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.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
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)