Those who look for economic improvement in small signals will take some comfort in the news that personal income and spending both edged up in September, by three-tenths of a percent, according to the Department of Commerce. Inflation, meanwhile, as measured by the agency's price index, edged up at about the same rate -- two-tenths of a percent in September, or 1.2 percent from a year ago.
The unemployment rate has been holding steady, hovering at 5 percent or a trifle lower, and more people are working.
So is this good news for voters, or not? That partly depends on where you live, with workers in some parts of the nation doing OK, while in other regions not so good.
All of which makes for a difficult decision time at the nation's central bank, which is charged with trying to keep the overall economy on a relatively healthy growth path. That is to say, increasing output, full employment and low inflation. The Federal Reserve Board does this by adjusting the money supply, thus preventing an unsatisfactory leap in prices and encouraging a low unemployment rate.
So far, the strategy has been moderately successful, but if the Fed intervenes too soon or by too much, whatever growth rate the country has could be tripped up, sending the nation into an economic recession.
Therein lies the rub, especially just before a presidential election. Whether the Fed acts this week is an open question, but the smart money says no, for two reasons: The economic signals aren't strong enough, and it's too close to Election Day to avoid allegations of interfering in politics.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Then Again, Maybe Not
How many qualifiers can you count in the latest email claims against Hillary Clinton?
Scattered in the statements by FBI Director James Comey are phrases like these: The emails may be related, appear to be pertinent, and might be connected to the previous investigation, but we don't know the significance because we have not yet reviewed them and we don't know how long it will take to do that.
Say what?
Comey said the FBI found more emails that may be related to the earlier scandal about classified information transmitted on Clinton's email server. The agency says it has found more emails on a computer owned by the ex-husband of a top aide to Clinton. So that makes three degrees of separation: A computer used by Anthony Weiner, who is under investigation for alleged sexual misbehavior with a minor, supposedly held emails to or from Huma Abedin, his wife at the time, who is now a senior aide to Clinton, the Democratic nominee for President.
Are you confused yet?
The FBI director won't say whether or if any of the emails to or from Abedin contained classified material relevant to the former Secretary of State, noting that the agency hasn't yet looked at them. Further, with just ten days before Election Day, Comey says he doesn't know when the FBI will review the emails, nor how long that will take.
Meanwhile, Comey has been criticized for his timing in making the announcement, and Clinton has demanded that he release all the emails found on the Weiner-Abedin computer so voters will know what's what.
Translation: If you have any evidence, let's see it.
At the same time, Donald Trump has claimed vindication of his charges, notwithstanding the fact that no one has seen any of the emails.
Also, there is the issue of timing. Comey made his announcement little more than a week before Election Day, and faces accusations of trying to influence the election. But if he held the announcement until after the Election, he would be accused of failing his duty in addition to trying to influence the election.
Either way, he's a target. But at the root of the issue is this: What, if anything, is on the emails? Do they have any messages containing classified material? The earlier probe by the FBI and Congressional panels failed to turn up any evidence that warranted prosecution, although Clinton did acknowledge poor judgement in using a private server for government business.
As for current computer flap, there's no indication that Clinton had any contact with Weiner, the former congressman who left office under a cloud of misbehavior, and no evidence that Weiner's former wife used his machine to transmit or receive any classified material.
In fact, nobody seems to know yet what's on the Weiner machine at all.
But that hasn't stopped Republicans from claiming there is major proof of Clinton's wrongdoing.
So there may be something there. Then again, there may not.
Scattered in the statements by FBI Director James Comey are phrases like these: The emails may be related, appear to be pertinent, and might be connected to the previous investigation, but we don't know the significance because we have not yet reviewed them and we don't know how long it will take to do that.
Say what?
Comey said the FBI found more emails that may be related to the earlier scandal about classified information transmitted on Clinton's email server. The agency says it has found more emails on a computer owned by the ex-husband of a top aide to Clinton. So that makes three degrees of separation: A computer used by Anthony Weiner, who is under investigation for alleged sexual misbehavior with a minor, supposedly held emails to or from Huma Abedin, his wife at the time, who is now a senior aide to Clinton, the Democratic nominee for President.
Are you confused yet?
The FBI director won't say whether or if any of the emails to or from Abedin contained classified material relevant to the former Secretary of State, noting that the agency hasn't yet looked at them. Further, with just ten days before Election Day, Comey says he doesn't know when the FBI will review the emails, nor how long that will take.
Meanwhile, Comey has been criticized for his timing in making the announcement, and Clinton has demanded that he release all the emails found on the Weiner-Abedin computer so voters will know what's what.
Translation: If you have any evidence, let's see it.
At the same time, Donald Trump has claimed vindication of his charges, notwithstanding the fact that no one has seen any of the emails.
Also, there is the issue of timing. Comey made his announcement little more than a week before Election Day, and faces accusations of trying to influence the election. But if he held the announcement until after the Election, he would be accused of failing his duty in addition to trying to influence the election.
Either way, he's a target. But at the root of the issue is this: What, if anything, is on the emails? Do they have any messages containing classified material? The earlier probe by the FBI and Congressional panels failed to turn up any evidence that warranted prosecution, although Clinton did acknowledge poor judgement in using a private server for government business.
As for current computer flap, there's no indication that Clinton had any contact with Weiner, the former congressman who left office under a cloud of misbehavior, and no evidence that Weiner's former wife used his machine to transmit or receive any classified material.
In fact, nobody seems to know yet what's on the Weiner machine at all.
But that hasn't stopped Republicans from claiming there is major proof of Clinton's wrongdoing.
So there may be something there. Then again, there may not.
Politics and Grammar
One would like to think that hopeful political leaders would be proficient in the dominant language of their nation, especially those candidates who are native born.
One would like to think that.
Some lenience, of course, should be given to those for whom the dominant language is a second language, either because they are newcomers or because they are members of a minority society. America is and has always been a multi-lingual nation.
Nevertheless, voters prefer that political leaders be proficient in the dominant language spoken by most Americans -- in this case, English. That, however, is an accident of history, since other languages were spoken here long before Britain established its first colonies. Moreover, many native born Americans grow up speaking a different language, or dialectal variations of English according to geographic region or social level.
Resourceful politicians frequently change their mode of speaking according to their audience, ranging from Congressional gobbledygook to street-wise jargon or down-home slang.
In general, however, voters prefer to hear well-constructed sentences with clear phrasing and the socially preferred pronunciation of particular words.
Does this influence their decisions at the ballot box? To the extent that rambling, incomplete and garbled sentences indicate poorly thought out presentations of ideas, the answer is yes, even though that influence may be subconscious.
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.
One would like to think that.
Some lenience, of course, should be given to those for whom the dominant language is a second language, either because they are newcomers or because they are members of a minority society. America is and has always been a multi-lingual nation.
Nevertheless, voters prefer that political leaders be proficient in the dominant language spoken by most Americans -- in this case, English. That, however, is an accident of history, since other languages were spoken here long before Britain established its first colonies. Moreover, many native born Americans grow up speaking a different language, or dialectal variations of English according to geographic region or social level.
Resourceful politicians frequently change their mode of speaking according to their audience, ranging from Congressional gobbledygook to street-wise jargon or down-home slang.
In general, however, voters prefer to hear well-constructed sentences with clear phrasing and the socially preferred pronunciation of particular words.
Does this influence their decisions at the ballot box? To the extent that rambling, incomplete and garbled sentences indicate poorly thought out presentations of ideas, the answer is yes, even though that influence may be subconscious.
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Econ Roundup
Here's a quick roundup of a few numbers showing the state of the economy in America. Whether these will satisfy those who believe the nation is drowning remains an open question.
Total output of goods and services expanded by 2.9 percent in the third quarter, pay to workers rose by 2.3 percent in September compared to a year ago, new home sales jumped 29.8 percent from a year ago, the home ownership rate nationwide is stable at 63.5 percent, and the rental vacancy rate was 6.8 percent in the third quarter, down from 7.3 percent a year ago.
So for seven years running, the economy has been improving. Some 15 million more people are working compared to 2009, the unemployment rate is steady at about 5 percent, fewer people are applying for unemployment relief, and disposable personal income is up.
Total output, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with its jump of 2.9 percent, was a strong acceleration from the 1.4 percent posted in the second quarter, and 0.8 percent in the first three months of the year.
These are all good signs, and political candidates will make much of them as Election Day nears. But there is also a danger that the Federal Reserve will get edgy and decide to tap the economic brakes to avoid a too-rapid expansion with its concurrent high inflation.
The Fed does this by manipulating the nation's money supply and thus interest rates. When plenty of money is available, theoretically people buy more stuff, interest rates go down and companies invest in more production. The downside is that prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
America's current expansion is now a seven-year party, and many feel they still haven't gotten to the punch bowl. That leaves economic monitors and government agencies with the question of whether to refill the punch bowl or take it away.
Meanwhile, other major nations have enjoyed prosperity growth lasting nearly 20 years, according to an analysis in today's New York Times. And this raises an even bigger question: Why can't America do the same?
Total output of goods and services expanded by 2.9 percent in the third quarter, pay to workers rose by 2.3 percent in September compared to a year ago, new home sales jumped 29.8 percent from a year ago, the home ownership rate nationwide is stable at 63.5 percent, and the rental vacancy rate was 6.8 percent in the third quarter, down from 7.3 percent a year ago.
So for seven years running, the economy has been improving. Some 15 million more people are working compared to 2009, the unemployment rate is steady at about 5 percent, fewer people are applying for unemployment relief, and disposable personal income is up.
Total output, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with its jump of 2.9 percent, was a strong acceleration from the 1.4 percent posted in the second quarter, and 0.8 percent in the first three months of the year.
These are all good signs, and political candidates will make much of them as Election Day nears. But there is also a danger that the Federal Reserve will get edgy and decide to tap the economic brakes to avoid a too-rapid expansion with its concurrent high inflation.
The Fed does this by manipulating the nation's money supply and thus interest rates. When plenty of money is available, theoretically people buy more stuff, interest rates go down and companies invest in more production. The downside is that prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
America's current expansion is now a seven-year party, and many feel they still haven't gotten to the punch bowl. That leaves economic monitors and government agencies with the question of whether to refill the punch bowl or take it away.
