal dislike for one or the other.
Or as someone once said when asked why he disliked another person, "I don't need a reason, I just don't like him/her."
Econ Cruising
The U.S. economy continues to withstand offshore winds of negativity as its total output holds to its slow growth path.
Government data for the second quarter show an increase in Gross Domestic Product of 1.1 percent for the April-June quarter, up from 0.8 percent in the first quarter. The figure was off slightly from the earlier estimate of 1.2 percent for the second quarter.
Total income rose marginally, 0.2 percent, and largely contributed to an increase in expenditures and an increase in exports, government figure showed.
As noted here Wednesday, home sales are at a nine year high, the international trade deficit is declining, inflation is steady, unemployment is below and job growth has increased for 70 months straight.
So unless a worldwide economic storm hits, the U.S. economy is not likely to sink on its own. Whether it can hold up the rest of the world is another question.
Government data for the second quarter show an increase in Gross Domestic Product of 1.1 percent for the April-June quarter, up from 0.8 percent in the first quarter. The figure was off slightly from the earlier estimate of 1.2 percent for the second quarter.
Total income rose marginally, 0.2 percent, and largely contributed to an increase in expenditures and an increase in exports, government figure showed.
As noted here Wednesday, home sales are at a nine year high, the international trade deficit is declining, inflation is steady, unemployment is below and job growth has increased for 70 months straight.
So unless a worldwide economic storm hits, the U.S. economy is not likely to sink on its own. Whether it can hold up the rest of the world is another question.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Brexit Bust
The U.S. economy continues its slow recovery, according to most major data diviners, but forecasters seem reluctant to hazard a guess on the effect of a breakup of the European Union, both economic and political.
Already, Brexit monitors see many problems if the United Kingdom leaves, beginning with the effect on the island nations themselves. The problems start with border issues in Ireland, which will stay in the EU while the Six Counties of Northern Ireland, still part of the United Kingdom, leave.
Other observers wonder what barriers will go up between Britain and the Continent. There's no need to build a wall -- the English Channel has been there all along -- but trade and tourism will surely take a hit.
On this side of the pond, economists have charted a slow but steady improvement in economic performance even as they add cautionary notes for the future.
Several regional banks in the Federal Reserve System, for example, have posted comments on just that issue, even as the Fed's Board of Governors in Washington warns of potential negative offshore winds slowing American growth potential.
In a larger sense, Britain leaving the European Union would be like Canada canceling its membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been in place for several decades and makes for easier commerce among its members. Or if the U.S. left NAFTA.
Looked at another way, what would happen if California decided to go its own way rather than remain a member of the United States of America? A California cleavage, however, would be a major disaster for the Constitution, and could bring on an economic civil war.
Already, Brexit monitors see many problems if the United Kingdom leaves, beginning with the effect on the island nations themselves. The problems start with border issues in Ireland, which will stay in the EU while the Six Counties of Northern Ireland, still part of the United Kingdom, leave.
Other observers wonder what barriers will go up between Britain and the Continent. There's no need to build a wall -- the English Channel has been there all along -- but trade and tourism will surely take a hit.
On this side of the pond, economists have charted a slow but steady improvement in economic performance even as they add cautionary notes for the future.
Several regional banks in the Federal Reserve System, for example, have posted comments on just that issue, even as the Fed's Board of Governors in Washington warns of potential negative offshore winds slowing American growth potential.
In a larger sense, Britain leaving the European Union would be like Canada canceling its membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been in place for several decades and makes for easier commerce among its members. Or if the U.S. left NAFTA.
Looked at another way, what would happen if California decided to go its own way rather than remain a member of the United States of America? A California cleavage, however, would be a major disaster for the Constitution, and could bring on an economic civil war.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Evidence, Please
The candidate assails his rival as crooked, corrupt, criminal, liar, fraud, and a failure who sold favors for political gain, and is neither physically nor mentally fit to be President.
Where's the evidence of all this alleged criminal behavior? Where's the evidence of poor health status?
If there is any, there is a legal, moral, ethical and political obligation to present it, at least to the voting public as well as to prosecutors who can then file formal charges.
At the same time, the candidate has an equal set of obligations to present evidence of his own physical, mental, moral and financial health.
Burkini Fuss
"Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear ..."
"In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking ..."
Topless women bathers along beaches in the south of France no longer raise a fuss, but recently, fully covered Muslim women are perceived as a threat to public safety.
Those who make much ado about full-body swimsuits may want to recall pictures of bathing costumes in Atlantic City in past decades.
At one time, showing any amount of skin beyond face, feet and hands often led to arrest. These days in France, women who show no skin other than face, feet and hands are subject to arrest.
Go figure.
"In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking ..."
Topless women bathers along beaches in the south of France no longer raise a fuss, but recently, fully covered Muslim women are perceived as a threat to public safety.
Those who make much ado about full-body swimsuits may want to recall pictures of bathing costumes in Atlantic City in past decades.
At one time, showing any amount of skin beyond face, feet and hands often led to arrest. These days in France, women who show no skin other than face, feet and hands are subject to arrest.
Go figure.
Econ Outlook
Where's the wreck?
New home sales are at a nine-year high, the international trade deficit is closing, exports are increasing, inflation is steady, unemployment is below 5 percent and job growth in America has increased for 70 consecutive months.
So where's the disaster that some folks keep warning of?
Some 654,000 homes were sold in the U.S. in July, up 12.4 percent from June and up 31.3 percent from a year ago, according to Census Bureau data.
New monthly export records were set in telecommunications, computer and information services, and the goods and services trade deficit faded by 2.3 percent from a year ago, the Commerce Department reported.
"Despite global economic headwinds," said Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, "U.S. goods and services are in high demand."
Employment in America rose by 255,000 in July as the unemployment rate held steady at 4.9 percent. Since early 2010, U.S. businesses have added 15 million jobs.
Economic growth as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total output of goods and services, is likely to continue over the next few years, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), driven largely by consumer spending and business investment.
Even so, the CBO estimated rising deficits. Put into the context of the total economy, the anticipated deficit of $590 billion for 2016 will be just 3.2 percent of some $16 trillion in GDP.
Here's a reality check: Low skill jobs with high wages have been gone from most regions of the U.S. for decades, and are not likely to return. They have been replaced by higher skill jobs in technology and other areas that call for higher educational levels.
This is not to say that low skill jobs no longer exist. They do, but largely in service areas. And many manufacturing jobs call for higher skills in order to operate more technical machinery, which allow increased production with less labor.
Moreover, concerns over pollution and global warming will bring even higher technology to energy industries as the nation moves away from coal as a prime energy source.
So is the nation trembling, and in danger of another economic crisis? Not really, unless irresponsible political and corporate leadership, coupled with offshore storm winds, bring on some extended fiscal and financial rainy days.
