The L Word

"That's a word I take from no man! Put up your fists!" -- Victor McLaglen as Will Danaher in "The Quiet Man,"  (1952).

   Time was, using the L word would bring that kind of response, even if metaphorical. And until last year, the L word rarely appeared in mainstream news media.
   Now, an entire half-hour segment can list and document the number of times as well as the specific details and background to the falsehoods the current president of the United States has uttered.
   Roll the video.
   Recently, he was asked about his promise to personally donate $1 million to charity if Sen. Elizabeth Warren took a DNA test to prove her claim of Native American ancestry.
   So she did, and the results were positive. But when the president was asked when he would fulfill his promise, his answer was, "I never said that."
   So TV stations rolled the video of the president saying exactly that, at a public campaign rally before thousands in the crowd and many more watching on news channels.
   Not too long ago, calling someone a liar was too harsh a term to be used in otherwise civil discourse. Mainstream print media rarely, if ever, used the word and broadcast news anchors and commentators apologized up front before showing a video or repeating a quote.
   Now the infamy is gone and the word is commonplace.
   Language changes over time, of course, with new words entering the national vocabulary and others seeing more widespread use in public discourse.
   Whether the use of a particular word is acceptable in public, civil discourse, is a social judgment, not linguistic. But words have power, and overuse can quickly diminish that power. Nevertheless, there are some words whose power deserves respect, and should not be used unless warranted.
   The L word is one of them.

Breaking the Demand-Supply Law

Once you understand the Law of Demand and Supply, you master Economics 101.

   When consumers want something and it's not available nearby at a reasonable price, they go elsewhere. 
   This principle applies whether it's about one person looking for a cup of coffee or it's about an entire retail chain searching for a new supply of beans.
   If, for example, the U.S. government imposes a tariff on coffee beans from Honduras to protect growers in America, the cost of Honduran beans will go up to cover the tariff, and U.S. growers will either maintain their price level as the competition lessens, or they will raise their prices to boost profits, for the same reason -- less competition.
   Say what? There are few, if any, coffee bean growers in America?
   All the more reason, then, to impose the import tax as a way to encourage a new domestic business activity.
   But it takes years to plant, grow, harvest and distribute a new crop, you object.
   That's OK, the government replies. We have to protect those who invest in the new industry from unfair competition.
   Our resident cynic, Pug Mahoney, notes that to such as these, "unfair competition" is when the other guy sometimes wins. The underlying attitude is that "fair" competition means that they win everything all the time and the other guy always loses.
   Besides, they point out, "those other guys are only ____ anyway, so they don't matter."
   
   Those who suspect a touch of bigotry or racism behind such an attitude are likely correct, and could easily recite numerous examples in American history when attitudes like that were widespread, and applied to earlier groups of newcomers. Moreover, similar examples show up in the history of other nations.

      Now consider the current flap to keep out stuff made in China in order to "protect" American makers. The result will be that less stuff will come from China or it will be more expensive. Meanwhile, Chinese firms will look to other markets, so consumers in other countries will benefit from the availability of lower priced stuff from China. Once again, the Law of Demand and Supply is enforced, as suppliers look to other markets and consumers seek new suppliers.

Political Fakers

   Political types often masquerade as being devoted to the public good, even as they rely on corporate money to finance their campaigns.
   In addition, they are fond of attempting to humiliate those who disagree with them  -- other candidates -- as well as those who disclose information embarrassing to them --  journalists.
   It matters not whether the report is true. The point is that it tarnishes their Golden Image.
   Lost in the tirade of verbal venom against the news media, for example, is the idea that reporters really don't care about the politician's Golden Image. Their concern is about getting a good story, and it doesn't matter whether the subject is a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal, a conservative, or anything else. If the report tarnishes the carefully polished Golden Image, so much more the fun for the reporters.
   Perhaps it's time that the general public remember that's what reporters do. It's part of the job to expose the corruption, malice, petty behavior, and the fakery so common among political types.
   If some are more adept at camouflaging their fakery, that just means it's more of a challenge for reporters. And the more politicians attack the news media as they try to cover up their shenanigans, the harder and the deeper reporters dig.