Meanwhile, other major nations have enjoyed prosperity growth lasting nearly 20 years, according to an analysis in today's New York Times. And this raises an even bigger question: Why can't America do the same?
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Twelve Days of Trumpery
On the first day campaigning
The candidate said to me,
"I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the second day campaigning
The candidate said to me,
"I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the third day campaigning
The trumpster said to me,
"The system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the fourth day campaigning
He really said to me,
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the fifth day campaigning
El Trumpo said he'll build
A really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the sixth day before voting
The Trumpster warned to all,
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the seventh day of ranting
El Trumpo said we must
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the eighth day campaigning
The candidate proclaimed
"The media's against me
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the ninth day of protest
The candidate has urged
"Ignore all the liars,
"The media's against me
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the tenth day campaigning
The candidate insisted,
"Others are corrupt,
"Ignore all the liars,
"The media's against me
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the eleventh day on deadline
He managed to point out
"I am really honest,
"Others are corrupt,
"Ignore all the liars,
"The media's against me
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On Election Day he repeated
"I really won, because
"I am really honest,
"Others are corrupt,
"Ignore all the liars,
"The media's against me
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
The candidate said to me,
"I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the second day campaigning
The candidate said to me,
"I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the third day campaigning
The trumpster said to me,
"The system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the fourth day campaigning
He really said to me,
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the fifth day campaigning
El Trumpo said he'll build
A really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the sixth day before voting
The Trumpster warned to all,
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the seventh day of ranting
El Trumpo said we must
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the eighth day campaigning
The candidate proclaimed
"The media's against me
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the ninth day of protest
The candidate has urged
"Ignore all the liars,
"The media's against me
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the tenth day campaigning
The candidate insisted,
"Others are corrupt,
"Ignore all the liars,
"The media's against me
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On the eleventh day on deadline
He managed to point out
"I am really honest,
"Others are corrupt,
"Ignore all the liars,
"The media's against me
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
On Election Day he repeated
"I really won, because
"I am really honest,
"Others are corrupt,
"Ignore all the liars,
"The media's against me
"Keep out all the migrants
"We can save our jobs
"With a really big wall.
"Only I can fix it, the system is rigged, I am the best, and I'll build a wonderful wall."
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Clinton Cliffhanger
Minorities in America have long run up against an advancement barrier best described this way: You have to be twice as good to get half as far.
If, as seems likely, Hillary Clinton succeeds in becoming the first woman to be elected President of the United States, cynics will rationalize her victory by saying, "Sure, she won, but look who she was up against. The other guy was such a poor candidate that winning, for her, was not that big a deal."
Others will even take it as proof that the election was "rigged" against their favored candidate, who has been described as Mr. Macho Mouth, all talk and no knowledge. Conspiracy theorists will see a nefarious plot in every aspect of the campaign, both among Democrats and Republicans as well, claiming that key GOP leaders, angry that they didn't get their way during the primary season, agreed to get together with Democrats, the better to smear the name of The Anointed One.
The new Administration, they might say, will resort to backroom politics as usual to put metaphorical screws to the "regular folks" who overcame the elite opposition and succeeded in putting their Mighty Macho Mouth at the top of the Republican ballot.
Whether any of this be true, potentially true, desirably true or provably false will matter not at all to the True Believers. They know what they know, and they refuse to be confused by fact or reality.
So whoever tops the chart with a popular vote, there will still be the Electoral College to attack with accusations of corruption and collusion in picking the person preferred by the so-called elite to be President.
No matter who that turns out to be, there will be a chorus of whiners claiming the final choice was not legitimate, and should be overturned.
The danger is that this denial will lead to violence, amid calls for a complete change in a system that has served America well for more than 220 years, since the Constitution was ratified in 1789.
Then again, it may be that the whiners have not read the Constitution, and will refuse to let history and tradition interfere with what these True Believers "absolutely know to be true."
In one way, however, they are correct in claiming that "the system is rigged." It is arranged in such a fashion as to prevent dictatorial demagogues from becoming President.
If, as seems likely, Hillary Clinton succeeds in becoming the first woman to be elected President of the United States, cynics will rationalize her victory by saying, "Sure, she won, but look who she was up against. The other guy was such a poor candidate that winning, for her, was not that big a deal."
Others will even take it as proof that the election was "rigged" against their favored candidate, who has been described as Mr. Macho Mouth, all talk and no knowledge. Conspiracy theorists will see a nefarious plot in every aspect of the campaign, both among Democrats and Republicans as well, claiming that key GOP leaders, angry that they didn't get their way during the primary season, agreed to get together with Democrats, the better to smear the name of The Anointed One.
The new Administration, they might say, will resort to backroom politics as usual to put metaphorical screws to the "regular folks" who overcame the elite opposition and succeeded in putting their Mighty Macho Mouth at the top of the Republican ballot.
Whether any of this be true, potentially true, desirably true or provably false will matter not at all to the True Believers. They know what they know, and they refuse to be confused by fact or reality.
So whoever tops the chart with a popular vote, there will still be the Electoral College to attack with accusations of corruption and collusion in picking the person preferred by the so-called elite to be President.
No matter who that turns out to be, there will be a chorus of whiners claiming the final choice was not legitimate, and should be overturned.
The danger is that this denial will lead to violence, amid calls for a complete change in a system that has served America well for more than 220 years, since the Constitution was ratified in 1789.
Then again, it may be that the whiners have not read the Constitution, and will refuse to let history and tradition interfere with what these True Believers "absolutely know to be true."
In one way, however, they are correct in claiming that "the system is rigged." It is arranged in such a fashion as to prevent dictatorial demagogues from becoming President.
Insurance and Reality
Health care is too important to be left entirely to the private sector.
The underlying concept of insurance is that sharing the risk spreads the cost. Therefore, the more people in the sharing pool means lower cost for each member in the pool. When a loss does occur, everyone helps to cover the cost.
The idea began long ago, when businesses ran the risk of losing their investment if a ship was lost at sea. By getting together and contributing to a central fund, shippers could ensure that if something did happen to a cargo, they would be reimbursed from the fund. It was worth shelling out a little money to cover the risk of a total loss.
Meanwhile, the guys who held the funds could invest in other projects, hoping they could make a profit even as they hoped there would be no losses from maritime disasters.
Eventually, the concept spread to land-based property in the form of fire and theft insurance, then to life insurance. The hope remained that nothing would happen too soon, while the clients had the assurance that if something did happen, they would collect a larger sum to cover the loss.
These days, the big discussion is about health insurance, and whether a government-sponsored plan should be made available so that everyone would be covered in case of illness.
One problem, of course, is that companies in the private sector want to avoid risk as they collect the premiums from clients. That's why sick people could not get health insurance; the risk of having to pay out was too high, so companies refused to issue policies to those in greatest need.
Similarly, young and healthy people did not bother with health insurance, reasoning that they were not sick, so why spend the money? And those who did buy policies often did not put in claims, because the company would then raise their rates. As the TV commercial puts it, Why buy insurance if you have to pay more when you use it?
In short, high risk people are denied coverage and low risk people don't bother. At the same time, the larger the pool of contributors, the lower the overall risk to them and to the company.
Now comes the idea of nationwide health insurance coverage for everyone. In principle, when everyone joins the risk pool and contributes to a central fund, the lower the individual cost as well as the risk of high payout from the central fund.
But who runs the central fund? Should it be government, or should all the private companies be encouraged or required to participate, on the condition that all citizens also be required to participate?
As it happens, insurance companies in America are regulated largely by individual states, and when payouts in one state erode a company's profits, that company stops doing business in that state, leaving residents either without insurance or forced to pay even higher rates to remaining companies.
It's conceivable, then, that some regions of the country would end up with no insurance companies at all, leaving residents holding the bag for the full cost of medical care.
This is where a national government can step in and help to provide health coverage for all, by requiring everyone to have a policy. In other nations, tax money plays a major role in universal coverage. In the United States, however, private industry wants to continue its profit-making role, so there is a combination of factors in play. Those who already have health insurance are not affected by a mandate to buy a policy, since they already have one. And for those who do not, there is a government subsidy to help pay the premium.
Ideally, this will expand the pool of contributors to the entire population and thus spread the risk, enabling the companies to maintain their profit levels because they have more customers.
Now comes the kicker. It seems that more policy holders means more claims. And because there are more claims, the insurance companies insist they are entitled to higher rates. But this ignores the fact that more money is coming in from more policy holders, which should balance out.
Nevertheless, here comes a report that despite more customers and a government subsidy to help those in need, health insurance rates are expected to rise by 25 percent in the coming year.
Go figure.
The underlying concept of insurance is that sharing the risk spreads the cost. Therefore, the more people in the sharing pool means lower cost for each member in the pool. When a loss does occur, everyone helps to cover the cost.
The idea began long ago, when businesses ran the risk of losing their investment if a ship was lost at sea. By getting together and contributing to a central fund, shippers could ensure that if something did happen to a cargo, they would be reimbursed from the fund. It was worth shelling out a little money to cover the risk of a total loss.
Meanwhile, the guys who held the funds could invest in other projects, hoping they could make a profit even as they hoped there would be no losses from maritime disasters.
Eventually, the concept spread to land-based property in the form of fire and theft insurance, then to life insurance. The hope remained that nothing would happen too soon, while the clients had the assurance that if something did happen, they would collect a larger sum to cover the loss.
These days, the big discussion is about health insurance, and whether a government-sponsored plan should be made available so that everyone would be covered in case of illness.
One problem, of course, is that companies in the private sector want to avoid risk as they collect the premiums from clients. That's why sick people could not get health insurance; the risk of having to pay out was too high, so companies refused to issue policies to those in greatest need.
Similarly, young and healthy people did not bother with health insurance, reasoning that they were not sick, so why spend the money? And those who did buy policies often did not put in claims, because the company would then raise their rates. As the TV commercial puts it, Why buy insurance if you have to pay more when you use it?
In short, high risk people are denied coverage and low risk people don't bother. At the same time, the larger the pool of contributors, the lower the overall risk to them and to the company.