New home sales are at a nine-year high, the international trade deficit is closing, exports are increasing, inflation is steady, unemployment is below 5 percent and job growth in America has increased for 70 consecutive months.
So where's the disaster that some folks keep warning of?
Some 654,000 homes were sold in the U.S. in July, up 12.4 percent from June and up 31.3 percent from a year ago, according to Census Bureau data.
New monthly export records were set in telecommunications, computer and information services, and the goods and services trade deficit faded by 2.3 percent from a year ago, the Commerce Department reported.
"Despite global economic headwinds," said Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, "U.S. goods and services are in high demand."
Employment in America rose by 255,000 in July as the unemployment rate held steady at 4.9 percent. Since early 2010, U.S. businesses have added 15 million jobs.
Economic growth as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total output of goods and services, is likely to continue over the next few years, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), driven largely by consumer spending and business investment.
Even so, the CBO estimated rising deficits. Put into the context of the total economy, the anticipated deficit of $590 billion for 2016 will be just 3.2 percent of some $16 trillion in GDP.
Here's a reality check: Low skill jobs with high wages have been gone from most regions of the U.S. for decades, and are not likely to return. They have been replaced by higher skill jobs in technology and other areas that call for higher educational levels.
This is not to say that low skill jobs no longer exist. They do, but largely in service areas. And many manufacturing jobs call for higher skills in order to operate more technical machinery, which allow increased production with less labor.
Moreover, concerns over pollution and global warming will bring even higher technology to energy industries as the nation moves away from coal as a prime energy source.
So is the nation trembling, and in danger of another economic crisis? Not really, unless irresponsible political and corporate leadership, coupled with offshore storm winds, bring on some extended fiscal and financial rainy days.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Balanced Budget Hazards
"Deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney
When hard times hit, consumers struggle to pay for food, clothing and shelter, and sometimes there's little left to pay taxes. That's why it's important for families to try to live within a budget, so there will be some money saved and available for the proverbial rainy day.
On a national level, however, a balanced budget is a good thing when times are prosperous, but when stormy weather hits hard, government is the spender of last resort to keep an economy functioning.
It's been said that money is the lifeblood of an economy, so when the flow stops, the body politic no longer functions healthily. When consumers, the prime movers in an economy, cut back on spending, and producers reduce their output in response to slowing demand, that triggers a downward trend called a recession.
That's the point at which government, another major component of any economy, can step in to increase spending, thus encouraging production, which provides jobs and wages so people can resume their consumption.
Balanced budgets are important for families, companies and even states. But sometimes the pressure is too much and they must borrow in order to survive. For families, that means a loan. For firms and states, that means issuing bonds as a way to balance their budgets.
On a national level, however, issuing bonds may not be sufficient or fast enough to generate money for spending. Moreover, if people and companies don't have any funds to spare, they can't lend money to government in the form of bonds.
So the national government, as the spender of last resort to reboot an economy, starts to spend money it does not have. That, in effect, is a budget deficit.
There are some, however, who insist that deficit spending is a bad thing, for a national government as well as for families and firms. Therefore, there is a growing movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
But when government is prohibited from deficit financing as a transfusion to aid a sick economy, the body politic is unable to recover, and everybody loses.
Nonetheless, that would be the consequence of a plan by conservatives, led by the Koch brothers, pushing for a Constitutional amendment banning deficit spending.
Every worker knows that when you're in a financial ditch, a loan can help you get out of the muck and move on to your job, repaying the loan along the way. But if you have no job and the financial storm continues, the muck only gets deeper, unless someone comes along with a rescue rope. That's the function of government, hiring and supplying the rescue crew, and paying them wages so they can support their families.
When the scale of the operation is large enough, an entire nation is involved. Only a federal government can mount such a rescue attempt. And without the ability to operate at a deficit -- briefly, until the economy recovers -- the result would be a disastrous national bankruptcy.
In theory, a balanced budget is a good idea, especially for individuals, families and businesses. States, too, are required to balance their budgets every year; but they have the ability to issue bonds to cover the deficit. Either that, or they cut spending on education, safety, police and fire protection, highway maintenance, and the myriad other things that government does.
But if a national government cuts its spending just as every other element of society does the same, the entire money flow stops. During the 1930s, massive federal spending at a deficit, since tax revenues bordered on nonexistent, rescued America from the Great Depression.
Amending the Constitution and requiring a balanced federal budget would eliminate the possibility of rescuing the nation from disaster. A balanced budget is feasible when tax revenue flows well. But during an economic crisis, when people with no jobs can no longer spend, and companies stop producing because there are no customers, dismissing workers who then have no wages, thus accelerating the downward spiral, only a national government has the resources to help.
But if government is forbidden to do so, the sick patient -- the economic body politic -- dies.
When hard times hit, consumers struggle to pay for food, clothing and shelter, and sometimes there's little left to pay taxes. That's why it's important for families to try to live within a budget, so there will be some money saved and available for the proverbial rainy day.
On a national level, however, a balanced budget is a good thing when times are prosperous, but when stormy weather hits hard, government is the spender of last resort to keep an economy functioning.
It's been said that money is the lifeblood of an economy, so when the flow stops, the body politic no longer functions healthily. When consumers, the prime movers in an economy, cut back on spending, and producers reduce their output in response to slowing demand, that triggers a downward trend called a recession.
That's the point at which government, another major component of any economy, can step in to increase spending, thus encouraging production, which provides jobs and wages so people can resume their consumption.
Balanced budgets are important for families, companies and even states. But sometimes the pressure is too much and they must borrow in order to survive. For families, that means a loan. For firms and states, that means issuing bonds as a way to balance their budgets.
On a national level, however, issuing bonds may not be sufficient or fast enough to generate money for spending. Moreover, if people and companies don't have any funds to spare, they can't lend money to government in the form of bonds.
So the national government, as the spender of last resort to reboot an economy, starts to spend money it does not have. That, in effect, is a budget deficit.
There are some, however, who insist that deficit spending is a bad thing, for a national government as well as for families and firms. Therefore, there is a growing movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
But when government is prohibited from deficit financing as a transfusion to aid a sick economy, the body politic is unable to recover, and everybody loses.
Nonetheless, that would be the consequence of a plan by conservatives, led by the Koch brothers, pushing for a Constitutional amendment banning deficit spending.
Every worker knows that when you're in a financial ditch, a loan can help you get out of the muck and move on to your job, repaying the loan along the way. But if you have no job and the financial storm continues, the muck only gets deeper, unless someone comes along with a rescue rope. That's the function of government, hiring and supplying the rescue crew, and paying them wages so they can support their families.
