I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.
Truth takes a back seat to favoritism
News items:
TV journalists in Maine lose their jobs for not covering news as management prefers.
TV journalists in Gaza lose their lives for not covering news as government prefers.
In Maine, the TV anchors resigned on the air without giving reasons, but history shows a pattern of the general manager pressuring the news director regarding which stories to cover and how.
In Gaza, members of a TV crew affiliated with a Hamas-owned station were blown up by a missile fired by the Israeli military. A spokeswoman for the military defended the attack because of what she called "relevance to terrorist activities."
Read: Do things our way or else.
It may well be that the Gaza crew and Hamas television endorsed the Palestinian cause, even to the level of being propagandists. But that does not mean that propagandists for one side are to be supported, while those who report the news and views of the other side are to be killed.
It also may well be that terrorists sometimes deploy in the guise of journalists to get better access to their targets. If so, they are indeed legitimate targets, and they are to be treated as terrorists, not as journalists. But in the Gaza case, where is the evidence? The Israeli government has an obligation to present it.
One could make the case that in America, many news outlets slant their coverage to one side or another. Conservatives are fond of blasting what they call "media elite liberals" for their alleged favoritism toward Democrats. Favoritism toward Republican conservatives is, of course, admirable and to be encouraged.
However, the right of free speech and a free press is a universal right, and the opposition deserves to be heard. And the right of reporters to present the news and views without interference must be respected, whether in Maine or in Gaza.
Monday, November 26, 2012
The Undoubtful
Supply creates its own demand
Classical, or 19th Century economics, emphasized the study of individual personal and business behavior based on, among other assumptions, that an economy would reach an equilibrium, where all factors balance and there is "full employment" of all inputs and all things are equal. The problem with that assumption, known as the ceteris paribus assumption, is that other things are never equal -- except in theory. In the real world, all things are always moving. You can't step into the same river twice.
So while Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall and others built an excellent theoretical foundation for the study of economic behavior of people and business, when these concepts are applied to the larger, real world of trends and behaviors, their assumptions do not always apply.
Prime among these assumptions is that supply creates its own demand. And modern followers of these principles are so convinced of their rightness that they "know" they are right and everyone else is wrong, so there is no time or room for discussion. "Maybe" is not in their lexicon.
Current devotees of classical economics adhere to faith in supply-side economics, and to a top-down recovery plan. When the theoretical precepts and assumptions fail to work or adequately describe behavior of people and business, the conclusion is that people are misbehaving. It was a given that "supply creates its own demand."
Except that during the 1930s, there was an excess supply of labor, but no demand for workers. In America, the unemployment rate was estimated at 25 percent -- more, if agricultural workers were included in the count. And the economy, by the technical definitions of 19th Century economics, was in equilibrium.
The reality, however, was that the economy was static. It had stopped growing. It was no longer a vibrant economy. It was, in many ways, dying.
Even so, all the factors of economic production had reached equilibrium, and the theory held that things were fine.
Despite the efforts of many, the outdated beliefs of 19th Century economists are still held, and those who hold them still believe in the top-down, supply-side economics that predicts recovery if wealthy managers are given enough incentive to hire idle workers. The true believers have no doubt of the rightness of their position.
And they cite 19th Century experts in support.
Classical, or 19th Century economics, emphasized the study of individual personal and business behavior based on, among other assumptions, that an economy would reach an equilibrium, where all factors balance and there is "full employment" of all inputs and all things are equal. The problem with that assumption, known as the ceteris paribus assumption, is that other things are never equal -- except in theory. In the real world, all things are always moving. You can't step into the same river twice.
So while Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall and others built an excellent theoretical foundation for the study of economic behavior of people and business, when these concepts are applied to the larger, real world of trends and behaviors, their assumptions do not always apply.
Prime among these assumptions is that supply creates its own demand. And modern followers of these principles are so convinced of their rightness that they "know" they are right and everyone else is wrong, so there is no time or room for discussion. "Maybe" is not in their lexicon.
Current devotees of classical economics adhere to faith in supply-side economics, and to a top-down recovery plan. When the theoretical precepts and assumptions fail to work or adequately describe behavior of people and business, the conclusion is that people are misbehaving. It was a given that "supply creates its own demand."
Except that during the 1930s, there was an excess supply of labor, but no demand for workers. In America, the unemployment rate was estimated at 25 percent -- more, if agricultural workers were included in the count. And the economy, by the technical definitions of 19th Century economics, was in equilibrium.
The reality, however, was that the economy was static. It had stopped growing. It was no longer a vibrant economy. It was, in many ways, dying.
Even so, all the factors of economic production had reached equilibrium, and the theory held that things were fine.
Despite the efforts of many, the outdated beliefs of 19th Century economists are still held, and those who hold them still believe in the top-down, supply-side economics that predicts recovery if wealthy managers are given enough incentive to hire idle workers. The true believers have no doubt of the rightness of their position.
And they cite 19th Century experts in support.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
The Undeserving Poor
Whenever I'm up against Middle Class morality, they say, 'You're part of the undeserving poor, so you can't have it.' -- Alfred P. Doolittle
Health care insurance is too important to be left to the private sector.