Now comes the idea of nationwide health insurance coverage for everyone. In principle, when everyone joins the risk pool and contributes to a central fund, the lower the individual cost as well as the risk of high payout from the central fund.
But who runs the central fund? Should it be government, or should all the private companies be encouraged or required to participate, on the condition that all citizens also be required to participate?
As it happens, insurance companies in America are regulated largely by individual states, and when payouts in one state erode a company's profits, that company stops doing business in that state, leaving residents either without insurance or forced to pay even higher rates to remaining companies.
It's conceivable, then, that some regions of the country would end up with no insurance companies at all, leaving residents holding the bag for the full cost of medical care.
This is where a national government can step in and help to provide health coverage for all, by requiring everyone to have a policy. In other nations, tax money plays a major role in universal coverage. In the United States, however, private industry wants to continue its profit-making role, so there is a combination of factors in play. Those who already have health insurance are not affected by a mandate to buy a policy, since they already have one. And for those who do not, there is a government subsidy to help pay the premium.
Ideally, this will expand the pool of contributors to the entire population and thus spread the risk, enabling the companies to maintain their profit levels because they have more customers.
Now comes the kicker. It seems that more policy holders means more claims. And because there are more claims, the insurance companies insist they are entitled to higher rates. But this ignores the fact that more money is coming in from more policy holders, which should balance out.
Nevertheless, here comes a report that despite more customers and a government subsidy to help those in need, health insurance rates are expected to rise by 25 percent in the coming year.
Go figure.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Decision Time
With just two weeks until the only poll that really matters -- the one on Election Day -- it's time for eligible voters to decide which candidates they prefer for the various offices listed on the ballots.
Much of the news has been dedicated to the antics and speeches of the major party nominees for the Presidency, and it's important that voters pay attention not only to these, but also to the experience, competence and knowledge accumulated by the candidates.
Many citizens make their selection based solely on party affiliation or on personal likeability of a candidate. More important, however, is whether a candidate has the ability to do the job, not whether he or she is a nice person.
A record of past accomplishments should be considered, in addition to the qualities of ability, competence, experience and knowledge.
Nice guys finish last, the old saying goes, but putting a scheming charlatan in charge isn't a good idea either.
The choice for American voters this year is between a candidate many people dislike on a personal level but who has a long record of public service in government as well as the private sector, or a candidate with no political experience but a long record in business featuring many successes counterbalanced by many failures, bankruptcies and lawsuits, punctuated by a storm of threats and insults.
One candidate has been faced with many allegations, but few have been proven and the evidence supporting them is slim. Whether this candidate is a nice person is immaterial. Competence and experience is more important.
The other major candidate has also been faced with many allegations, many of which have been documented with strong evidence to support the charges.
Again, whether this other candidate is a nice person is immaterial. Nevertheless, many people have stepped up to say this candidate is not at all a nice person,.
So every voter's decision should be based on experience, knowledge, competence and ability to do the job. Personal likeability is a valuable commodity and it may help in getting hired for the job, but when it comes being a chief executive, whether of a major corporation or of a nation, other factors are more important.
Much of the news has been dedicated to the antics and speeches of the major party nominees for the Presidency, and it's important that voters pay attention not only to these, but also to the experience, competence and knowledge accumulated by the candidates.
Many citizens make their selection based solely on party affiliation or on personal likeability of a candidate. More important, however, is whether a candidate has the ability to do the job, not whether he or she is a nice person.
A record of past accomplishments should be considered, in addition to the qualities of ability, competence, experience and knowledge.
Nice guys finish last, the old saying goes, but putting a scheming charlatan in charge isn't a good idea either.
The choice for American voters this year is between a candidate many people dislike on a personal level but who has a long record of public service in government as well as the private sector, or a candidate with no political experience but a long record in business featuring many successes counterbalanced by many failures, bankruptcies and lawsuits, punctuated by a storm of threats and insults.
One candidate has been faced with many allegations, but few have been proven and the evidence supporting them is slim. Whether this candidate is a nice person is immaterial. Competence and experience is more important.
The other major candidate has also been faced with many allegations, many of which have been documented with strong evidence to support the charges.
Again, whether this other candidate is a nice person is immaterial. Nevertheless, many people have stepped up to say this candidate is not at all a nice person,.
So every voter's decision should be based on experience, knowledge, competence and ability to do the job. Personal likeability is a valuable commodity and it may help in getting hired for the job, but when it comes being a chief executive, whether of a major corporation or of a nation, other factors are more important.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Gaming the Numbers
The candidate insists he will "absolutely" accept the results of the Presidential election Nov. 8 but only if he wins.
But what if he doesn't, which seems more and more likely as the Big Day looms? What will it take to convince him that he did not win? How many votes would satisfy his need for an acceptable margin?
The Constitution stipulates that a simple majority of electoral votes will determine the winner. That translates to half the total electors, plus one. Since there is a total of 538 electoral votes, half of that plus one means 270 votes will determine the winner.
If there is a tie, the Constitution provides a backup vote, to be taken in the House of Representatives. And if the voting is close, as it was in 2000, a recount in a single state -- Florida -- determined the winner. As it happened, Republican George W. Bush got to the Oval Office with a margin of just five electoral votes over Democrat Al Gore -- 271 to 266.
In other contests, the winner led by as many as several hundred votes. For example, Democrat Lyndon Johnson defeated Republican Barry Goldwater by an electoral count of 486 to 52. Republican Richard Nixon turned back Democrat George McGovern by a tally of 520 to 17. And Republican Ronald Reagan trounced Democrat Walter Mondale by 526 to 13.
But by far the greatest victory was when Franklin D. Roosevelt left Alf Landon with only 8 electoral votes.
And besides the narrrowest of victories in 2000, Bush took a second term in the election of 2004 by a margin of 35 electoral votes over John Kerry -- 286 to 251.
Other than the recount issue in Florida after the election in 2000, the results were accepted early on, the defeated candidate conceded, and the nation moved on.
So what result of the electoral vote count will satisfy the already disgruntled GOP candidate, Donald Trump, who began months ago to insist the system was "rigged" against him, to admit defeat?
Analysis and predictions by political analysts in both parties as well as media pundits indicate that Trump will lose "bigly," as he might say.
Then again, he might not. He may well look for some way to challenge not only the popular vote but also the electoral vote, which is the one that really selects a new President.
Perhaps he will insist that he won the popular vote, but all the election officials nationwide, both Democrat and Republican, rigged the count so he would lose. Therefore, the story is, since he won the popular vote he should become President.
Here's a reminder to those who may not have read the Constitution lately. The Presidency is the only federal office not elected by direct, or popular, vote. It's the electoral vote that determines the winner.
Here's another reminder, to Donald Trump: If you haven't read the Constitution, Khizr Kahn will be happy to lend you his copy.
But what if he doesn't, which seems more and more likely as the Big Day looms? What will it take to convince him that he did not win? How many votes would satisfy his need for an acceptable margin?
The Constitution stipulates that a simple majority of electoral votes will determine the winner. That translates to half the total electors, plus one. Since there is a total of 538 electoral votes, half of that plus one means 270 votes will determine the winner.
If there is a tie, the Constitution provides a backup vote, to be taken in the House of Representatives. And if the voting is close, as it was in 2000, a recount in a single state -- Florida -- determined the winner. As it happened, Republican George W. Bush got to the Oval Office with a margin of just five electoral votes over Democrat Al Gore -- 271 to 266.
In other contests, the winner led by as many as several hundred votes. For example, Democrat Lyndon Johnson defeated Republican Barry Goldwater by an electoral count of 486 to 52. Republican Richard Nixon turned back Democrat George McGovern by a tally of 520 to 17. And Republican Ronald Reagan trounced Democrat Walter Mondale by 526 to 13.
But by far the greatest victory was when Franklin D. Roosevelt left Alf Landon with only 8 electoral votes.
And besides the narrrowest of victories in 2000, Bush took a second term in the election of 2004 by a margin of 35 electoral votes over John Kerry -- 286 to 251.
Other than the recount issue in Florida after the election in 2000, the results were accepted early on, the defeated candidate conceded, and the nation moved on.
So what result of the electoral vote count will satisfy the already disgruntled GOP candidate, Donald Trump, who began months ago to insist the system was "rigged" against him, to admit defeat?
Analysis and predictions by political analysts in both parties as well as media pundits indicate that Trump will lose "bigly," as he might say.
Then again, he might not. He may well look for some way to challenge not only the popular vote but also the electoral vote, which is the one that really selects a new President.
Perhaps he will insist that he won the popular vote, but all the election officials nationwide, both Democrat and Republican, rigged the count so he would lose. Therefore, the story is, since he won the popular vote he should become President.
Here's a reminder to those who may not have read the Constitution lately. The Presidency is the only federal office not elected by direct, or popular, vote. It's the electoral vote that determines the winner.
Here's another reminder, to Donald Trump: If you haven't read the Constitution, Khizr Kahn will be happy to lend you his copy.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Brexit Fallout
Memo to all those who thought leaving the European Union and its easy travel and trade setup was a good idea for the United Kingdom:
-- Major British banks are considering relocating their headquarters to the Republic of Ireland, which will stay in the EU.
-- Thousands of people now living in Britain are applying for Irish passports, which will make it easier for them to travel throughout Europe and its member nations of the EU.
-- Canada's trade relations with its Commonwealth parent nation, the United Kingdom, are shriveling.
And you think the U.S. should tear up existing trade agreements such as NAFTA, cancel plans for a Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement, and sharply restrict travel to America from other countries as well as build a wall along America's southern border are also great ideas?
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Meanwhile, what if Canada built a wall along its southern border and hired Mexicans and Muslims to do the work?
-- Major British banks are considering relocating their headquarters to the Republic of Ireland, which will stay in the EU.
-- Thousands of people now living in Britain are applying for Irish passports, which will make it easier for them to travel throughout Europe and its member nations of the EU.
-- Canada's trade relations with its Commonwealth parent nation, the United Kingdom, are shriveling.