Do Deficits Matter?

"Deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney

   Many folks claim difficulty understanding economics, but that's partly the fault of teachers who rely heavily on abstract numbers to explain arcane theories. Except that the theories are neither abstract nor arcane. They deal with the study of what people do with the resources available to them.
   Granted, some resources are not as readily available as others, but that too is part of the study.
   Consider the concept of deficit spending by government. For a long time, conservative politicians touted the notion that balanced budgets are the only way to run a government. Now we hear that any loss from that strategy can be made up by tax reductions, which will increase production, which will boost purchasing, which will hike tax revenue, and as the change trickles down through the economy, everyone is better off.
   Say what?

   It sounds wonderful, except when reality steps in and points out that things don't work that way.
   The government just reported that the budget deficit for the fiscal year just ended was $779 billion, a 17 percent increase from the year before. Experts attributed that change to tax cuts that ate into government revenue.
   But it doesn't matter, Republicans are fond of saying now, and that's a major turnaround from their historical position that insisted on a balanced budget.
   However, consider this: When you decrease revenue and increase spending, eventually you go broke.
   Granted, it's harder for a nation to go bankrupt, since it can stall the problem by printing more money. But inflating the amount of cash in the economy only leads to higher costs, as prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
   And if wages don't keep pace with prices, the result is poverty.
   Eventually, the problem catches up to society as inflation soars to uncontrollable levels.
   A nation's central bank, however -- in America that's the Federal Reserve -- tries to keep inflation under control. That is, to keep it within a  acceptable level. But what is an "acceptable" level?
   That is the question that puzzles the experts almost daily. The Fed has settled on approximately 2 percent, and the agency tries to reach this target by controlling the supply of money in circulation. With less money available, prices cannot rise as fast, and wages are more likely to enable workers to stay within reach of buying stuff.
   However, when business feels free to boost prices to increase profits, even as they trim expenses by stifling wage growth, soon enough, someone will suffer.
   And on a government level, cutting taxes to encourage corporate profit really amounts to reducing government revenue. But if government increases spending -- on the military, for instance, while it cuts social welfare expenditures -- soon enough, there will be problems.
   Rationalizing that policy by endorsing the "trickle down" theory may sound good, but that's what rationalizing often does.
   Reality, however, has a way stepping in when you least expect it. It may take a while, but it will happen.

Economic Politics

Not to decide is to decide. -- Pug Mahoney

   When economics and politics mix, the result can be prosperity or chaos, partly depending on the strategy and goals of the political manipulators.
   Liberals and conservatives both try to manipulate an economy for the benefit of their supporters, each with varying degrees of success. And depending on your own political, social and economic views, these attempts may or may not be admirable or even appropriate goals.
   In any case, an economy -- national or regional -- has a life of its own, and the political views of the society where it functions determines and reflects that life.
   So which comes first, politics or economics? Or are they both equal, even as politicians try to influence economic welfare and as economists insist what people do with what's available is independent of political manipulation?
   Part of the problem is that for years, economists tried to remove their academic specialty from the real world and apply abstract mathematical principles to the study.
  They called it econometrics. 
   A useful tool, to be sure, but any tool is only as good is its user, and when the academics removed their subject from the real world, they lost some touch with reality.
  The subject was originally known as political economics, stressing the notion that the study dealt with what people do with what's available, and differentiating this larger field from what was known as home economics. What a family does and what a community, industry or a nation does are to be studied separately.
   To be overly simplistic, that's the difference between micro and macro economics.
   Either way, it's a matter of who decides what to use, how and when to use the resources available.
   And if the choice is none of the above, that also is a decision.

It Can't Happen Here

   "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Sometimes attributed to Voltaire or Patrick Henry, but actually written by Evelyn Hall in 1906.

   When people of a free society lose their right to speak freely and disagree with others, that society itself is in danger of no longer being a democracy.
   When a political candidate urges violence against protestors and those who disagree, he hastens the nation's decline toward tyranny or dictatorship.

