GLEANINGS of an Itinerant Speller -- When you counter someone's position, you present a "rebuttal," not a "rebuttle." Take care when using verb and noun variants, since leaving off a letter can result in "use" rather than "user." Spellcheck programs will not help here, since both words are correctly spelled.
SAY WHAT? -- A TV ad offered a mattress that would "customize your sleep experience." Restaurants are fond of promoting a "dining experience." And car dealers emphasize the joy of having a "driving experience." What happened to the days when we would simply drive to a restaurant, dine, and then go home to sleep?
WHO'S KIDDING WHOM? -- AT&T said it will start tracking the sites its wireless customers visit, and then tailor the advertising displayed on these customer devices, in order to "serve you better." Another company proudly announced it was changing its name "to better serve our customers."
A name change is rarely, if ever, for customer convenience. Rather, it aids corporate marketing. And tracking customer activity while promising privacy remains only a cover for corporate advertising efforts. One could argue, of course, and the company does, that such programs result in customers getting ads that they are more likely to be interested in. But that serves the advertiser interest as much as, if not more than, the customers.
If you build it, they will come. If you make it, they will buy.
Which comes first, supply or demand? I can build it, but they may not come without money to buy a ticket.
News item: The Bank of England and the European Central Bank said they plan to hold interest rates down for "an extended period." Read: As long as it takes to revive the sagging economy. Their position now echoes that of the Federal Reserve in America. On both sides of the pond, interest rates for major borrowers is well below 1 percent, and in one case, zero, as monetary mavens try to make enough cash available to induce folks to get the economy moving.
Fiscal finches, meanwhile, the remnants of the Reaganauts and Thatcherites, continue to chant austerity, or spending cuts, even as central bankers in Europe and America call for more spending, not less.
News item: U.S. employment increased by 195,000 in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported, but the number of people without jobs was unchanged, at 11.8 million, and the number of jobless as a percent of the total labor force was also unchanged, at 7.6 percent. "Both measures have shown little change since February," the government said. Also showing little change were two other data points, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio.
Conclusion: Work-wise, nothing's happening.
Meanwhile, across the pond, recessionary waves are still washing through the population. In the countries that use the euro as currency, the unemployment rate is above 12 percent, according to data released by Eurostat on July 1, and 11 percent throughout all 27 countries in the EU. Some 26.5 million people are out of work throughout the EU, with the highest jobless rates recorded in Spain and Greece -- both above 26 percent, according to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union.
Croatia has just joined the EU, adding its 4.4 million population to the total. But with 18.1 percent of the workforce out of jobs, and its economy sagging by 2 percent last year, that's not going to help the overall European economy.
Spending by consumers accounts for some 80 percent of total consumption (government accounts for some of the rest). But consumers can't consume without means to buy, and that means money. And those without jobs don't have it.
The monetary mavens are helping, by making more money available, but if too much cash inflates prices, the exercise becomes self-defeating. Fiscal finches and austerity crows only make things worse by not spending what money is available, especially by government, which doesn't have to worry about debt. At least, not in the short term.
It's not difficult. Government can, and should, step in and boot the economy by spending, hiring people and putting them on payrolls so they have cash to buy stuff, which induces makers to increase their output so more stuff is available, and the economy grows.
It's not new. It worked in the 1930s. and it can work again today. The director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, said a month ago that the U.S. recovery "is gaining ground and becoming more durable. However, it has a way to go." And that means to ease off spending cuts to boost the recovery.
Monetary policy, as it pushes interest rates near zero, doesn't have much more room. Therefore, it falls to government to act. If the austerity crows have their way -- as is happening in Europe and is proposed in America -- look for things to get worse before they get better.
How long should a sentence be? Long enough to convey the thought, but not so long as to confuse the reader.
Snob appeal shows up in writing when only other snobs are able to read it, or are even willing to try. If that's your target audience, go for it, and good luck.
However, if you want a wide readership, write for your neighbor and your mother-in-law.
Complexicated writing has plenty of snob appeal, but who are you trying to impress? From this editor's chair, the strategy is this: If the reader has to go back and puzzle through it a second or a third time, the writer has failed to communicate.
In broadcast writing -- news or commercial -- you get one chance to catch the viewer's ear and get the message across. Repetition is possible, of course, in advertising, but that carries the risk of annoying the audience. In print, readers can go back and read the text a second or a third time until they understand it, but they shouldn't have to. Don't make them.