And you think the U.S. should tear up existing trade agreements such as NAFTA, cancel plans for a Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement, and sharply restrict travel to America from other countries as well as build a wall along America's southern border are also great ideas?
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Meanwhile, what if Canada built a wall along its southern border and hired Mexicans and Muslims to do the work?
The Graceful Loser
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." -- Grantland Rice
"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi
"I keep whining until I win." -- Donald Trump
Nobody likes a sore loser -- Pug Mahoney
Before the year is out, voters will choose, electors will meet and a new President of the United States will be selected.
But from the warnings of one of the major candidates, if he doesn't win he will launch a challenge. He has already been claiming that the system is "rigged" against him and the election will be "stolen" from him. It's certainly true that a candidate who comes in second may challenge the results, but that will require separate challenges in perhaps each of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia, and it assumes that the results are close enough to justify plausible challenges, if not in every state but in some few states that could leverage a change.
The Florida recount in 2000 was triggered automatically because the popular vote was so close. Meanwhile, the nationwide electoral tally was also close enough so that a change in a single state -- in this case, Florida -- would be enough to sway the national result.
This year, however, indications are that the results will not be close, neither in the popular vote nor in the electoral count. Moreover, the one that really matters is the electoral vote.
One candidate, Republican nominee Donald Trump, has said repeatedly that he may not concede, but will likely challenge the result.
Fact: It matters not whether he concedes, or even admits defeat. If the tally is clear, there will be little chance of success for a legal challenge.
The Constitution stipulates that each state gets as many electors as it has members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, plus three for the District of Columbia, and a simple majority is enough to decide a winner.
Since there are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, that's a total of 538 electors, including the DC three. Therefore, a simple majority of 270 electoral votes will decide the winner. If the vote is close, it's not clear what, if any, legal precedents could be cited to justify a challenge.
A tie is possible, and that has happened before, in the 19th Century, and the task of choosing a President went to the House of Representatives. That, however, is provided for in the Constitution, so no legal challenge would be needed.
Even so, if Trump were to file one or several lawsuits, depending on which state results were challenged, the Democratic Party would surely oppose all of them, and the nation could be left without a President for an unknown length of time.
Historically, several losing candidates have conceded election results, even when there was some doubt over the results and methods in key states, most noticeably Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in the 2000 election.
This year, however, Trump has already served notice that he will challenge the election result. Unless, of course, he wins.
But what if he doesn't?
Considering his past record in business and in politics, the term "graceful loser" is an oxymoron.
"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi
"I keep whining until I win." -- Donald Trump
Nobody likes a sore loser -- Pug Mahoney
Before the year is out, voters will choose, electors will meet and a new President of the United States will be selected.
But from the warnings of one of the major candidates, if he doesn't win he will launch a challenge. He has already been claiming that the system is "rigged" against him and the election will be "stolen" from him. It's certainly true that a candidate who comes in second may challenge the results, but that will require separate challenges in perhaps each of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia, and it assumes that the results are close enough to justify plausible challenges, if not in every state but in some few states that could leverage a change.
The Florida recount in 2000 was triggered automatically because the popular vote was so close. Meanwhile, the nationwide electoral tally was also close enough so that a change in a single state -- in this case, Florida -- would be enough to sway the national result.
This year, however, indications are that the results will not be close, neither in the popular vote nor in the electoral count. Moreover, the one that really matters is the electoral vote.
One candidate, Republican nominee Donald Trump, has said repeatedly that he may not concede, but will likely challenge the result.
Fact: It matters not whether he concedes, or even admits defeat. If the tally is clear, there will be little chance of success for a legal challenge.
The Constitution stipulates that each state gets as many electors as it has members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, plus three for the District of Columbia, and a simple majority is enough to decide a winner.
Since there are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, that's a total of 538 electors, including the DC three. Therefore, a simple majority of 270 electoral votes will decide the winner. If the vote is close, it's not clear what, if any, legal precedents could be cited to justify a challenge.
A tie is possible, and that has happened before, in the 19th Century, and the task of choosing a President went to the House of Representatives. That, however, is provided for in the Constitution, so no legal challenge would be needed.
Even so, if Trump were to file one or several lawsuits, depending on which state results were challenged, the Democratic Party would surely oppose all of them, and the nation could be left without a President for an unknown length of time.
Historically, several losing candidates have conceded election results, even when there was some doubt over the results and methods in key states, most noticeably Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in the 2000 election.
This year, however, Trump has already served notice that he will challenge the election result. Unless, of course, he wins.
But what if he doesn't?
Considering his past record in business and in politics, the term "graceful loser" is an oxymoron.
Empty Threats
Threats are useful tactics for bullies, since they incite fear among those with few resources, either physical or financial, to fight back, so they often yield, thus enabling the bully to continue what for him are successful tactics.
Eventually, however, a threat to someone of the same size or bigger, and with good financial and legal resources, meets this response: OK, big mouth, bring it on, and we'll see you in court.
Typically, when this happens, the threat of a lawsuit is not carried out.
In addition, there are those with no resources, but are right nonetheless. For these, civic groups and conscientious lawyers step up and take the case, fulfilling their ethical obligation of public service.
Realistically, moreover, these lawyers may also get substantial publicity, which attracts other clients able to afford the legal fees needed to pursue success.
In the current political environment in America, threats of lawsuits are bandied about like schoolyard taunts. And as with schoolyard bullies everywhere, these taunts and threats succeed only as long as their targets believe they are unable to marshal enough resources to meet the challenge.
However, major newspapers have excellent resources to fight off libel suits, and the several women who have come forward with accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior by a presidential candidate have the benefit of a conscientious and ambitious lawyer ready, willing and able to stand off a lawsuit if it should be filed.
Moreover, if the charge be libel, that means the candidate who claims such will be called to testify under penalty of perjury as to the details of his allegation, and would likely face a countersuit accusing him of libel.
So far, he says he will file lawsuits against his accusers "after the election."
That means one of two things: If he wins, a sitting President will be in court to answer the charges. Or, if he loses, he will be in court to answer the charges. Under oath and penalty of perjury.
Libel law 101: If it's true, it's not libel.
Here's another possibility. If he becomes President, would he attempt to use an executive decree to punish those he feels are his enemies?
Eventually, however, a threat to someone of the same size or bigger, and with good financial and legal resources, meets this response: OK, big mouth, bring it on, and we'll see you in court.
Typically, when this happens, the threat of a lawsuit is not carried out.
In addition, there are those with no resources, but are right nonetheless. For these, civic groups and conscientious lawyers step up and take the case, fulfilling their ethical obligation of public service.
Realistically, moreover, these lawyers may also get substantial publicity, which attracts other clients able to afford the legal fees needed to pursue success.
In the current political environment in America, threats of lawsuits are bandied about like schoolyard taunts. And as with schoolyard bullies everywhere, these taunts and threats succeed only as long as their targets believe they are unable to marshal enough resources to meet the challenge.
However, major newspapers have excellent resources to fight off libel suits, and the several women who have come forward with accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior by a presidential candidate have the benefit of a conscientious and ambitious lawyer ready, willing and able to stand off a lawsuit if it should be filed.
Moreover, if the charge be libel, that means the candidate who claims such will be called to testify under penalty of perjury as to the details of his allegation, and would likely face a countersuit accusing him of libel.
So far, he says he will file lawsuits against his accusers "after the election."
That means one of two things: If he wins, a sitting President will be in court to answer the charges. Or, if he loses, he will be in court to answer the charges. Under oath and penalty of perjury.
Libel law 101: If it's true, it's not libel.
Here's another possibility. If he becomes President, would he attempt to use an executive decree to punish those he feels are his enemies?
Saturday, October 22, 2016
100 Day Action Plan
Do things my way, or else.
Next step, dismantle the federal government.
Cut taxes, increase spending, repeal and replace Obamacare, put Medicaid under state control, require that jobs be offered to American workers first, and cancel every executive order made by President Barack Obama if they are found unconstitutional.
That's part of the major policy moves proposed by Donald Trump that he would push during his first 100 days in office, should he be elected President.
Consider these thoughts: Cutting taxes and increasing spending is a recipe for economic self-destruction. To suddenly cancel a national health insurance program while a replacement is being prepared is another recipe for disaster. To put a health plan for low-income families solely under state control will swiftly lead to bias and discrimination against those same families in certain states with a long history of prejudice against minorities.
Moreover, replacing a federal health insurance plan with a "health savings account" that supposedly would enable low-income household to buy policies from private health insurance companies provokes nightmares of confusion among those who don't have the resources to decide or even afford a good plan
Trump also proposed a child care tax deduction. This would benefit primarily those who are wealthy enough to afford child care in the first place. Most working families must do that themselves. Moreover, they don't make enough money to warrant taking such a deduction.
Meanwhile, Trump has threatened to sue, after Election Day, the women who have accused him of inappropriate sexual behavior.
That hardly qualifies as presidential behavior, and strongly suggests that he knows he's losing.
As for waiting for Mexico to reimburse the U.S. for the cost of building the proposed Trump Wall along the southern border, don't hold your breath.
Finally, the candidate urged "extreme vetting" of all newcomers hoping to come to America, not just Muslims and Hispanics.
Clearing the immigration barriers already takes many months, and sometimes years. How that can become even more "extreme" is another question.
Trump ended his policy speech Saturday afternoon by promising "Peace through strength." At first glance, as with many of the ex-reality star's words, that sounds good. But consider the source of the phrase. It originated with the Roman Emperor Hadrian in the First Century, and the rest of the sentence warns, "or, failing that peace through threat."
Translated to the present, it becomes this: Do things my way, or else.
Next step, dismantle the federal government.
Cut taxes, increase spending, repeal and replace Obamacare, put Medicaid under state control, require that jobs be offered to American workers first, and cancel every executive order made by President Barack Obama if they are found unconstitutional.
That's part of the major policy moves proposed by Donald Trump that he would push during his first 100 days in office, should he be elected President.
Consider these thoughts: Cutting taxes and increasing spending is a recipe for economic self-destruction. To suddenly cancel a national health insurance program while a replacement is being prepared is another recipe for disaster. To put a health plan for low-income families solely under state control will swiftly lead to bias and discrimination against those same families in certain states with a long history of prejudice against minorities.