   "Get him outta here" and "I'd like to punch him in the face" are some of the things a current American official has said publicly, as he encouraged chants of "Lock her up!" among his crowds of supporters.
   This same politician spent a lifetime in business demanding unquestioning loyalty from everyone he dealt with, but when that same attitude is carried into a government position, especially at a high level, the danger of that nation's democracy collapsing into autocracy rises sharply.

   It may well be a natural tendency among some people to expect loyalty and agreement from everyone in all things, but when that attitude is carried forward into government positions and opposition is forcibly repressed, freedom and democracy are imperiled.

   It doesn't take much knowledge of history to list several examples of that phenomenon causing serious problems, even war, in other countries. Moreover, that issue can be found in news reports even today.

   "It can't happen here," you say.
   But it can, and very nearly did, several times, and several books have been written documenting that very real possibility.

In Loco Parenthesis

   The president now says the Federal Reserve Board is "loco," and "out of control." Moreover, he adds, "I know more than they do."
   News flash: The White House does not control the Federal Reserve, whose responsibility is to monitor the economy and try to prevent extreme swings that would endanger the national welfare.
   But this president seems to want totally free business and financial markets, with no government influence or interference of any kind. Ever.
  
   Been there, done that, and the result was chaos, rampant in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, with economic crashes that spread poverty and distress not only around the country but around the world.
   It was not until 1917 that the Federal Reserve was founded, and not until the Great Depression of the 1930s that government took a more firm hand in regulating business and financial activities.
   Before that, big business management showed a penchant for full control of what they do, with no government interference. This included wages and salaries, and treatment of workers. Management preferred government cooperation in controlling things that might interfere with profits, and that included labor costs as well as foreign competition.
   If management had treated workers fairly and humanely, there would have no need for labor unions. Taken to extremes, the reaction to unfair treatment leads to widespread strikes and violence. Even worse, this leads to a dictatorship of either a political group favorable to management or another group favorable to workers. In some countries, that's called the proletariat.
   At one extreme, then, is suppression of workers by governments supported by corporate management, and at the other extreme, suppression of management.
   Somewhere in the middle may be a better system, which would satisfy both sides in the social hierarchy. Put simply, that's what happened in America and in some other countries, avoiding both extremes.
   After much conflict, labor and management compromised. Moreover, that spirit of joint effort for the common good of all still prevails, despite occasional eruptions.
   One of these eruptions is a move to impose high taxes on goods imported from other nations. These are called tariffs, and are levied as a way to protect domestic producers.
   The problem with that, however, is that other countries retaliate, so consumers on both sides suffer as management raises prices to maintain profits. That doesn't last, because soon enough people stop buying.
   Result: Economic crash.
   It happened after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed into law on June 17, 1930, raising U.S. import taxes on more than 20,000 goods.
   Along with the stock market crash of the previous October, the combination of higher prices to consumers already suffering from lower wages and fewer jobs led to a worsening of an already harsh economic environment.
   If any of this sounds familiar to what's happening now, perhaps it's time to be afraid. Be very afraid.

   October 1929 saw a stock market crash. October 1987 saw another Wall Street debacle. This week, the stock market stumbled by more than 800 points on the widely followed Dow Jones Industrial Average.
   Is this a harbinger of things to come? Perhaps. Or not.

   Such a warning assumes that the stock market is directly related to the economy and is, as some put it, a barometer of economic growth. Others disagree, noting that very few Americans actually own stock, and many of those who do invest their money in mutual funds, rather than in individual companies.
   That, however, doesn't stop politicians from blaming others for things that they don't like.
   So why is the president criticizing the Fed for its efforts to smooth out radical changes in the economy even though activities on Wall Street stock markets have little directly to do with overall economic growth? Could it be that he wants full control of this, too, overturning nearly one hundred years of efforts to stabilize financial whiplash?

Time and Temperament

   If SCOTUS is the media catchword for Supreme Court of the United States, and POTUS stands for President of  the United States, would SPOTUS be used for Supreme President of the United States?
   A more crucial question then becomes, is that where the nation is heading, and if so, how worried should we be?