In earlier years, the idea was to see how complex a writer could make a sentence and still maintain control of it. That was common through the 19th Century, but lost favor when mass circulation newspapers came to be, and competed with broadcasting for readers and listeners.
Politicians, academics and diplomats are fond of airy phrases that are full of sound and fury, but signify nothing, as Shakespeare wrote. Today, the general reader has little time or inclination to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous writing in tales told by those concerned with appearing more intelligent than they actually are.
Or, as our philosopher friend Pug Mahoney once put it, "If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. And if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s."
"Is a puzzlement," said the king.
Take my money ... please.
Let's start with a few brief definitions, to clear up euphemisms.
Fiscal consolidation -- austerity, or spending cuts.
Quantitative easing -- increasing the money supply.
But consider this: How can one government agency reduce its spending, while another increases the amount of money available? And what's the result?
Setting aside (sequestering) for the moment the inherent confusion of verbose and contradictory terms, the result of these two clashing policies means higher prices, as one side stops spending even as another pumps more money into the economy. In effect, one offsets the other, and the consequence of inflating the supply of cash available boosts prices.
Put another way, with more dollars in circulation and the same amount of goods and services available, that means higher prices.
One would think that in recessionary times, as demand for stuff falls, prices would follow, to induce folks to buy. But if the money supply increases, more dollars chase fewer goods, bidding up prices.
The clash of fiscal consolidation versus quantitative easing creates a battle where one side says stop spending, and the other says here's more money to spend. So more dollars are available, but fewer are being used.
However, is that true? Major firms often have first dibs at the finance counter because they deal in larger amounts, so they can borrow at near zero interest rates, pay down corporate debt and reward senior execs with big bonuses for their "great performance."
Where does that leave the rest of the people, with savings accounts yielding less than 1 percent interest and prices rising at 2 percent? Do the math; they lose money. So that means, spend it now because you can't afford it tomorrow. But that leaves you broke while senior execs stash the cash. Want evidence? Check the New York Times report the other day on executive compensation. It's soaring.
Looked at another way, there's really not much new here, just new names. Some ninety years ago, as the Gilded Era reached a zenith, America's super-rich enjoyed their "cottages" at Newport and their mansions on country estates, while workers struggled to form unions and get livable wages.
Those days may be gone, but the habits are still around, with new names.
But the good news for the day is that the U.S. exported $187 billion in goods and services in May, according to the Commerce Department. Over the past twelve months, exports totaled $2.2 trillion, 41 percent above 2009. The figures were released by the Export-Import Bank, an independent government agency that helps to finance overseas trade.
So how much of that boost can be attributed to "quantitative easing," the pumping of extra dollars into the economy?
It is, indeed, a puzzlement.
Language is not logical
Grammar check programs are generally not worth the space they take up on computer memory banks, because they're too often wrong. Spellcheck, however, is a useful tool. But remember, a tool is only as useful as the user. Spellcheck will catch words that it does not recognize, even though they may be the right words. The user has the option of adding those words to the program's lexicon, or word list. Meanwhile, the program bypasses words that are spelled correctly, but are the wrong words. These are called homonyms, or soundalikes. That is, they sound the same but are spelled differently. Examples: Way, weigh; to, too, two; and my favorite, carrot, karat, carat, caret.
As for grammar check, the ear is often a better judge of syntax than trying to adhere to a hidebound set of rules imposed in elementary school and often based on someone's weird sense of logic, using Latin terms that only serve to confuse. Let's face it, language is not logical.
In the use of collective nouns, for example, there is the insistence that these forms always take a singular verb. But that's true only if the members are acting collectively, as in "The crew is ready to make sail," or "The team is ready to play ball." On the other hand, if (members of) the crew are acting as individuals, as in "The crew are going ashore," presumably to visit friends and/or drink, then a plural verb is needed.
One of the most egregious examples is the choice of verb for "couple." Or, as the editor once put it to make the point: "The couple was married ten years ago. Two years later, it was divorced." Keep in mind that two people are involved, and so the plural pronoun "they" is appropriate. And this, of course, requires a plural verb. But if the two people are musicians and form a duet, then a single musical entity is formed, and it performs.
Logic? As they say in Noo Yawk, "Fuhgedabowdit!"
Corporate media are getting fewer and bigger, expanding their broadcast holdings even as newspapers struggle to maintain profitability. Fewer firms can lead to fewer voices dominating more channels to the public ear.
News items:
-- The Tribune Co. is set to buy 19 TV stations for an estimated $2.7 billion, further consolidating the broadcast industry as it trims or sheds its newspaper operations.