Moreover, replacing a federal health insurance plan with a "health savings account" that supposedly would enable low-income household to buy policies from private health insurance companies provokes nightmares of confusion among those who don't have the resources to decide or even afford a good plan
If all jobs must be offered to American workers first, what happens if there are no takers? Historically, it has been newcomers who take the jobs that native-born American workers don't want.
The plan to cancel every executive order made by a previous President raises this question: Who decides whether they are constitutional or not?Trump also proposed a child care tax deduction. This would benefit primarily those who are wealthy enough to afford child care in the first place. Most working families must do that themselves. Moreover, they don't make enough money to warrant taking such a deduction.
Meanwhile, Trump has threatened to sue, after Election Day, the women who have accused him of inappropriate sexual behavior.
That hardly qualifies as presidential behavior, and strongly suggests that he knows he's losing.
As for waiting for Mexico to reimburse the U.S. for the cost of building the proposed Trump Wall along the southern border, don't hold your breath.
Finally, the candidate urged "extreme vetting" of all newcomers hoping to come to America, not just Muslims and Hispanics.
Clearing the immigration barriers already takes many months, and sometimes years. How that can become even more "extreme" is another question.
Trump ended his policy speech Saturday afternoon by promising "Peace through strength." At first glance, as with many of the ex-reality star's words, that sounds good. But consider the source of the phrase. It originated with the Roman Emperor Hadrian in the First Century, and the rest of the sentence warns, "or, failing that peace through threat."
Translated to the present, it becomes this: Do things my way, or else.
Thursday, October 20, 2016
The Question Stands
Will you accept defeat?
If dominating the news cycle is the measure of success in this year's presidential campaign, Donald Trump is the undisputed winner.
During Wednesday evening's debate, moderator Chris Wallace asked if the candidate would accept the election results. His response evaded the question: "I'll let you know when the time comes."
A second attempt by Wallace failed to get a definitive answer, defying a long tradition of presidential candidates conceding when vote results made clear the victory.
But Trump would have none of that, insisting that he's not thinking about that now, that he wants to "keep you in suspense."
Considering the many times the candidate has claimed that "the system is rigged" against him, such a refusal to accept even the idea of a possible defeat only encourages mob action and violence in November. This follows his more direct encouragement of violence at campaign events, going back many months.
So by giving evasive answers, the candidate implies that he will not accept defeat. That, of course, would make him a loser. And in his lexicon, that is the worst thing that be said about anyone.
More dangerous, however, is the implicit threat of a violent overthrow of the system that he calls "rigged," by his followers who hear his hints and suggestions as instructions.
By phrasing his comments as he does, he can claim that he has never encouraged, and does not now, encourage violence. That, however, is disproven by the many times he has said such things, as recorded on video at his campaign rallies. And claims that he is not responsible for things that supporters do simply don't work. Even when his comments and insults are slightly vague, his more rabid followers typically take them a small step further, and resort to violence to "get him out of here," and to "punch him in the face."
In short, these unsaid threats quickly become open violence.
But this time, the future of the American system of government is at stake.
After the blowback from comments made during the debate, he tried to soften the problem by assuring supporters at a rally that he would "absolutely support the election results ... if I win."
So after all the rhetoric and self-serving defensiveness, the question stands: Will you accept defeat?
Judging from past behavior over many decades as well as recent comments, the answer is likely to be No. Instead, as with so many other events in his life, his defeat will be labeled someone else's fault.
We are seeing what may well be the most dangerous threat ever made to the American system, suggesting mob violence to overturn a duly elected President and install a dictator.
If dominating the news cycle is the measure of success in this year's presidential campaign, Donald Trump is the undisputed winner.
During Wednesday evening's debate, moderator Chris Wallace asked if the candidate would accept the election results. His response evaded the question: "I'll let you know when the time comes."
A second attempt by Wallace failed to get a definitive answer, defying a long tradition of presidential candidates conceding when vote results made clear the victory.
But Trump would have none of that, insisting that he's not thinking about that now, that he wants to "keep you in suspense."
Considering the many times the candidate has claimed that "the system is rigged" against him, such a refusal to accept even the idea of a possible defeat only encourages mob action and violence in November. This follows his more direct encouragement of violence at campaign events, going back many months.
So by giving evasive answers, the candidate implies that he will not accept defeat. That, of course, would make him a loser. And in his lexicon, that is the worst thing that be said about anyone.
More dangerous, however, is the implicit threat of a violent overthrow of the system that he calls "rigged," by his followers who hear his hints and suggestions as instructions.
By phrasing his comments as he does, he can claim that he has never encouraged, and does not now, encourage violence. That, however, is disproven by the many times he has said such things, as recorded on video at his campaign rallies. And claims that he is not responsible for things that supporters do simply don't work. Even when his comments and insults are slightly vague, his more rabid followers typically take them a small step further, and resort to violence to "get him out of here," and to "punch him in the face."
In short, these unsaid threats quickly become open violence.
But this time, the future of the American system of government is at stake.
After the blowback from comments made during the debate, he tried to soften the problem by assuring supporters at a rally that he would "absolutely support the election results ... if I win."
So after all the rhetoric and self-serving defensiveness, the question stands: Will you accept defeat?
Judging from past behavior over many decades as well as recent comments, the answer is likely to be No. Instead, as with so many other events in his life, his defeat will be labeled someone else's fault.
We are seeing what may well be the most dangerous threat ever made to the American system, suggesting mob violence to overturn a duly elected President and install a dictator.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Wall Smart
Trumpty Dumpty bet on a wall.
But the Great Wall sales pitch had a great fall.
And all the big ad buys and big money spent
In the minds of smart voters made not a dent.
But the Great Wall sales pitch had a great fall.
And all the big ad buys and big money spent
In the minds of smart voters made not a dent.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Wage-Price MEGO
MEGO -- My Eyes Glaze Over
When prices rise 5 percent and wages rise 1 percent, guess what? You're losing money.
That's not hard to figure, and you don't need to be an economist or a math genius to figure it out. Like much that's at the root of economics, it's common sense.
Academic gobbledygook and political palaver aside, that's what's happening to workers in America, and while many experts point to broad figures and statistics to say things are improving -- and technically, they're right -- on a household level, people have a different opinion. As part of a larger picture, that's what enables some aspiring politicians to gain support.
It was Mark Twain who said, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." And through the use of selectively picking out data points to "prove" their message, candidates can enhance their pitch by citing even government statistics.
So is the American economy doing better, or not?
Point to some sets of numbers, and the answer is yes, the national economy is doing better. Not improving as well as it might, but it has been doing better.
At the same time, figures like those fresh from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that even though "real average hourly earnings for all employees" increased in September by 1 percent from a year earlier, that boost was overwhelmed by 1.5 percent rise in prices overall, led by a nearly 6 percent jump in gasoline prices. And the shelter part of the Consumer Price Index rose by 0.4 percent in September, its largest increase since May.
Overall, the CPI for all items rose 1.5 percent for the 12 months ending in September, its largest year-to-year jump since October 2014. Set beside the 12-month rise in wages of 1.0 percent, it's clear that prices rose faster than wages.
Moreover, the wage level from August to September of this year actually faded by 0.1 percent, according to the BLS report, while prices over the same period increased by 0.3 percent.
Bottom line: Prices are rising faster than wage income for American workers.
Watch for political candidates to pick various numbers to support their own plan, and to demonize the opposition's proposals on how to help workers.
Whether all this will help voters decide their choice of candidates is an open question.
The only good news might be that retirees hoping for a cost-of living increase in their pension checks would see a boost, which they missed last year because statistical levels were flat from the year before.
Assuming, of course, Congress doesn't get in the way, stumbling over themselves in their zeal to discredit the Administration, somehow finding a way to blame the President for not helping seniors.
When prices rise 5 percent and wages rise 1 percent, guess what? You're losing money.
That's not hard to figure, and you don't need to be an economist or a math genius to figure it out. Like much that's at the root of economics, it's common sense.
Academic gobbledygook and political palaver aside, that's what's happening to workers in America, and while many experts point to broad figures and statistics to say things are improving -- and technically, they're right -- on a household level, people have a different opinion. As part of a larger picture, that's what enables some aspiring politicians to gain support.
It was Mark Twain who said, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." And through the use of selectively picking out data points to "prove" their message, candidates can enhance their pitch by citing even government statistics.
So is the American economy doing better, or not?
Point to some sets of numbers, and the answer is yes, the national economy is doing better. Not improving as well as it might, but it has been doing better.
At the same time, figures like those fresh from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that even though "real average hourly earnings for all employees" increased in September by 1 percent from a year earlier, that boost was overwhelmed by 1.5 percent rise in prices overall, led by a nearly 6 percent jump in gasoline prices. And the shelter part of the Consumer Price Index rose by 0.4 percent in September, its largest increase since May.
Overall, the CPI for all items rose 1.5 percent for the 12 months ending in September, its largest year-to-year jump since October 2014. Set beside the 12-month rise in wages of 1.0 percent, it's clear that prices rose faster than wages.
Moreover, the wage level from August to September of this year actually faded by 0.1 percent, according to the BLS report, while prices over the same period increased by 0.3 percent.
Bottom line: Prices are rising faster than wage income for American workers.
Watch for political candidates to pick various numbers to support their own plan, and to demonize the opposition's proposals on how to help workers.
Whether all this will help voters decide their choice of candidates is an open question.
The only good news might be that retirees hoping for a cost-of living increase in their pension checks would see a boost, which they missed last year because statistical levels were flat from the year before.
Assuming, of course, Congress doesn't get in the way, stumbling over themselves in their zeal to discredit the Administration, somehow finding a way to blame the President for not helping seniors.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Vote Vigilantes
He implies, you infer
The candidate is urging vigilante monitoring of polling places throughout the nation on Election Day, escalating his warning of election theft through widespread voter fraud and rigging of the election.
On some level, he must know he has already lost his bid for the presidency, and is now encouraging a violent revolution to overturn the election results.