   But the historic reality is that warnings like this have been sounded before, and the nation has survived.
   For example, Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was accused of trying to expand and stack the Supreme Court to stop it from overturning many of his economic recovery programs on constitutional grounds.
   And Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was accused of trying to become a dictator.
   Between and since, other presidents have been accused of these and many other things, ranging from incompetence to insanity, partly depending on how angry the opposition party was at the time.
   The current president is facing many similar criticisms, but whether any are true and whether he will face impeachment and removal from office as well as criminal or civil charges while in office or after he leaves is something that only history can record.
   It's no secret that government leaders try to appoint federal judges -- up to and including justices on the Supreme Court -- who will follow the conservative or liberal guidelines preferred by their political parties. But it's also true that members of the Supreme Court, while they may show certain political leanings while on lower court benches, often go in directions unexpected and unanticipated by those who nominate and confirm them.
   It's an odd thing to consider, but it seems that once they reach the pinnacle of success in the legal world -- a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court -- they adhere to the ethics of their profession and follow the best principles of the law.
   This is not always true, of course, but there have been occasions when a conservative nominated to the Supreme Court by a conservative president moved in a direction unexpected by the president who chose the justice. This reflects a presidential attitude that the chosen nominee will follow the directions indicated by the occupant of the Oval Office.
   So far, it has not happened that SCOTUS appointees have bent themselves to the will of POTUS. 
   It's enough of a problem that members of Congress have played follow the POTUS leader, and have forgotten their constitutional mandate to remain a separate and co-equal branch of government.
   However, if SCOTUS falls into the POTUS line, then we may well have a SPOTUS governmental system.
   And that smacks too much of a dictatorship.

Capitalism vs Socialism

   There are some things that government can and should do, such as road and bridge construction and repair, law enforcement, fire protection, and environmental and pollution control.
   This is largely because private enterprise cannot or will not do these things on their own. Why?  Because the profit motive is not there. And when it is, the cost to consumers is so outrageous that government steps in to ensure benefits for the population as a whole, not just for the rich.
   Otherwise, when the profit motive is strong enough and there is a market for a product or service, private enterprise typically jumps at the opportunity to make a buck. It  is free to do so. Or not.
   But since the underlying, basic feature of a capitalist system is greed, investors will take advantage and act.
   That's one end of the economic spectrum -- unfettered, capitalist free enterprise. At the other end is an economy fully controlled by government with the goal of providing a range of goods and services to all members of society, at minimal cost to them.
   So which is better -- totally free enterprise controlled solely by a profit motive with no government interference?
   Or an economic system tightly controlled by government, which tells producers what to make, how much to make and for whom to make it?
   Or should a society strive for something in the middle, where those with money to invest seek the best return on their capital, but are limited by government rules that prevent them from taking all they can with no concern for the general welfare?
   
   History shows that systems at each extreme don't work for the benefit of all citizens, even though each has some good concepts to contribute to the general welfare. Therefore, a better system would be one that fits somewhere in the middle, borrowing from each system and striving to provide the most benefit for the most people.
   Ah, but there's the rub. Where, on what location on the economic spectrum, is the better place to be?
   That decision is made often, especially in societies that elect political leaders who follow the wishes of the majority of the electorate and use political influence to nudge an economy in a direction that will benefit all.

Stuff and Nonsense

It's all about stuff.

   To borrow a line from the George Carlin school of economics, as suggested by Pug Mahoney, a large part of life is about stuff.
   I've got stuff, you've got stuff, everybody's got stuff. If I have more stuff than I need, and you have stuff that I want, let's trade. And if the wants and needs don't match, let's invent money to make trading easier.
   That principle works not only on an individual level, but national and international, as well. Technically, economists call money a medium of exchange, or a store of value, among other things. And it doesn't really matter what society uses as money, so long as people accept it and use it.
   That's why, when you go to a grocery store and pick out food, then take it to the checkout counter, somebody adds up some numbers and you show some pieces of paper (dollar bills, remember them?) or a piece of plastic that the clerk zaps through a machine and a computer somewhere deducts that amount from your bank account or adds it to the total of what you owe some other company.
   Did you see any "real money" -- gold or silver -- change hands? No. Quite a concept, when you think about it.