Secession talk is in the wind again, fanned by fear of excess federal involvement -- control, in the minds of secessionists -- and prime among the federal fear factors is health care.
Now that the election is over, however, some conservatives are already changing their views on health care insurance.
Even Fareed Zakaria, prominent conservative editor and TV host, and an admitted devotee of the free market, has said that health care should not be left to free market principles.
You can choose to buy an expensive car, he noted, "but you can't choose to have a heart attack." When you need health care, you need it today, he said. In a free market, Zakaria pointed out, those who can afford health care insurance will buy it, while those who cannot afford it will do without.
Moreover, the reality is that insurance companies will provide coverage only to healthy people -- who don't need health care. Those who are sick, are likely to become sick, or have pre-existing conditions, are routinely rejected. Result: They go to hospital emergency rooms, as suggested by recent candidates. But that's the most expensive form of health care, and the cost is picked up by the hospital, which passes it on to other clients in the form of higher rates. In turn, these costs result in higher insurance premiums, and eventually higher rates to taxpayers, who help to support hospitals.
Thus, many of the uninsured poor get their health care through ER visits, but contribute little or nothing and do not get the benefit of appropriate care.
As Zakaria has pointed out, insurance only works if everyone is part of the program.
Meanwhile, if a state secedes it will be a localized responsibility to provide health care insurance-- or not -- for its citizens.
If they can afford health care, they will get it. If not, they will die.
America then becomes a nation divisible by wealth, with liberty, justice and health care for those who can afford it.
Not for all.
Health care insurance is too important to be left to the private sector.
Secession talk is in the wind again, fanned by fear of excess federal involvement -- control, in the minds of secessionists -- and prime among the federal fear factors is health care.
Now that the election is over, however, some conservatives are already changing their views on health care insurance.
Even Fareed Zakaria, prominent conservative editor and TV host, and an admitted devotee of the free market, has said that health care should not be left to free market principles.
You can choose to buy an expensive car, he noted, "but you can't choose to have a heart attack." When you need health care, you need it today, he said. In a free market, Zakaria pointed out, those who can afford health care insurance will buy it, while those who cannot afford it will do without.
Moreover, the reality is that insurance companies will provide coverage only to healthy people -- who don't need health care. Those who are sick, are likely to become sick, or have pre-existing conditions, are routinely rejected. Result: They go to hospital emergency rooms, as suggested by recent candidates. But that's the most expensive form of health care, and the cost is picked up by the hospital, which passes it on to other clients in the form of higher rates. In turn, these costs result in higher insurance premiums, and eventually higher rates to taxpayers, who help to support hospitals.
Thus, many of the uninsured poor get their health care through ER visits, but contribute little or nothing and do not get the benefit of appropriate care.
As Zakaria has pointed out, insurance only works if everyone is part of the program.
Meanwhile, if a state secedes it will be a localized responsibility to provide health care insurance-- or not -- for its citizens.
If they can afford health care, they will get it. If not, they will die.
America then becomes a nation divisible by wealth, with liberty, justice and health care for those who can afford it.
Not for all.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Pug Dog Economics
"They'll bill us for the suit." -- Mr. Day
"Don't you let them." -- Mrs. Day
In the movie, "Life With Father," Mrs. Day buys a pug dog statue on the family department store account. Father objects, so she returns it and acquires a suit for Clarence Junior.
But when the bill comes in, Mrs. Day cautions Father, he is not to pay for the pug dog, since she returned it. He notes that the suit must still be paid for, but she counters that no money is due since the pug dog credit was applied to the suit purchase.
Father, a mere male, is stunned by the complexity of it, but it makes perfect sense to her.
Similarly, some today argue that government spending cuts will be offset by tax relief, and both will help to reduce the federal debt and deficit.
Since no money is involved, the transaction is self-canceling.
My thanks to Sandra for explaining pug dog economics.
"Don't you let them." -- Mrs. Day
In the movie, "Life With Father," Mrs. Day buys a pug dog statue on the family department store account. Father objects, so she returns it and acquires a suit for Clarence Junior.
But when the bill comes in, Mrs. Day cautions Father, he is not to pay for the pug dog, since she returned it. He notes that the suit must still be paid for, but she counters that no money is due since the pug dog credit was applied to the suit purchase.
Father, a mere male, is stunned by the complexity of it, but it makes perfect sense to her.
Similarly, some today argue that government spending cuts will be offset by tax relief, and both will help to reduce the federal debt and deficit.
Since no money is involved, the transaction is self-canceling.
My thanks to Sandra for explaining pug dog economics.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Policasting
Long range forecasts belong in the Farmers Almanac, not in journals.
Time was, as John Nance Garner famously said, the vice presidency "ain't worth a bucket of warm ..." More recently, however, vice presidents have been more in the loop around the Oval Office, and have had more knowledge and responsibility for daily and longer range operations.
One problem for any hope of moving up to the Big Chair is to overcome the tradition against three-term dominance in the White House.