He doesn't say that directly, of course. He's a bit too smart for that. But by talking so much about a conspiracy to rig the election and cheat him out what he believes will be his victory, he is careful not to be specific in his predictions of what will happen when he loses.
To be specific in warning of a violent revolution would be tantamount to treason. Instead, he relies on vague and subtle suggestions, enabling his devoted followers to build on their deep-seated inner fears and prejudices.
This tactic lets them stoke their own fires of rebellion while leaving him a verbal escape route to where he can plead innocence, claiming he never said any such thing that specifically promoted violence.
Nevertheless, there are many video recordings where he has indeed been explicit in promoting violence against protesters at campaign rallies. Even when spoken with cop-out openings such as, "I'd like to punch him ..." or "Get him out of here," or "Maybe he deserved to be roughed up," or even "She should be locked up." And there is the vow that, as President, "I would bomb the s**t out of them."
There is always, however, the implied "but," as in "I would like to but I can't." This enables his devotees to infer that he should, and when elected, he will.
In the meantime, as Election Day approaches, he increasingly warns that the election is being rigged against him, and urges followers to show up at polling places to make sure what he alleges are many thousands of illegal immigrants who are not registered to vote, turn out to help rig the election against him through voter fraud.
"There is large-scale voter fraud," the candidate insists, using the present tense.
Never mind that serious studies have shown that in more than a decade of general, primary, special and local elections where more than a billion votes were cast, there were only 31 allegations of voter fraud. Moreover, since elections are arranged independently by state and local authorities, many of which are of the same Republican Party as the candidate, the idea of a single, massive, nationwide entity conspiring with and dominating all the thousands of voting districts is ... well, you pick a word.
Nevertheless, the candidate's backers, supporters and surrogates yammer on about collusion among the federal Department of Justice, Big Media and his opponent's campaign managers to cheat him out of his victory.
But consider this: The idea of every major newspaper, magazine and broadcast station, and all of their individual reporters, have all got together to conspire against him not only ignores the long tradition of competition among journalists to be first with the story, but it also suggests a basic insecurity, if not paranoia, of a person who believes that when he doesn't get his own way in every thing he says and does, that in itself is proof that "everybody's against me"
Pobrecito.
The candidate is urging vigilante monitoring of polling places throughout the nation on Election Day, escalating his warning of election theft through widespread voter fraud and rigging of the election.
On some level, he must know he has already lost his bid for the presidency, and is now encouraging a violent revolution to overturn the election results.
He doesn't say that directly, of course. He's a bit too smart for that. But by talking so much about a conspiracy to rig the election and cheat him out what he believes will be his victory, he is careful not to be specific in his predictions of what will happen when he loses.
To be specific in warning of a violent revolution would be tantamount to treason. Instead, he relies on vague and subtle suggestions, enabling his devoted followers to build on their deep-seated inner fears and prejudices.
This tactic lets them stoke their own fires of rebellion while leaving him a verbal escape route to where he can plead innocence, claiming he never said any such thing that specifically promoted violence.
Nevertheless, there are many video recordings where he has indeed been explicit in promoting violence against protesters at campaign rallies. Even when spoken with cop-out openings such as, "I'd like to punch him ..." or "Get him out of here," or "Maybe he deserved to be roughed up," or even "She should be locked up." And there is the vow that, as President, "I would bomb the s**t out of them."
There is always, however, the implied "but," as in "I would like to but I can't." This enables his devotees to infer that he should, and when elected, he will.
In the meantime, as Election Day approaches, he increasingly warns that the election is being rigged against him, and urges followers to show up at polling places to make sure what he alleges are many thousands of illegal immigrants who are not registered to vote, turn out to help rig the election against him through voter fraud.
"There is large-scale voter fraud," the candidate insists, using the present tense.
Never mind that serious studies have shown that in more than a decade of general, primary, special and local elections where more than a billion votes were cast, there were only 31 allegations of voter fraud. Moreover, since elections are arranged independently by state and local authorities, many of which are of the same Republican Party as the candidate, the idea of a single, massive, nationwide entity conspiring with and dominating all the thousands of voting districts is ... well, you pick a word.
Nevertheless, the candidate's backers, supporters and surrogates yammer on about collusion among the federal Department of Justice, Big Media and his opponent's campaign managers to cheat him out of his victory.
But consider this: The idea of every major newspaper, magazine and broadcast station, and all of their individual reporters, have all got together to conspire against him not only ignores the long tradition of competition among journalists to be first with the story, but it also suggests a basic insecurity, if not paranoia, of a person who believes that when he doesn't get his own way in every thing he says and does, that in itself is proof that "everybody's against me"
Pobrecito.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Department of Redundancy Department
One would like to think that by the time people become prominent they would have mastered some of the routine points of English grammar as used in America.
One would like to think that.
However, one would be mistaken.
Here's an example currently in the news: False allegations.
An allegation is just that, and until and unless proven, it remains just that. Granted, the word does have a negative connotation, since a true allegation could well be taken as a compliment. Meanwhile, an allegation is neither true nor false. If the writer shows proof, or the report is provably true, it is no longer an allegation but a statement of fact.
Moreover, it can be a CYA term, especially among broadcasters, who want to make doubly sure that they are not accused of slanting the story in a biased way (there's another redundancy) so as to imply that a suspect is already guilty.
Mark Twain was reprimanded by an editor early his career for making statements about a party or reception that could not be verified because he was not at the party. So he rewrote the report and put "alleged" and its variations into every description of every person or event that occurred at the party.
You can imagine what came out. If you can't, look it up. It's great reading.
Here are two more current examples: A false smear, and false charges. It the statement is true, it's not a smear. And in the case of a current candidate, he has already done enough on his own to smear his reputation, so he needs no help from the news media. As to the term "false charges," put that in the same basket with "allegation." The charge needs some evidence from either side to show that it is either true or false.
One would like to think that.
However, one would be mistaken.
Here's an example currently in the news: False allegations.
An allegation is just that, and until and unless proven, it remains just that. Granted, the word does have a negative connotation, since a true allegation could well be taken as a compliment. Meanwhile, an allegation is neither true nor false. If the writer shows proof, or the report is provably true, it is no longer an allegation but a statement of fact.
Moreover, it can be a CYA term, especially among broadcasters, who want to make doubly sure that they are not accused of slanting the story in a biased way (there's another redundancy) so as to imply that a suspect is already guilty.
Mark Twain was reprimanded by an editor early his career for making statements about a party or reception that could not be verified because he was not at the party. So he rewrote the report and put "alleged" and its variations into every description of every person or event that occurred at the party.
You can imagine what came out. If you can't, look it up. It's great reading.
Here are two more current examples: A false smear, and false charges. It the statement is true, it's not a smear. And in the case of a current candidate, he has already done enough on his own to smear his reputation, so he needs no help from the news media. As to the term "false charges," put that in the same basket with "allegation." The charge needs some evidence from either side to show that it is either true or false.
Brexit Breakup
Scotland will stay open for business and might even leave the United Kingdom if Parliament in London succeeds in taking the nation out of the European Union.
That notion has been brought up before, but the issue gained new strength as the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, said she would ask for "new powers to help keep Scotland in the single market, even if the UK leaves."
British Prime Minister Theresa May is moving forward with plans to separate from the EU.
In a speech to the Scottish National Party in Glasgow, Sturgeon warned that if the Tory government in London stalls a plan for a second referendum on leaving the EU, "Scotland must have the ability to choose a better course."
In the first referendum on leaving the EU, voters in England and Wales endorsed leaving, while those in Scotland and Northern Ireland supported staying in the common market.
"There are many 'no' voters now looking at the Brexit vote with real dismay and wondering if independence might be the best option for Scotland after all," Sturgeon said.
Another possibility would involve the province of Northern Ireland going along with the independence movement, and either joining Scotland or rejoining the Republic of Ireland, which remains part of the European Union.
That notion has been brought up before, but the issue gained new strength as the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, said she would ask for "new powers to help keep Scotland in the single market, even if the UK leaves."
British Prime Minister Theresa May is moving forward with plans to separate from the EU.
In a speech to the Scottish National Party in Glasgow, Sturgeon warned that if the Tory government in London stalls a plan for a second referendum on leaving the EU, "Scotland must have the ability to choose a better course."
In the first referendum on leaving the EU, voters in England and Wales endorsed leaving, while those in Scotland and Northern Ireland supported staying in the common market.
"There are many 'no' voters now looking at the Brexit vote with real dismay and wondering if independence might be the best option for Scotland after all," Sturgeon said.
Another possibility would involve the province of Northern Ireland going along with the independence movement, and either joining Scotland or rejoining the Republic of Ireland, which remains part of the European Union.
Banking on Boosting
The Federal Reserve may want to raise interest rates, but is reluctant to do that because incoming data are not strong enough to support a boost as the U.S. economy recovers.
That's the crux of a speech Fed Chair Janet Yellen gave in Boston Friday.
Some members of the Fed's Board of Governors fear waiting could be dangerous, according to the minutes of the board's meeting last month as the central bank voted to hold its key interest rate the range of 0.25 to 0.5 percent.
Those members cautioned that acting later would require too strong a boost in the key Federal Funds rate, which would in turn trip up the recovery and cause an economic tumble.
In all, however, Yellen noted that more research is needed to better understand the interactive movements of aggregate demand and aggregate supply, the two primary nationwide actors in analyzing an economy.
Meanwhile, Yellen added, regulators must remember that "an accommodative monetary stance" -- pumping up the money supply -- "if maintained too long, could have costs that exceed the benefits," raising the risk of instability.
And she warned that the benefits and costs of such a strategy "remain hard to quantify, and other policies might be better suited to address damage to the supply side of the economy."
That's the crux of a speech Fed Chair Janet Yellen gave in Boston Friday.
Some members of the Fed's Board of Governors fear waiting could be dangerous, according to the minutes of the board's meeting last month as the central bank voted to hold its key interest rate the range of 0.25 to 0.5 percent.
Those members cautioned that acting later would require too strong a boost in the key Federal Funds rate, which would in turn trip up the recovery and cause an economic tumble.
In all, however, Yellen noted that more research is needed to better understand the interactive movements of aggregate demand and aggregate supply, the two primary nationwide actors in analyzing an economy.