When the scale of the operation is large enough, an entire nation is involved. Only a federal government can mount such a rescue attempt. And without the ability to operate at a deficit -- briefly, until the economy recovers -- the result would be a disastrous national bankruptcy.
In theory, a balanced budget is a good idea, especially for individuals, families and businesses. States, too, are required to balance their budgets every year; but they have the ability to issue bonds to cover the deficit. Either that, or they cut spending on education, safety, police and fire protection, highway maintenance, and the myriad other things that government does.
But if a national government cuts its spending just as every other element of society does the same, the entire money flow stops. During the 1930s, massive federal spending at a deficit, since tax revenues bordered on nonexistent, rescued America from the Great Depression.
Amending the Constitution and requiring a balanced federal budget would eliminate the possibility of rescuing the nation from disaster. A balanced budget is feasible when tax revenue flows well. But during an economic crisis, when people with no jobs can no longer spend, and companies stop producing because there are no customers, dismissing workers who then have no wages, thus accelerating the downward spiral, only a national government has the resources to help.
But if government is forbidden to do so, the sick patient -- the economic body politic -- dies.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Demand Side Economics
Carlinomics: "It's all about stuff." -- George Carlin
The economy is like the weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it.
That's not quite true, actually. People in business talk about it but insist nobody should interfere with their cherished "free enterprise" belief.
People in academia talk about it endlessly, and even offer suggestions on how to improve it, but they don't have the ability or resources to do anything.
That leaves people in government, who talk about it and listen to academic suggestions, and are willing and able to do something about, if they can get past the political objectors who insist nothing can be done about it.
The general public, meaning consumers who are the primary driving force of a growing economy, are left between the proverbial rock and hard place.
Consumers want to spend more money and buy more stuff, but when they're out of work or their wages are stagnant, and suppliers cut back on making stuff because they think there's a declining demand, round and round the two sides go while the economy recedes.
So if consumers cannot or will not increase their demand for more stuff, and suppliers suspect they won't, who's left to step in and boost demand, which in turn stimulates supply?
Government, that's who. Call it Demand Side Economics. Then when the national economy gathers momentum of its own, government can pull back and refocus on the things that only government can do.
All the while, conservatives insist that government should in no way interfere with private enterprise and eventually things will work out and the economy will improve.
We should live so long.
At its most basic, economics is the study of what people do with what's available, and economies run in cycles as people pause in their efforts to make stuff (Supply) and their ability to buy and use stuff (Demand).
The issue, then, is how to smooth out these cycles to minimize the damage and suffering of as many people as possible. And if the private sector, including consumers and suppliers, cannot or will not smooth out a cycle, it falls to government.
How can government do this? Simply by increasing demand for stuff, be it products, services or anything else.
One proven way is through infrastructure spending on things like roads, bridges, and other major projects. By doing this, government arranges contracts with businesses, which hire more workers, who then have jobs and wages, which enables them to buy food, clothing and shelter, which increases demand for that stuff, and the cycle picks up.
Yes, government goes into debt to do this, but as the economy accelerates and business and consumer income improves, so also does tax revenue, and the government pays back the borrowed money.
Moreover, when rates of interest are near zero, as they are now, it's a clear advantage for government to borrow and spend if the result will be an improved economy.
However, there remains a committed few who so firmly believe that government has no role in an economy that they are willing to wait years for things to revive on their own.
But what if they don't?
That happened in the 1920s, as conservatives insisted on watching and waiting. That was good enough for the wealthy, who lived largely on investment or inherited income and actually benefitted from lower prices. But those who depended on wages and were out of work only went hungry.
The solution, then, was for government to step in and increase spending, thus providing jobs and wages for workers who then stimulated the recovery.
The current recovery from the Great Recession of eight years ago is not as strong as it could or should be, and the nation's central bank has been trying to stimulate the recovery by making more money available through low interest rates, which theoretically encourages borrowing and investment by private enterprise, in turn boosting economic growth.
The federal government, however, has been hobbled in efforts to encourage infrastructure spending by opposition politicians more concerned with votes than with consumer prosperity.
Why? One political party has historically been associated with Big Business and the Investor Class than with Wage Earners.
"The people have no bread," said the advisors. "Well then, let them eat cake," said Marie Antoinette.
The economy is like the weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it.
That's not quite true, actually. People in business talk about it but insist nobody should interfere with their cherished "free enterprise" belief.
People in academia talk about it endlessly, and even offer suggestions on how to improve it, but they don't have the ability or resources to do anything.
That leaves people in government, who talk about it and listen to academic suggestions, and are willing and able to do something about, if they can get past the political objectors who insist nothing can be done about it.
The general public, meaning consumers who are the primary driving force of a growing economy, are left between the proverbial rock and hard place.
Consumers want to spend more money and buy more stuff, but when they're out of work or their wages are stagnant, and suppliers cut back on making stuff because they think there's a declining demand, round and round the two sides go while the economy recedes.
So if consumers cannot or will not increase their demand for more stuff, and suppliers suspect they won't, who's left to step in and boost demand, which in turn stimulates supply?
Government, that's who. Call it Demand Side Economics. Then when the national economy gathers momentum of its own, government can pull back and refocus on the things that only government can do.
All the while, conservatives insist that government should in no way interfere with private enterprise and eventually things will work out and the economy will improve.
We should live so long.
At its most basic, economics is the study of what people do with what's available, and economies run in cycles as people pause in their efforts to make stuff (Supply) and their ability to buy and use stuff (Demand).
The issue, then, is how to smooth out these cycles to minimize the damage and suffering of as many people as possible. And if the private sector, including consumers and suppliers, cannot or will not smooth out a cycle, it falls to government.
How can government do this? Simply by increasing demand for stuff, be it products, services or anything else.
One proven way is through infrastructure spending on things like roads, bridges, and other major projects. By doing this, government arranges contracts with businesses, which hire more workers, who then have jobs and wages, which enables them to buy food, clothing and shelter, which increases demand for that stuff, and the cycle picks up.
Yes, government goes into debt to do this, but as the economy accelerates and business and consumer income improves, so also does tax revenue, and the government pays back the borrowed money.
Moreover, when rates of interest are near zero, as they are now, it's a clear advantage for government to borrow and spend if the result will be an improved economy.
However, there remains a committed few who so firmly believe that government has no role in an economy that they are willing to wait years for things to revive on their own.
But what if they don't?
That happened in the 1920s, as conservatives insisted on watching and waiting. That was good enough for the wealthy, who lived largely on investment or inherited income and actually benefitted from lower prices. But those who depended on wages and were out of work only went hungry.
The solution, then, was for government to step in and increase spending, thus providing jobs and wages for workers who then stimulated the recovery.