-- Gannet has doubled its ownership of TV stations as its flagship newspaper, USA Today, tries to deal with changes in the industry.
-- News Corp., the Rupert Murdoch firm that owns Dow Jones, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, Harper Collins, The Times and The Sunday Times of London as well as several Australian publishing outlets, is moving to consolidate its operations and ownership of 21st Century Fox, Fox Broadcasting, the Fox New Channel, Sky News (a United Kingdom TV firm), the National Geographic Channel, plus other broadcast and production properties.
-- Increasingly, separate TV broadcasters in the same city share camera crews and reporters.
Reporters and editors have always filtered what constitutes news, clearing the clutter and exposing the propaganda as they bring information to the public. But as newspapers trim their operations and TV stations expand theirs -- emphasizing the colorful, the scandalous, the gory and the salacious -- thought-provoking articles and essays in print may become an endangered species as corporate owners push their agendas.
This is not to say that newspapers never had agendas -- they did, and they do, political and otherwise. But there was diversity.
The question now becomes whether there is diversity among broadcasters, who increasingly dominate the media landscape.
One easy answer is no, there isn't enough media diversity. True, it can be said that Fox broadcasts from the Right, MSNBC broadcasts from the Left, and CNN and the major networks present from the Middle. But how much diversity is enough? The sub-text of that question implies that there are not enough channels broadcasting viewpoints that agree with the questioner.
In a larger sense, however, there is diversity of a type that would give 19th Century media titans nightmares. The Internet, with its many forms of social media, allows for anyone with access to a computer to send video, viewpoints and opinions worldwide.
It was social media that picked up the video feed from the Texas statehouse and made an otherwise obscure state senator, Wendy Davis, an overnight celebrity. With her 11-hour filibuster, watched by millions, Davis stopped an effort to close every abortion clinic in the state.
Gov. Rick Perry, in an effort to revive the shutdown bill, has called the Legislature back, to a special session.
Something to watch for: The Texas State Legislature may pull the plug on video feeds of its activities, since that was what brought so much embarrassment and opposition to the conservative bill, and so much instant support for the filibustering Sen. Davis.
But to the point: Traditional print and broadcast media may be cutting back on its news coverage, and its influence may be changing, but New Media and crowd-sourcing are moving in.
By limiting coverage of events to those where camera crews can get in, broadcasters cede some journalistic control to politicians and those who sponsor the events. At the same time, hand-held video recording devices carried by so many people means speakers can no longer be sure their remarks are "off the record," and won't find their way to broadcast studios.
In short, if you're near other people and you don't want to see it broadcast or in print, don't say it.
When the sun goes down
And the tide goes out
People gather 'round
And they all begin to shout,
Hey, hey, Uncle Fed
It's a treat to beat the rate
So it's really, really great
Monetary flow keeps it really, really low.
Economists are fond of saying that in good times, a rising tide lifts all boats. But consider this: In a storm, small boats are more likely to be swamped. And when the tide goes out, both large and small are stranded.
The outgoing tide of austerity may not affect the economic boats -- read: nations -- big enough to sail their own course on an open sea, but eventually they'll need a port to unload and sell their cargo.
Some 80 years ago, many nations were chanting the austerity song, but in doing so only made things worse for everyone, including their own citizens. The U.S. economy may be the largest boat in the world economic fleet, and the second round of quantitative easing (QE2) may have pumped enough monetary fuel to keep the ship afloat and cruising for a time, but soon enough the American trading boat will need customers. And if austerity means others stop buying, then what?
Now, echoing the Great Depression, some nations are demanding austere measures, which may in the short term help an individual government -- but not necessarily its citizens -- but the larger consequence will be that smaller national economies will be left high and dry.
Monetary policy from Uncle Fed has kept interest rates low and encouraged some investment and purchasing. But Big Ben Bernanke warned that policy may change, and the market reacted by sending rates higher, which will cut into housing loans.
One solution is the same one offered during the Great Depression by economist John Maynard Keynes: Government spending, or fiscal policy, as a way to keep things moving, to stimulate demand so that supply keeps flowing and people -- the makers -- have jobs and income to buy stuff. Then, when the economic seas provide better sailing, government can move on to other things.
NEWS ITEM: Some state politicians want to increase spending for prisons while reducing taxes, especially for business. Sorry, but as Robby the Robot told Will Robinson, "That does not compute." It also says something about priorities.
You can't expand your budget while reducing your income. On a state level, that's true, since states cannot operate at a deficit. But on a national level, you can, and during a depression, you should, to kick-start an economy.