Meanwhile, Yellen added, regulators must remember that "an accommodative monetary stance" -- pumping up the money supply -- "if maintained too long, could have costs that exceed the benefits," raising the risk of instability.
And she warned that the benefits and costs of such a strategy "remain hard to quantify, and other policies might be better suited to address damage to the supply side of the economy."
Safety in Silence
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
Memo to Desperate Don: Stop complaining that the news media are out to get you by printing stories about your past activities with women and emphasizing your denials.
The more you talk and the stronger your language, the more ink you generate in major newspapers and the more time your talk is rerun on television news programs.
Every marketing exec knows that sex sells, and gossip attracts more readers and viewers than economic policy speeches.
By continuing to strike back at those who come out with stories alleging sexual misconduct, attacking your accusers with stronger and stronger language, you only shoot yourself in the metaphorical foot.
Remember, they can't report what you don't say.
You're in deep enough trouble over the descriptions of your past activities. If these stories are true, face it, you're through. And if they're not true, the more emphatic your denials and the stronger your attacks on critics, the more people listen.
So be quiet and hope the stories go away.
Good luck with that one.
Memo to Desperate Don: Stop complaining that the news media are out to get you by printing stories about your past activities with women and emphasizing your denials.
The more you talk and the stronger your language, the more ink you generate in major newspapers and the more time your talk is rerun on television news programs.
Every marketing exec knows that sex sells, and gossip attracts more readers and viewers than economic policy speeches.
By continuing to strike back at those who come out with stories alleging sexual misconduct, attacking your accusers with stronger and stronger language, you only shoot yourself in the metaphorical foot.
Remember, they can't report what you don't say.
You're in deep enough trouble over the descriptions of your past activities. If these stories are true, face it, you're through. And if they're not true, the more emphatic your denials and the stronger your attacks on critics, the more people listen.
So be quiet and hope the stories go away.
Good luck with that one.
Friday, October 14, 2016
Voter's Choice
Is there no end to the silliness?
With less than a month to go before Election Day, it's long past time news media focused more on something other than who slept with whom, when, where and why, and devoted some time to some serious stuff like experience versus popularity, or competence versus likeability.
Realistically, however, that's not likely to happen, since extramarital antics are too juicy to be ignored, even by the so-called mainstream media. At the same time, the choice of whom to pick as President of the United States is the most important topic voters face. Maybe it's fortunate that this comes only once every four years. Otherwise, we'd be facing a continual gossip show, with little regard for real-world important stuff like international relations, unemployment, crime, housing, or the general state of the nation's economy.
But covering business and economics is dull, many reporters say. This other stuff is far more interesting, juicy and easier to cover.
And they're right. Gossip is easier to cover. But the reason economics and business stories are dull is not that the subjects are dull in themselves. Rather, the reporters and writers are too often guilty of dull writing.
Not that the misbehavior of a recalcitrant bully who wants to be President is unimportant. It is, because it reflects a pattern of behavior going back to teenage years, and would very likely continue if that person occupies the Oval Office.
Nevertheless, the news media have a duty to report the entire story, not just the juicy, gossipy parts more suited to a reality TV show than to a presidential election.
So is there a misplaced emphasis? Which should the news media cover, the recent and current activities of this year's candidate, or the extramarital, albeit consensual, activates of a former President 20 years ago?
One key issue is whether the fun and games were consensual, or were forced on unwilling women. And if these character traits show a pattern of behavior that could influence the decision-making process of whoever occupies the Presidency, it is indeed journalism's duty to report that as a matter of public interest.
And that is the core of the New York Times' response to a threat of a libel suit. It is not only whether the accusations of unwanted sexual actions are true, and if true are not libelous, but largely that the stories come under the protection of the First Amendment guarantee of a free press, and its duty to report matters of public interest.
Certainly there are other stories of major public interest during an election year, such as economics, international relations, employment and immigration, among others. All of these must also be covered by responsible journalists, and they have a duty to make them readable.
The stories become dull only if the writer makes them dull. They may well be more difficult to write about than gossip over who slept with whom, when and where, but therein lies the challenge.
At the same time, voters have a responsibility to pay attention to these important matters, and not succumb to the sleazy attractiveness of gossip.
With less than a month to go before Election Day, it's long past time news media focused more on something other than who slept with whom, when, where and why, and devoted some time to some serious stuff like experience versus popularity, or competence versus likeability.
Realistically, however, that's not likely to happen, since extramarital antics are too juicy to be ignored, even by the so-called mainstream media. At the same time, the choice of whom to pick as President of the United States is the most important topic voters face. Maybe it's fortunate that this comes only once every four years. Otherwise, we'd be facing a continual gossip show, with little regard for real-world important stuff like international relations, unemployment, crime, housing, or the general state of the nation's economy.
But covering business and economics is dull, many reporters say. This other stuff is far more interesting, juicy and easier to cover.
And they're right. Gossip is easier to cover. But the reason economics and business stories are dull is not that the subjects are dull in themselves. Rather, the reporters and writers are too often guilty of dull writing.
Not that the misbehavior of a recalcitrant bully who wants to be President is unimportant. It is, because it reflects a pattern of behavior going back to teenage years, and would very likely continue if that person occupies the Oval Office.
Nevertheless, the news media have a duty to report the entire story, not just the juicy, gossipy parts more suited to a reality TV show than to a presidential election.
So is there a misplaced emphasis? Which should the news media cover, the recent and current activities of this year's candidate, or the extramarital, albeit consensual, activates of a former President 20 years ago?
One key issue is whether the fun and games were consensual, or were forced on unwilling women. And if these character traits show a pattern of behavior that could influence the decision-making process of whoever occupies the Presidency, it is indeed journalism's duty to report that as a matter of public interest.
And that is the core of the New York Times' response to a threat of a libel suit. It is not only whether the accusations of unwanted sexual actions are true, and if true are not libelous, but largely that the stories come under the protection of the First Amendment guarantee of a free press, and its duty to report matters of public interest.
Certainly there are other stories of major public interest during an election year, such as economics, international relations, employment and immigration, among others. All of these must also be covered by responsible journalists, and they have a duty to make them readable.
The stories become dull only if the writer makes them dull. They may well be more difficult to write about than gossip over who slept with whom, when and where, but therein lies the challenge.
At the same time, voters have a responsibility to pay attention to these important matters, and not succumb to the sleazy attractiveness of gossip.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Serial Sleaze
In one of the latest revelations about groping by Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for President, a writer for People magazine says Trump forced himself on her during an interview marking the first anniversary of his marriage to his current wife, Melania, who was pregnant at the time and in another room of the Trump home. The writer says Trump pushed her against a wall, and despite her objections, kissed her and pushed his tongue into her mouth.
Trump's defense? Why wasn't it in the story?
It was a beautiful story, he now says, but nothing was in it alleging the supposed misbehavior. The implication, therefore, is that it never happened, and the writer must be lying.
Here are several possible reasons why the young woman journalist did not put it in the story:
-- The assignment was about the first anniversary of a prominent New York real estate developer's third marriage. By leaving out the bit about being molested, the writer gave him a break.
-- More important, perhaps, she gave his pregnant wife Melania a break from the embarrassment of a public report of a philandering husband.
-- The writer was young, and unsure about how to handle such an episode.
-- The writer was unsure how such a claim would be dealt with by her editors.
-- Since there were only two people in the room, Trump and the writer, it would be an unprovable she-said, he-said incident.
-- She may have been on a free-lance assignment, which meant she would not be paid if she did not write a story.
-- She may have been unsure how such a charge would affect her employment status.
Now, however, more than a dozen women have come forward with reports of being sexually harassed by Trump. His response is to charge a media conspiracy controlled by the Clinton family, enlisting so many women to lie, with fabricated, fictional stories meant to damage his reputation.
Such as it is.
Nevertheless, the parade of testimony has done nothing to influence the full faith of the True Believers at Trump campaign rallies. They are all liars, they insist, and only their Fearless Leader speaks true.
But could it be that Fearless Leader is being disingenuous? Could that explain why the Republican Party is disintegrating, as many senior leaders of the GOP abandon the nominee, with some calling on him to step down?
Could it be that the American people do not want a serial sleaze to be President of the United States of America?
That's warning enough, but the truly frightening aspect of the current Presidential campaign is that Trump has been increasing his warnings that the system is "rigged" against him, that the only way he can lose will be from massive vote stealing, and suggesting that if the vote goes against him, there will be open rebellion by his supporters.
Meanwhile, there are reports that computer hackers working for a foreign power are probing ways to stuff the electronic computer ballot boxes to make sure Trump is elected President.
It can't happen here, you say? Read the book of the same title, written by Sinclair Lewis.
Trump's defense? Why wasn't it in the story?
It was a beautiful story, he now says, but nothing was in it alleging the supposed misbehavior. The implication, therefore, is that it never happened, and the writer must be lying.
Here are several possible reasons why the young woman journalist did not put it in the story:
-- The assignment was about the first anniversary of a prominent New York real estate developer's third marriage. By leaving out the bit about being molested, the writer gave him a break.
-- More important, perhaps, she gave his pregnant wife Melania a break from the embarrassment of a public report of a philandering husband.
-- The writer was young, and unsure about how to handle such an episode.
-- The writer was unsure how such a claim would be dealt with by her editors.
-- Since there were only two people in the room, Trump and the writer, it would be an unprovable she-said, he-said incident.
-- She may have been on a free-lance assignment, which meant she would not be paid if she did not write a story.
-- She may have been unsure how such a charge would affect her employment status.
Now, however, more than a dozen women have come forward with reports of being sexually harassed by Trump. His response is to charge a media conspiracy controlled by the Clinton family, enlisting so many women to lie, with fabricated, fictional stories meant to damage his reputation.
Such as it is.
Nevertheless, the parade of testimony has done nothing to influence the full faith of the True Believers at Trump campaign rallies. They are all liars, they insist, and only their Fearless Leader speaks true.
But could it be that Fearless Leader is being disingenuous? Could that explain why the Republican Party is disintegrating, as many senior leaders of the GOP abandon the nominee, with some calling on him to step down?