The current recovery from the Great Recession of eight years ago is not as strong as it could or should be, and the nation's central bank has been trying to stimulate the recovery by making more money available through low interest rates, which theoretically encourages borrowing and investment by private enterprise, in turn boosting economic growth.
The federal government, however, has been hobbled in efforts to encourage infrastructure spending by opposition politicians more concerned with votes than with consumer prosperity.
Why? One political party has historically been associated with Big Business and the Investor Class than with Wage Earners.
"The people have no bread," said the advisors. "Well then, let them eat cake," said Marie Antoinette.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Isolationism Redux
"Peace through strength, or failing that, peace through threat." -- Roman Emperor Hadrian (AD 76-138).
Donald Trump revived the first part of that motto at a political rally in Virginia Saturday, but did not attribute it to Emperor Hadrian or to President Ronald Reagan, who also used the phrase.
Trump did not mention the second clause, "peace through threat," nor did he note that Hadrian is also famous for building a wall in Britain to keep out the Scots from the rest of the island.
Trump's speech was heavy on isolationism, emphasizing that his policies would be to "reject globalism" as part of his "America first" campaign.
Otherwise, the speech contained many of his usual bromides about bringing back manufacturing jobs and increasing wages, while increasing military spending and eliminating the so-called "death tax," especially on family owned farms. His energy program seemed to consist mainly of "putting coal miners and steel back to work," because the increased use of "clean coal" for America's energy needs would somehow also solve the issue of global warming. Check that: He used the phrase "global warming" once, but did not return to it or give any details on how to deal with it.
Trump did stress the importance of eliminating the "death tax," or estate tax on family owned farms, but did not mention the detail that the tax applied only to family inheritances valued in excess of $10.9 million, and that the tax was levied on only the portion above that level. Few family farms in America would be affected by the cut, since they are not subject to the tax.
As for idea of putting more people to work mining coal, one wonders how many parents in coal mining towns want their children to do that, rather than seek higher skill, higher education, higher paying jobs in such fields as technology.
So while the candidate may believe he is echoing President Ronald Reagan with the "Peace through strength" motto, he is really reviving the wall-building, isolationist, militaristic, policies of ancient Rome, which also emphasized the threat of force.
Another suggestion common to Trump speeches.
Donald Trump revived the first part of that motto at a political rally in Virginia Saturday, but did not attribute it to Emperor Hadrian or to President Ronald Reagan, who also used the phrase.
Trump did not mention the second clause, "peace through threat," nor did he note that Hadrian is also famous for building a wall in Britain to keep out the Scots from the rest of the island.
Trump's speech was heavy on isolationism, emphasizing that his policies would be to "reject globalism" as part of his "America first" campaign.
Otherwise, the speech contained many of his usual bromides about bringing back manufacturing jobs and increasing wages, while increasing military spending and eliminating the so-called "death tax," especially on family owned farms. His energy program seemed to consist mainly of "putting coal miners and steel back to work," because the increased use of "clean coal" for America's energy needs would somehow also solve the issue of global warming. Check that: He used the phrase "global warming" once, but did not return to it or give any details on how to deal with it.
Trump did stress the importance of eliminating the "death tax," or estate tax on family owned farms, but did not mention the detail that the tax applied only to family inheritances valued in excess of $10.9 million, and that the tax was levied on only the portion above that level. Few family farms in America would be affected by the cut, since they are not subject to the tax.
As for idea of putting more people to work mining coal, one wonders how many parents in coal mining towns want their children to do that, rather than seek higher skill, higher education, higher paying jobs in such fields as technology.
So while the candidate may believe he is echoing President Ronald Reagan with the "Peace through strength" motto, he is really reviving the wall-building, isolationist, militaristic, policies of ancient Rome, which also emphasized the threat of force.
Another suggestion common to Trump speeches.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Fed Watching
The U.S. Federal Reserve is waiting for more signs of economic health before prescribing a higher interest rate dose to settle the nation's growth rate.
Bankers, however, aren't waiting, moving to boost rates to consumers even as they benefit from continuing low borrowing rates themselves.
Chase, for example, is raising credit card rates for consumers seeking cash advances by about 5 percentage points, to a bit over 24 percent annually.
The prime rate, the level for major borrowers that serves as a benchmark for credit card rates, has been steady at 3.5 percent.
The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, is holding its key lending rate at near zero, where it has been for months.
One reason for the Fed's caution is international. While America's economy is doing OK, that's not really enough, since conditions in other major nations are not signaling good economic health.
Europe, for example, is wary about the economic fallout of Brexit, the proposal that the United Kingdom leave the European Union. And within the British Isles, there is an attempt to cancel the vote that would have the UK leave the EU. If that happens, the peace agreement between Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, could also collapse.
In turn, the uncertainty over Brexit is rattling through the financial and economic system that had been holding the European market together.
In all, the U.S. Fed is keeping a wary eye on international developments, because any move to raise interest rates here could be the first domino in a worldwide reaction.
Bankers, however, aren't waiting, moving to boost rates to consumers even as they benefit from continuing low borrowing rates themselves.
Chase, for example, is raising credit card rates for consumers seeking cash advances by about 5 percentage points, to a bit over 24 percent annually.
The prime rate, the level for major borrowers that serves as a benchmark for credit card rates, has been steady at 3.5 percent.
The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, is holding its key lending rate at near zero, where it has been for months.
One reason for the Fed's caution is international. While America's economy is doing OK, that's not really enough, since conditions in other major nations are not signaling good economic health.
Europe, for example, is wary about the economic fallout of Brexit, the proposal that the United Kingdom leave the European Union. And within the British Isles, there is an attempt to cancel the vote that would have the UK leave the EU. If that happens, the peace agreement between Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, could also collapse.
In turn, the uncertainty over Brexit is rattling through the financial and economic system that had been holding the European market together.
In all, the U.S. Fed is keeping a wary eye on international developments, because any move to raise interest rates here could be the first domino in a worldwide reaction.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Partisan Propaganda and Policing the Press
Ethical journalism is not an oxymoron
Ignoring reporters does not mean the story goes away.
In a free society, a free press has an important role in providing information people need. It may not always be what they want to hear, but it is essential information they need to know. Many business and political leaders feel that if they don't respond to reporters' questions, that means the press can't print the story.
Not true.
Usually, that only leads to a brief sentence in the report noting that there was no response to phone calls or emails or direct, personal questions requesting comment. Readers can then speculate as to why there was no response.
Meanwhile, reporters keep digging for more detail, especially on why the business executive or politician refuses to answer questions posed on behalf of the general public.
In short, reporters have as much right to important information as any other citizen. It is only that journalists ask on behalf of the public.
Moreover, when it comes to how well they do their jobs, they answer to their editors and readers, not to politicians or corporate executives. If they did, that would mean control of the press by the politicians, government and big business.