   Meanwhile, on a national level in America, the unemployment is down, total employment is up, total output of goods and services (GDP) is up and the country now has what is likely the longest stretch of economic recovery in its history.
   That means the Federal Reserve, which controls the total supply of money in circulation, is likely to increase interest rates again to prevent the growth rate from zooming too fast and thus threatening a sharp downturn. It's what they do. How do they influence interest rates? By controlling the supply of money available. That's basic to the economic law of supply and demand.
   Does it work? Over the long haul, probably yes.
   Meanwhile, politicians complain that the Fed is holding back further growth. At the same time, they take credit when things are going well, and blame "the other guy" when times are tough.
   Reality check: Politicians have only a limited influence on the overall economy, and that's often short-term, at best. And while it's true that government spending can salvage an economy in ruins when consumer spending on goods and services collapses, that concept applies at best when an economy needs outside stimulation. Otherwise, it's better that government stay on the sidelines.
   Try telling an ambitious politician to be quiet. Or as Pug Mahoney would put it, politics isn't about getting anything done. It's about getting re-elected.

Slander and Candor

If it's true, it's not libel.

   It matters not how much lawyers may rant or politicians may deny, if the information as published is true and provably true, it's not libel. Therefore, the best defense against a charge of libel is truth.
   When a newspaper prints information about tax fraud, for example, and includes documentation supporting the allegations, politicians and their lawyers can complain all they like about "fake news" and "failing" newspapers.
   When the story is backed by fact and evidence, any threat of a lawsuit can be answered with this: "Bring it on, counselor!"
   That means the aggrieved person will face deposition and testimony under oath, by subpoena if need be, and subject to the penalties of perjury.
   It's one thing to brag, bend the truth, exaggerate and even lie during interviews and public appearances, but judges and prosecutors do not take kindly to liars, especially when civil or criminal charges are strongly supported by "true facts," as lawyers call them.
   False facts or even "alternative facts" are of little use in a courtroom. So a politician or any other public figure can deny until daybreak allegations of impropriety, wrongdoing or outright fraud, and the news media will report that too.
   In fact, the longer and stronger the denials, the more exposure they get.
   If a politician denies the allegations and attacks the allegater every day for a week, that's another seven days that the story sees print and gathers air time. Shrewd public relations advisors often tell their clients to ignore a story they don't like -- true or not -- and soon enough the story will go away as the news media chase other stories.
   Journalists run the story as well as the denial. But each time the subject denies the allegation, news media report that, too.
   Each and every time, especially when more details are uncovered to support the original allegation.

Government and Truth

How can you tell when a politician is lying? -- Dinty Ramble
His lips are moving. -- Pug Mahoney

   How little times have changed.

   Young reporter to editor: "Did you ever get the feeling that a politician is lying to you?"
   Editor: "Of course. It happens all the time when you're working two sides of a story and it's clear that one side is lying. Sometimes they both are, but it's not always your job to decide which side is. Your responsibility is to report both sides and let the reader decide who's truthful and who's not."

   Ignoring the questions does not make them go away.
   News outlets continue to provide information to the public.
   It's not a crime to lie to reporters or to the public generally. It is, however, a crime to lie to law enforcement or to Congress.

From the archive, August, 2012

   There has been a noticeable change among TV interviewers when dealing with politicians. They remind the subject that he or she did not answer the question, following up with something like, "Are you, or are you not ... ?" This is a good change.
   Candidates and elected officials from the president on down talk too much and say too little. Answer the question, please. Say what you have to say briefly and concisely, and move on. Otherwise, you give the impression that you don't really know what you're talking about, and you resort to speaking at length in the hope that an idea will come to you while you're prattling.
   Heed the advice of Plato: Do not "return a long-winded harangue to every question, impeding the argument and evading the point, and speaking at such length that most of (your) hearers forget the question." (Protagoras, 336:c-d, Jowett translation)
   The strategy of pettifoggery and gobbledygook mixed with bombast may sound good to the base of devoted followers, but to those who listen for intelligent ideas amid all the sound and fury, it prompts the question: How dumb do they think we are? The cynic's reply: Very.
   Too often, we get the kind of government we deserve, not the kind we need.

   How little times have changed.