Could it be that the American people do not want a serial sleaze to be President of the United States of America?
That's warning enough, but the truly frightening aspect of the current Presidential campaign is that Trump has been increasing his warnings that the system is "rigged" against him, that the only way he can lose will be from massive vote stealing, and suggesting that if the vote goes against him, there will be open rebellion by his supporters.
Meanwhile, there are reports that computer hackers working for a foreign power are probing ways to stuff the electronic computer ballot boxes to make sure Trump is elected President.
It can't happen here, you say? Read the book of the same title, written by Sinclair Lewis.
Bring it on, Don.
"We welcome the opportunity to have a court set (Trump) straight." -- Legal counsel for the New York Times.
Donald Trump called a report in the New York Times about his behavior toward women slander, libel, a total fiction, and "a false smear."
But if it's true, is it still a smear?
That question was answered in 1760 in the case against John Peter Zenger, who was accused of printing a "false libel" against the colonial governor of New York.
The defense pointed out that the story was true, and therefore not a libel.
In the current case, the Republican candidate for President of the United States of America accused the newspaper of colluding with other news media as well as the Clinton family to spread false stories about him that would ruin his reputation.
Trump has claimed that all the women who have told stories of being molested by him are lying and are participants in the conspiracy against him.
Really? All of them? In every detail?
If, as he claims, all the charges are false, why are so many women sacrificing their own reputations by calling him out?
They have nothing material to gain, since all the alleged incidents occurred years ago, and the statute of limitations has run out, so legal against him is no longer possible.
As for legal action against the New York Times, or other publications reporting the allegations of unwanted sexual behavior toward women, news media have absolute protection to report what is said in open court, as well as the documents filed with a court that detail the charges.
News media cannot be sued for libel when reporting court complaints. Moreover, there are three primary defenses against a libel suit. First, it's true, and therefore not libel. There is no such thing as a "false libel," much less a "false smear."
Second, the report is provably true. That's an easy one, since there are recordings of Trump himself describing his behavior and attitudes toward women in general and some individuals in particular. Assuming, of course, that he speaks true and is not indulging in "locker room banter," bragging about his prowess. Further, if a dozen or more women testify under oath that they were molested, the jury has a choice of whom to believe -- one man known to embellish, or a dozen women.
The third main defense against a libel charge is that the information was published without malice. That could be argued, of course, but reinforcing that defense is the legal issue of public interest. Counsel for the New York Times has already noted that the material was published in the public interest, since the accuser is a candidate for President, and people have a right to know what kind of person they could be voting for.
Finally, any attempt to sue newspapers, magazines, broadcasters or anyone commenting on a person in the public eye would clash with the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
Launching a libel suit is pointless if the story is true. And unless the First Amendment is overturned, even filing such a suit will only mean more stories, more ink and more talk about the stories, whether true or not.
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel and newsprint by the ton, or who operates a TV or radio station. Or, for that matter, who has access to the Internet.
Donald Trump called a report in the New York Times about his behavior toward women slander, libel, a total fiction, and "a false smear."
But if it's true, is it still a smear?
That question was answered in 1760 in the case against John Peter Zenger, who was accused of printing a "false libel" against the colonial governor of New York.
The defense pointed out that the story was true, and therefore not a libel.
In the current case, the Republican candidate for President of the United States of America accused the newspaper of colluding with other news media as well as the Clinton family to spread false stories about him that would ruin his reputation.
Trump has claimed that all the women who have told stories of being molested by him are lying and are participants in the conspiracy against him.
Really? All of them? In every detail?
If, as he claims, all the charges are false, why are so many women sacrificing their own reputations by calling him out?
They have nothing material to gain, since all the alleged incidents occurred years ago, and the statute of limitations has run out, so legal against him is no longer possible.
As for legal action against the New York Times, or other publications reporting the allegations of unwanted sexual behavior toward women, news media have absolute protection to report what is said in open court, as well as the documents filed with a court that detail the charges.
News media cannot be sued for libel when reporting court complaints. Moreover, there are three primary defenses against a libel suit. First, it's true, and therefore not libel. There is no such thing as a "false libel," much less a "false smear."
Second, the report is provably true. That's an easy one, since there are recordings of Trump himself describing his behavior and attitudes toward women in general and some individuals in particular. Assuming, of course, that he speaks true and is not indulging in "locker room banter," bragging about his prowess. Further, if a dozen or more women testify under oath that they were molested, the jury has a choice of whom to believe -- one man known to embellish, or a dozen women.
The third main defense against a libel charge is that the information was published without malice. That could be argued, of course, but reinforcing that defense is the legal issue of public interest. Counsel for the New York Times has already noted that the material was published in the public interest, since the accuser is a candidate for President, and people have a right to know what kind of person they could be voting for.
Finally, any attempt to sue newspapers, magazines, broadcasters or anyone commenting on a person in the public eye would clash with the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
Launching a libel suit is pointless if the story is true. And unless the First Amendment is overturned, even filing such a suit will only mean more stories, more ink and more talk about the stories, whether true or not.
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel and newsprint by the ton, or who operates a TV or radio station. Or, for that matter, who has access to the Internet.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Fiscal or Monetary Policy
When it comes to helping a nation recover from an economic downturn, there are three options:
-- Do nothing, and eventually the cycle will turn up again and all will be well.
-- Have government increase its spending, offering contracts to businesses, which then hire more people and their wages spread the spending flow to the rest of society and the economy recovers.
-- Urge the nation's central bank to lower interest rates by making more money available, which enables firms to invest in more production, which means more jobs and a greater quantity of goods, leading to lower prices, which encourages consumer spending.
The latter, of course, can happen only if consumers have jobs and wages. That, in turn, depends partly on government efforts.
This year, the issue of government spending has become prominent during the presidential election campaign, with both sides promising to push for more spending, even as some candidates promise budget cuts and lower taxes.
Sorry guys, you can't have both. Moreover, Congress has been stalling infrastructure spending for several years, while the nation's roads, bridges, railroads and other facilities deteriorate for lack of maintenance spending.
So in the absence of government spending to help the slow recovery, that leaves the Federal Reserve, as America's central bank, to work on option three, lowering interest rates by increasing the money supply.
That is what the Fed has done over the past eight years, cutting its key interest rate to near zero, and the economy has responded. Slowly, but it has been recovering.
But the issue of whether the recovery has been strong enough for a long enough period to enable the Fed to back off its policy of "quantitative easing" -- boosting the money supply -- has not yet been resolved.
Therefore, at the most recent meeting of its Open Market Committee, the Fed decided to maintain the target rate for federal funds in the range of 1/4 to 1/2 percent.
In the minutes of the meeting, held in late September, the Fed wrote that members of the Open Market Committee "generally agreed that the case for an increase in the policy rate had strengthened," but the FOMC will wait for further evidence of progress because of "some slack remaining" in the labor market and inflation still below the Fed's target range of 2 percent.
The unemployment rate nationwide has been holding at a shade below 5 percent.
Some members, however, warned that waiting for too long could have adverse effects, which would force a stronger tightening of monetary policy too quickly. And that, they cautioned, could stall an already slow recovery.
The bottom line is that the first option -- doing nothing -- is too dangerous, as shown by history.
The second option -- fiscal policy, or government spending -- has been blocked by political partisanship.
That leaves the third option -- monetary policy -- which is in the purview of the Federal Reserve Board. The Fed has been exercising that option, to somewhat limited success.
In all, national economics should be viewed as a circle, and unless all the members in it -- consumers, businesses and government -- are aware of the benefits of cooperation and the dangers of ignoring other members, the economic cycle will go out of control and become a vicious cycle, with only one trend.
Downward.
-- Do nothing, and eventually the cycle will turn up again and all will be well.
-- Have government increase its spending, offering contracts to businesses, which then hire more people and their wages spread the spending flow to the rest of society and the economy recovers.
-- Urge the nation's central bank to lower interest rates by making more money available, which enables firms to invest in more production, which means more jobs and a greater quantity of goods, leading to lower prices, which encourages consumer spending.
The latter, of course, can happen only if consumers have jobs and wages. That, in turn, depends partly on government efforts.
This year, the issue of government spending has become prominent during the presidential election campaign, with both sides promising to push for more spending, even as some candidates promise budget cuts and lower taxes.
Sorry guys, you can't have both. Moreover, Congress has been stalling infrastructure spending for several years, while the nation's roads, bridges, railroads and other facilities deteriorate for lack of maintenance spending.
So in the absence of government spending to help the slow recovery, that leaves the Federal Reserve, as America's central bank, to work on option three, lowering interest rates by increasing the money supply.
That is what the Fed has done over the past eight years, cutting its key interest rate to near zero, and the economy has responded. Slowly, but it has been recovering.
But the issue of whether the recovery has been strong enough for a long enough period to enable the Fed to back off its policy of "quantitative easing" -- boosting the money supply -- has not yet been resolved.
Therefore, at the most recent meeting of its Open Market Committee, the Fed decided to maintain the target rate for federal funds in the range of 1/4 to 1/2 percent.
In the minutes of the meeting, held in late September, the Fed wrote that members of the Open Market Committee "generally agreed that the case for an increase in the policy rate had strengthened," but the FOMC will wait for further evidence of progress because of "some slack remaining" in the labor market and inflation still below the Fed's target range of 2 percent.
The unemployment rate nationwide has been holding at a shade below 5 percent.
Some members, however, warned that waiting for too long could have adverse effects, which would force a stronger tightening of monetary policy too quickly. And that, they cautioned, could stall an already slow recovery.
The bottom line is that the first option -- doing nothing -- is too dangerous, as shown by history.
The second option -- fiscal policy, or government spending -- has been blocked by political partisanship.
That leaves the third option -- monetary policy -- which is in the purview of the Federal Reserve Board. The Fed has been exercising that option, to somewhat limited success.
In all, national economics should be viewed as a circle, and unless all the members in it -- consumers, businesses and government -- are aware of the benefits of cooperation and the dangers of ignoring other members, the economic cycle will go out of control and become a vicious cycle, with only one trend.
Downward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)