Not that politicians don't try. So do candidates, who also believe that by refusing to answer or by attacking the messenger, the issue goes away.
In the current electoral campaign, one candidate gives long, rambling answers that ignore the premise of the question, or criticizes the reporter for daring to ask a penetrating question.
Another candidate avoids taking questions from the press at all, and rarely holds a news conference.
One wonders why.
Could it be that both are unsure of their ability to control the message and respond coherently, or that at some deeper level they both want to control the news media?
That's not public relations, but propaganda.
Ignoring reporters does not mean the story goes away.
In a free society, a free press has an important role in providing information people need. It may not always be what they want to hear, but it is essential information they need to know. Many business and political leaders feel that if they don't respond to reporters' questions, that means the press can't print the story.
Not true.
Usually, that only leads to a brief sentence in the report noting that there was no response to phone calls or emails or direct, personal questions requesting comment. Readers can then speculate as to why there was no response.
Meanwhile, reporters keep digging for more detail, especially on why the business executive or politician refuses to answer questions posed on behalf of the general public.
In short, reporters have as much right to important information as any other citizen. It is only that journalists ask on behalf of the public.
Moreover, when it comes to how well they do their jobs, they answer to their editors and readers, not to politicians or corporate executives. If they did, that would mean control of the press by the politicians, government and big business.
Not that politicians don't try. So do candidates, who also believe that by refusing to answer or by attacking the messenger, the issue goes away.
In the current electoral campaign, one candidate gives long, rambling answers that ignore the premise of the question, or criticizes the reporter for daring to ask a penetrating question.
Another candidate avoids taking questions from the press at all, and rarely holds a news conference.
One wonders why.
Could it be that both are unsure of their ability to control the message and respond coherently, or that at some deeper level they both want to control the news media?
That's not public relations, but propaganda.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Clinton Coverage
An informed public is the bedrock of a free society.
The opposition charges that the "biased media" fails to report Hillary Clinton's transgressions, and that journalists do not devote the right amount of space and time to the various problems and negative issues involving the Democratic nominee for President.
They cite issues like the Benghazi incident and her responsibility while she was Secretary of State.
Or the Clinton Foundation, and the propriety of accepting donations to the charity from foreign donors.
Or the security of her private email system, which she used while Secretary of State. (Members of Congress also use their own email systems to receive and send government materials, some of which were classified.)
Or her support, later withdrawn, of an international trade agreement, after an amendment was attached that was contrary to American interests.
But if the news media have been ignoring these issues, as Republicans allege, how is it that readers and TV viewers know about them already?
And if there are other issues that have not been publicized, what are they? Tell journalists what they are, or at least suggest where they may be found and documented, and reporters will check them and then run the stories. And if you insist on anonymity, as many initial sources do, journalists will find additional sources to confirm the allegations.
Meanwhile, prosecutors will track down proof of any illegal activities and file charges.
Otherwise, if GOP operatives persist in calling the Democratic nominee "crooked Hillary," journalists will ask for evidence and proof of such allegations.
Along the way, editors will continue to select the more juicy stories. If that means putting one candidate's proven falsehoods, inane assertions, dangerous and unconstitutional proposals on the top of Page One, that's part of the job.
The opposition charges that the "biased media" fails to report Hillary Clinton's transgressions, and that journalists do not devote the right amount of space and time to the various problems and negative issues involving the Democratic nominee for President.
They cite issues like the Benghazi incident and her responsibility while she was Secretary of State.
Or the Clinton Foundation, and the propriety of accepting donations to the charity from foreign donors.
Or the security of her private email system, which she used while Secretary of State. (Members of Congress also use their own email systems to receive and send government materials, some of which were classified.)
Or her support, later withdrawn, of an international trade agreement, after an amendment was attached that was contrary to American interests.
But if the news media have been ignoring these issues, as Republicans allege, how is it that readers and TV viewers know about them already?
And if there are other issues that have not been publicized, what are they? Tell journalists what they are, or at least suggest where they may be found and documented, and reporters will check them and then run the stories. And if you insist on anonymity, as many initial sources do, journalists will find additional sources to confirm the allegations.
Meanwhile, prosecutors will track down proof of any illegal activities and file charges.
Otherwise, if GOP operatives persist in calling the Democratic nominee "crooked Hillary," journalists will ask for evidence and proof of such allegations.
Along the way, editors will continue to select the more juicy stories. If that means putting one candidate's proven falsehoods, inane assertions, dangerous and unconstitutional proposals on the top of Page One, that's part of the job.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Macho Manifesto
Quotes from the Man Who Would be President
"I'd like to punch him in the face."
"Bomb the hell out of them."
"Back in the old days, he'd be taken out on a stretcher."
"I could shoot somebody in broad daylight, and not lose any votes."
On a crying baby: "Get him out of here."
"The only way I can lose (in Pennsylvania) is if they cheat."
Send civilian terrorist suspects for trial in military courts.
Bring back waterboarding.
The election system is already "rigged against me."
President Barack Obama "is the founder of ISIS," and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton "is a co-founder."
In an earlier pronouncement on international relations, Donald Trump urged "a total and complete ban on all Muslims entering the United States until our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on."
When it was pointed out that such a procedure would clash with the Constitutional principle banning any religious test in America, he modified his position somewhat.
Today, however, he called for "extreme vetting" of immigrants through an "ideological test" such that the nation would "admit only those who share our values," and not allow entry by "those who believe Sharia law should supplant American law."
How this new test would comply with Article VI of the Constitution was not explained.
"I'd like to punch him in the face."
"Bomb the hell out of them."
"Back in the old days, he'd be taken out on a stretcher."
"I could shoot somebody in broad daylight, and not lose any votes."
On a crying baby: "Get him out of here."
"The only way I can lose (in Pennsylvania) is if they cheat."
Send civilian terrorist suspects for trial in military courts.
Bring back waterboarding.
The election system is already "rigged against me."
President Barack Obama "is the founder of ISIS," and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton "is a co-founder."
In an earlier pronouncement on international relations, Donald Trump urged "a total and complete ban on all Muslims entering the United States until our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on."
When it was pointed out that such a procedure would clash with the Constitutional principle banning any religious test in America, he modified his position somewhat.
Today, however, he called for "extreme vetting" of immigrants through an "ideological test" such that the nation would "admit only those who share our values," and not allow entry by "those who believe Sharia law should supplant American law."
How this new test would comply with Article VI of the Constitution was not explained.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
Spry
It has finally happened, and is now apparently official. Paul McCartney is now old and therefore can be referred to as "spry." At least, that's the term used in a New York Times report the other day. Specifically, the reviewer called him "very spry."