Presidents, of course, cannot serve three terms (or a total of ten years if they move in to a vacated presidency). So the question now is, will Joe Biden seek the presidency in 2016? And if he does, what are his chances?
Consider the background.
Before Franklin D. Roosevelt, only tradition prevented one man's election to a third term. A constitutional amendment changed that, with the proviso that one could serve up to two years of an unexpired term, plus two terms on their own. (This did not apply to the incumbent at the time, Harry S. Truman. The point was moot, however, since he choose not to seek re-election.)
Since then, the only three-term occupancy of the Oval Office was the GOP Reagan-Bush era.
Barring conditions that would warrant electorate confidence in a third-term occupancy, any Democrat will face an uphill struggle for election in 2016. Consider also the short-term memory of the American electorate.
A thriving economy could be attributed to successful Democratic programs. Or, that same thriving economy could convince voters that Democratic policies are no longer needed. Or the opposition party could come up with a candidate who was considered impossible to defeat. This may have contributed to Truman's decision not to take up Dwight D. Eisenhower's challenge.
Conclusion: It's a toss-up.
Only once since 1860 have Democrats managed to win the Oval Office in more than two consecutive presidential elections, and that was the Depression and wartime era of FDR and Truman.
The GOP, on the other hand, has turned that trick four times. First, with Lincoln, Grant, Hayes and Garfield for a string of six victories. Second, with McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt and Taft for four consecutive wins. Third, with Harding, Coolidge and Hoover for three GOP terms in a row. And fourth, with the Reagan-Bush succession, yielding three presidential terms.
But note that in only one of these -- the Reagan-Bush string -- has the vice president moved up to the Big Chair after scoring a double win with the President.
So the odds of a vice president picking up a third term for his party after serving two with the same President are slim. It's only been done once since 1860.
Will Biden break the pattern? Will he even try? We'll know in four years.
Politicklers
Q/ How many opinions can a politician have at one time?
A/ As many as there are voters.
Q/ How many does he actually believe?
A/ One, if that.
Q/ Who benefits from playing politics with storm damage?
A/ The ones who act swiftly to help, and know how to alert the media that they are.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Skill sets
High-volume, low-wage jobs no longer attract as many newcomers to America as they did years ago. And while it's true that people follow jobs, it's also true that jobs follow people. To some extent, people do migrate to where the jobs are, but one reinforces the other.
When highways were built in the 1950s, city workers bought homes in the suburbs and commuted. Later, firms followed workers to the suburbs as land for updated factories became more available and truck transportation enabled them to use the road network to reach customers.
This interchange of urban and rural is not a new phenomenon. The Industrial Revolution was preceded by an Agricultural Revolution that needed fewer farm workers to work the fields and harvest crops. These excess farm hands moved to cities, where factories took advantage of the larger labor supply.
Social conditions also play a major role in determining where and when people move, but that's part of the economic equation.
Why do people come to America? They come for the same reason they have always come; this is where the jobs -- fewer though they may be -- still are. If job opportunities existed where they were at home, there would be no reason to move.
Today, as technology advances and location is less of a factor, especially in the computer networking industry, jobs and workers can be time zones or even continents apart.
That said, skills still play a major role. America may no longer be the high-volume, low-skill, low-cost, low-wage haven for manufacturers it once was -- many of those opportunities have gone to other regions that are now lower in cost and hence lower in wages.
But the low volume, high cost, high skill and therefore high wage opportunities remain. And these workers in turn provide more opportunities for service industries, which hire lower skill, lower wage workers.
Adam Smith was right 250 years ago, and he's right today. America has a comparative advantage in low volume, high tech industries, and other nations have a comparative advantage in high volume, low skill and hence low wage operations.
So everybody benefits.
When highways were built in the 1950s, city workers bought homes in the suburbs and commuted. Later, firms followed workers to the suburbs as land for updated factories became more available and truck transportation enabled them to use the road network to reach customers.
This interchange of urban and rural is not a new phenomenon. The Industrial Revolution was preceded by an Agricultural Revolution that needed fewer farm workers to work the fields and harvest crops. These excess farm hands moved to cities, where factories took advantage of the larger labor supply.
Social conditions also play a major role in determining where and when people move, but that's part of the economic equation.
Why do people come to America? They come for the same reason they have always come; this is where the jobs -- fewer though they may be -- still are. If job opportunities existed where they were at home, there would be no reason to move.
Today, as technology advances and location is less of a factor, especially in the computer networking industry, jobs and workers can be time zones or even continents apart.
That said, skills still play a major role. America may no longer be the high-volume, low-skill, low-cost, low-wage haven for manufacturers it once was -- many of those opportunities have gone to other regions that are now lower in cost and hence lower in wages.
But the low volume, high cost, high skill and therefore high wage opportunities remain. And these workers in turn provide more opportunities for service industries, which hire lower skill, lower wage workers.
Adam Smith was right 250 years ago, and he's right today. America has a comparative advantage in low volume, high tech industries, and other nations have a comparative advantage in high volume, low skill and hence low wage operations.
So everybody benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)