Why is that reporters, usually young writers, label anyone over the age of 70 who can still walk as "spry"?
Many entertainers continue to perform well into their 80s. The same goes for people in general. Paul McCartney is 74, so by comparison to other, even older people still active in show business, he is still a "whippersnapper."
Mick Jagger is now 73, Paul Simon is 74, Barbra Streisand is 74, and Tony Bennett is still singing at 90.
Are they all "spry"?
Beyond the entertainment field, there are many thousands of people in business and other areas who are still active and productive. And believe it or not, they can still walk and think at the same time, even as they work in their 70s, 80s and 90s.
Ronald Reagan was 70 when he was elected President, and served two terms. Many members of Congress currently serving are over 70. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is 74. Sen. John McCain of Arizona is now 79, and will mark his 80th birthday at the end of this month.
Pope Francis is now 79, and will turn 80 in December. And Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain is 90.
Are they also "spry"?
Why is that reporters, usually young writers, label anyone over the age of 70 who can still walk as "spry"?
Many entertainers continue to perform well into their 80s. The same goes for people in general. Paul McCartney is 74, so by comparison to other, even older people still active in show business, he is still a "whippersnapper."
Mick Jagger is now 73, Paul Simon is 74, Barbra Streisand is 74, and Tony Bennett is still singing at 90.
Are they all "spry"?
Beyond the entertainment field, there are many thousands of people in business and other areas who are still active and productive. And believe it or not, they can still walk and think at the same time, even as they work in their 70s, 80s and 90s.
Ronald Reagan was 70 when he was elected President, and served two terms. Many members of Congress currently serving are over 70. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is 74. Sen. John McCain of Arizona is now 79, and will mark his 80th birthday at the end of this month.
Pope Francis is now 79, and will turn 80 in December. And Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain is 90.
Are they also "spry"?
Saturday, August 13, 2016
Rigged System
The candidate claims the system is rigged against him, and that's why he could lose in November.
Yes, the system is indeed "rigged." It is arranged in such a way as to prevent demagogues, dictators and incipient tyrants from taking over the government.
Those who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America knew the dangers of a too-powerful leader of a government, so they set things up so there would be three independent, separate and equal branches of government, with a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from attaining too much power.
Some have tried, and it can be argued that some have come close to succeeding. But the system is set up so that no demagogue can become President simply by a plurality of votes. Instead, each state chooses electors, who then meet to select a President.
Later, if the person selected perpetrates any "treason, high crimes or misdemeanors," that person can be impeached by the House of Representatives, then face trial by the full Senate, presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Only two Presidents have been impeached -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- but neither was convicted. A House committee approved articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full House voted on the document, so he was not impeached or convicted.
This year, citizens of America are asked to choose a man who insists the system is rigged against him, and the only way he can lose is if the other side cheats.
A hundred years ago, such antics may have worked on a local or a major city level, and even in a few states, but not even Tammany Hall could do it nationally.
So yes, Donald, the system is "rigged," and you are very likely to lose. Not because of cheating, but because the system works, and has worked quite well for more than 200 years.
Yes, the system is indeed "rigged." It is arranged in such a way as to prevent demagogues, dictators and incipient tyrants from taking over the government.
Those who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America knew the dangers of a too-powerful leader of a government, so they set things up so there would be three independent, separate and equal branches of government, with a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from attaining too much power.
Some have tried, and it can be argued that some have come close to succeeding. But the system is set up so that no demagogue can become President simply by a plurality of votes. Instead, each state chooses electors, who then meet to select a President.
Later, if the person selected perpetrates any "treason, high crimes or misdemeanors," that person can be impeached by the House of Representatives, then face trial by the full Senate, presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Only two Presidents have been impeached -- Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton -- but neither was convicted. A House committee approved articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full House voted on the document, so he was not impeached or convicted.
This year, citizens of America are asked to choose a man who insists the system is rigged against him, and the only way he can lose is if the other side cheats.
A hundred years ago, such antics may have worked on a local or a major city level, and even in a few states, but not even Tammany Hall could do it nationally.
So yes, Donald, the system is "rigged," and you are very likely to lose. Not because of cheating, but because the system works, and has worked quite well for more than 200 years.
Friday, August 12, 2016
Trading Partners
For the all the political complaining about international trade, it's time to take a quick look at just how important it really is. It's certainly a big part of the American economy, and there's a lot of talk about "free trade," even as candidates call for import taxes (tariffs) on goods made in other countries, and more openings for American goods to be sold (exported) to others.
That's not "free" trade, since it is an attempt to restrict trading to benefit one side and punish another. Quickly, a tariff war starts, and consumer prices rise on both sides, and retaliation escalates, and nobody wins. That happened in the 1930s, and worsened the worldwide Great Depression.
Totally "free" trade isn't the answer, either, because a wealthier side can easily undercut the other so that one side ends up with all the money and the other side ends up in poverty. But that's OK, say the winners. We'll just go on to the next customer and sell our stuff to them, and fix it so they can't sell stuff to us.
That's called colonialism, and soon enough the winner runs out of customers entirely. So the winner becomes the wealthiest country in the world and everyone else has little or nothing. That too is OK, say the winners, since we're the richest and the biggest, they'll do what we tell them, because we're better than they are.
But being a bigger and richer person doesn't make you a better person. Trade is a two-way deal, and for both sides to grow, each side must benefit.
At the moment, China's economy is growing at the rate of more than 6 percent yearly, compared to America's growth rate of less than 2 percent. Is this bad? No, because America is already highly developed, and China is just getting started. Just as a teenager grows faster than an adult, a new economy grows faster until it matures, and settles into slower growth.
It is true that America's trade deficit with China is large and growing. During the first six months of this year, China exported $212.2 billion worth of stuff to the U.S., and imported only $51.2 billion worth. But that's partly because production costs are much lower in China, and American workers are generally more skilled, more highly educated, and are more highly paid. In case you hadn't noticed, the Garment District left New York City decades ago.
Moreover, China is not America's biggest trading partner. That ranking goes to Canada, with a total of $270.8 billion of stuff going back and forth -- $134 billion going to Canada and $137 billion imported from Canada.
In third place is Mexico, with a total trade with the U.S. valued at $259 billion during the first half of 2016.
And with an economic growth rate of an estimated 6.6 percent this year, according to data from the International Monetary Fund, China's economy is "rebalancing, from industry to services, and from investment to consumption." These are both signs of a maturing economy.
The world's largest economy is the U.S. with some $18 trillion worth of goods and services produced yearly.
It's important to remember that international trade is just that, an exchange of business, goods and services between separate, independent nations. For one nation, even if larger and stronger, to dominate and squeeze more benefits from another nation is not really "free" trade, nor is it "fair" trade. Instead, it is a form of commercial colonialism that reduces one trading partner while it enriches the dominant nation. In turn, the resentment that such a situation creates quickly leads to tariff wars, trade wars and, sooner or later, to real war.
That's not "free" trade, since it is an attempt to restrict trading to benefit one side and punish another. Quickly, a tariff war starts, and consumer prices rise on both sides, and retaliation escalates, and nobody wins. That happened in the 1930s, and worsened the worldwide Great Depression.
Totally "free" trade isn't the answer, either, because a wealthier side can easily undercut the other so that one side ends up with all the money and the other side ends up in poverty. But that's OK, say the winners. We'll just go on to the next customer and sell our stuff to them, and fix it so they can't sell stuff to us.
That's called colonialism, and soon enough the winner runs out of customers entirely. So the winner becomes the wealthiest country in the world and everyone else has little or nothing. That too is OK, say the winners, since we're the richest and the biggest, they'll do what we tell them, because we're better than they are.
But being a bigger and richer person doesn't make you a better person. Trade is a two-way deal, and for both sides to grow, each side must benefit.
At the moment, China's economy is growing at the rate of more than 6 percent yearly, compared to America's growth rate of less than 2 percent. Is this bad? No, because America is already highly developed, and China is just getting started. Just as a teenager grows faster than an adult, a new economy grows faster until it matures, and settles into slower growth.
It is true that America's trade deficit with China is large and growing. During the first six months of this year, China exported $212.2 billion worth of stuff to the U.S., and imported only $51.2 billion worth. But that's partly because production costs are much lower in China, and American workers are generally more skilled, more highly educated, and are more highly paid. In case you hadn't noticed, the Garment District left New York City decades ago.
Moreover, China is not America's biggest trading partner. That ranking goes to Canada, with a total of $270.8 billion of stuff going back and forth -- $134 billion going to Canada and $137 billion imported from Canada.
In third place is Mexico, with a total trade with the U.S. valued at $259 billion during the first half of 2016.
And with an economic growth rate of an estimated 6.6 percent this year, according to data from the International Monetary Fund, China's economy is "rebalancing, from industry to services, and from investment to consumption." These are both signs of a maturing economy.
The world's largest economy is the U.S. with some $18 trillion worth of goods and services produced yearly.
It's important to remember that international trade is just that, an exchange of business, goods and services between separate, independent nations. For one nation, even if larger and stronger, to dominate and squeeze more benefits from another nation is not really "free" trade, nor is it "fair" trade. Instead, it is a form of commercial colonialism that reduces one trading partner while it enriches the dominant nation. In turn, the resentment that such a situation creates quickly leads to tariff wars, trade wars and, sooner or later, to real war.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Say What?
Words matter.
If this be treason, where is your evidence?
Every time it seems Donald Trump has finally crossed the line of civil discourse and acceptable behavior, he moves the line.
Now it is the patently false statement that U.S. President Barack Obama is a founder of ISIS, the Middle East terrorist group, and that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is a co-founder.
This is an accusation of treason, an impeachable offense for the President and a criminal offense for the candidate. If Trump has evidence, it's time to put up or shut up.
Even when conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt offered a lifeline from the most outrageous accusation of the year, suggesting that U.S. policy "created a vacuum" that enabled the rise of the terrorist organization, the Republican nominee for the presidency replied, "No, no, I meant that he is a founder of ISIS."
All the while, he and his supporters continue to vilify the news media, blaming journalists for causing all the negative reactions to the candidate's trash talk.
Sure.
He didn't really mean it, they insist. Or, what he really meant was ... Or, it was just a joke. Or, that's not really what he said.
However, The Dark One said it at least four times in a single day, using identical phrasing each time. And it was equally false each time, since ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) was formed before Obama took office, and before Clinton became Secretary of State.
Nevertheless, the Darklings blame television news and print publications for reporting what the candidate says, charging that all the coverage is biased, phony, dishonest, unfair, etc.
By their standards, the only reports worth considering are those that agree with and praise their candidate, even when there are no negative adjectives, and only accurate transcriptions of what the candidate said.
The current defensiveness goes beyond the "what he really meant was ... " denials and explanations. In this case, Trump ignored a clarification line offered him by Hewitt, and repeated his accusation that the President and the Democratic candidate are "cofounders of ISIS."
Is this reaching a new level of ludicrous stupidity, or is it a revival of the Big Lie technique? This strategy holds that if you say something loud enough, long enough, firmly enough, to enough people, some will believe you.
Moreover, there is also the reality that there is always a hard core of True Believers who will accept anything and everything their beloved Fearless Leader says, no matter how strange, inane, outrageous, weird, false or downright stupid the allegation is.
Meanwhile, it is the duty and responsibility of the Fourth Estate to record, report, publicize and expose any candidate's comments, claims and accusations.
And that, by itself, is journalism's most effective strategy in helping to protect a free society.
It may be easy to say, "Ignore him and he'll go away soon enough." But this one is not going away. In fact, he has already set himself up to be a martyr when he loses in November. "The system is rigged against me," he insists. Therefore, his loss will be proof that he was right. And this is characteristic of his lifelong behavior, that he believes himself right in all things all the time, and anyone who disagrees with him in any detail at any time, no matter how trivial the detail, is by his definition wrong.
So on November 9, the day after election day, he can explain his loss by saying, "See? I told you so. The system is rigged."
As for ignoring the blustering, bullying, political braggart in the hope that he will soon go away, historically that strategy has been used before, and many can recall the results in other countries.
Meanwhile, this election campaign is too important to ignore.
If this be treason, where is your evidence?
Every time it seems Donald Trump has finally crossed the line of civil discourse and acceptable behavior, he moves the line.
Now it is the patently false statement that U.S. President Barack Obama is a founder of ISIS, the Middle East terrorist group, and that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is a co-founder.
This is an accusation of treason, an impeachable offense for the President and a criminal offense for the candidate. If Trump has evidence, it's time to put up or shut up.
Even when conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt offered a lifeline from the most outrageous accusation of the year, suggesting that U.S. policy "created a vacuum" that enabled the rise of the terrorist organization, the Republican nominee for the presidency replied, "No, no, I meant that he is a founder of ISIS."
All the while, he and his supporters continue to vilify the news media, blaming journalists for causing all the negative reactions to the candidate's trash talk.
Sure.
He didn't really mean it, they insist. Or, what he really meant was ... Or, it was just a joke. Or, that's not really what he said.
However, The Dark One said it at least four times in a single day, using identical phrasing each time. And it was equally false each time, since ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) was formed before Obama took office, and before Clinton became Secretary of State.
Nevertheless, the Darklings blame television news and print publications for reporting what the candidate says, charging that all the coverage is biased, phony, dishonest, unfair, etc.
By their standards, the only reports worth considering are those that agree with and praise their candidate, even when there are no negative adjectives, and only accurate transcriptions of what the candidate said.
The current defensiveness goes beyond the "what he really meant was ... " denials and explanations. In this case, Trump ignored a clarification line offered him by Hewitt, and repeated his accusation that the President and the Democratic candidate are "cofounders of ISIS."
Is this reaching a new level of ludicrous stupidity, or is it a revival of the Big Lie technique? This strategy holds that if you say something loud enough, long enough, firmly enough, to enough people, some will believe you.
Moreover, there is also the reality that there is always a hard core of True Believers who will accept anything and everything their beloved Fearless Leader says, no matter how strange, inane, outrageous, weird, false or downright stupid the allegation is.
Meanwhile, it is the duty and responsibility of the Fourth Estate to record, report, publicize and expose any candidate's comments, claims and accusations.
And that, by itself, is journalism's most effective strategy in helping to protect a free society.
It may be easy to say, "Ignore him and he'll go away soon enough." But this one is not going away. In fact, he has already set himself up to be a martyr when he loses in November. "The system is rigged against me," he insists. Therefore, his loss will be proof that he was right. And this is characteristic of his lifelong behavior, that he believes himself right in all things all the time, and anyone who disagrees with him in any detail at any time, no matter how trivial the detail, is by his definition wrong.
So on November 9, the day after election day, he can explain his loss by saying, "See? I told you so. The system is rigged."
As for ignoring the blustering, bullying, political braggart in the hope that he will soon go away, historically that strategy has been used before, and many can recall the results in other countries.
Meanwhile, this election campaign is too important to ignore.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Media Mulligan
Amateur golfers are fond of "taking a mulligan," or not counting a swing when they miss or they send the ball to a particularly undesirable place.
Political candidates, however, have no such option. Instead, they blame the news media for 1/ misquoting them or 2/ taking their comment out of context or 3/ deliberating emphasizing one comment when others in the speech are, to them, "far more important," and reporters do all this because they are 4/ unfair, incompetent, and out to sabotage their candidacy.
Or all of the above.
Here are the defenses:
1/ To the charge of misquoting, roll the video.
2/ Out of context, roll the full video.
3/ The comment quoted has more news value. Other elements of the speech are also used later in the coverage.
4/ Any sabotage that happens comes from your own speech and actions.
Some candidates try to walk back comments from negative reactions by rephrasing, claiming "what I really meant was ..." Response: We report what you said. If you meant something else, you should have said something else.
Others double down on what they said, and insist that reporters "are just picking on me. They're all unfair."
Another tactic is to accuse news media of bias, selecting some aspects of the speech when the candidate insists some other aspect of the speech is more important. Sorry, Mr. Candidate, you don't get to decide how the news story is handled. You don't control the press.
Journalists don't destroy your credibility; you do that well enough on your own.
A political candidate who happens to own several golf courses is no doubt aware that newbie golfers try to take a mulligan when something they do lands in the rough.
That, however, does not apply in politics. You don't get a do-over when something you say or do puts your ball in deep water.
This week, GOP candidate Donald Trump pointed out that if Hillary Clinton becomes President, she will destroy the Second Amendment, unless gun owners take some action. After the backfire, Trump and his supporters tried to explain that he meant such people should exercise their right to vote, thus presenting a Clinton presidency.
But that's not what he said. If that's what he meant to say, he should have said that in the first place.
Moreover, an important thing to remember is that Presidents cannot change the Constitution on their own. An amendment must first be proposed and approved by Congress, then submitted to the states, where a two-thirds majority of all the states is needed before the change becomes valid.
Meanwhile, many Americans, including many leaders of his own party, criticized the Republican nominee for his remarks, which many took to suggest an assassination attempt on the Democratic candidate after a victory in the November general election.
The mulligan cry immediately went up, with a chorus of Trump supporters chanting the usual claims of being misquoted, what he really meant was encouraging voter turnout, and that the news media deliberately distorted his words.
Distorted? Roll the video.
Misquoted? Roll the video.
Meant something else? This game is not for duffers. Say what you mean the first time.
As for not having news value, what can be more important than a threat -- real or implied -- to assassinate a sitting President of the United States of America? Or even a candidate for that office.
Political candidates, however, have no such option. Instead, they blame the news media for 1/ misquoting them or 2/ taking their comment out of context or 3/ deliberating emphasizing one comment when others in the speech are, to them, "far more important," and reporters do all this because they are 4/ unfair, incompetent, and out to sabotage their candidacy.
Or all of the above.
Here are the defenses:
1/ To the charge of misquoting, roll the video.
2/ Out of context, roll the full video.
3/ The comment quoted has more news value. Other elements of the speech are also used later in the coverage.
4/ Any sabotage that happens comes from your own speech and actions.
Some candidates try to walk back comments from negative reactions by rephrasing, claiming "what I really meant was ..." Response: We report what you said. If you meant something else, you should have said something else.
Others double down on what they said, and insist that reporters "are just picking on me. They're all unfair."
Another tactic is to accuse news media of bias, selecting some aspects of the speech when the candidate insists some other aspect of the speech is more important. Sorry, Mr. Candidate, you don't get to decide how the news story is handled. You don't control the press.
Journalists don't destroy your credibility; you do that well enough on your own.
A political candidate who happens to own several golf courses is no doubt aware that newbie golfers try to take a mulligan when something they do lands in the rough.
That, however, does not apply in politics. You don't get a do-over when something you say or do puts your ball in deep water.
This week, GOP candidate Donald Trump pointed out that if Hillary Clinton becomes President, she will destroy the Second Amendment, unless gun owners take some action. After the backfire, Trump and his supporters tried to explain that he meant such people should exercise their right to vote, thus presenting a Clinton presidency.
But that's not what he said. If that's what he meant to say, he should have said that in the first place.
Moreover, an important thing to remember is that Presidents cannot change the Constitution on their own. An amendment must first be proposed and approved by Congress, then submitted to the states, where a two-thirds majority of all the states is needed before the change becomes valid.
Meanwhile, many Americans, including many leaders of his own party, criticized the Republican nominee for his remarks, which many took to suggest an assassination attempt on the Democratic candidate after a victory in the November general election.
The mulligan cry immediately went up, with a chorus of Trump supporters chanting the usual claims of being misquoted, what he really meant was encouraging voter turnout, and that the news media deliberately distorted his words.
Distorted? Roll the video.
Misquoted? Roll the video.
Meant something else? This game is not for duffers. Say what you mean the first time.
As for not having news value, what can be more important than a threat -- real or implied -- to assassinate a sitting President of the United States of America? Or even a candidate for that office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)