"Can't we all just get along?" -- Rodney King
Fear of the unknown is so widespread as to be almost universal. Knowledge, however, can overcome many fears. Moreover, this principle applies to people as well as to circumstance. Get to know a person or group, and you may find your fear to be less of a problem than you thought.
A bigger danger is not the danger itself, but the fear of danger, especially when fear-mongers exploit a latent fear for political gain.
The technical term is xenophobia, from the Greek meaning "fear of strangers." Fear of the unknown can be a healthy thing, since it protects people from danger. Caution can be helpful. But when the fear becomes so strong as to be overwhelming, preventing any action, then it rises to the level of a phobia, and is no longer healthy.
Knowledge and awareness of mutual differences can mitigate many fears, leading to understanding, and in turn to learning how to accept others' beliefs without fearing that your own are in danger.
On a political and international level, this becomes important, and can go a long way to eliminating the threat of violence and war.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
The Cost of War
The cost of war is measured in more than the expense of munitions and the destruction of property. There is the loss of life and the loss potential of future contributions by the best of the young and bright.
There is the loss of security provided by strong governments toppled in defeat, whether these governments are monarchies, dictatorships or democracies. The economic and social chaos visited on a nation after military actions stop can be enormous, whether that nation counts itself the victor or loser.
War drains the participants of resources -- human and economic -- that would otherwise be used to build a more prosperous and healthy nation.
Consider: Four empires were dissolved as a result of World War I -- the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German and Ottoman -- and the seeds were sewn for the dissolution of two more monarchies, in Italy and in Spain. (The monarchy has returned in post-Franco Spain, but is now largely a figurehead and ceremonial.) The British Empire lost an entire generation of its best and brightest youth, resulting in major changes in society. On a single day in 1916, the British military suffered nearly 20,000 dead in the first Battle of the Somme.
World War I set the stage for the Nazi takeover in Germany, partly fueled by resentment over the Allies' attempt to crush the German industrial economy so it could never again supply munitions for war. Moreover, the victors insisted on punitive reparations, which resulted in meteoric inflation as the government in Berlin printed money to pay off debt imposed by the Treaty of Versailles.
In a larger sense, the war started a chain of events that led to the Great Depression of the 1930s, which in turn led to World War II.
The numbers of people killed or wounded during war, whether military or civilian, are enormous, and are readily available. Gone are the days when commanders calculated the "acceptable" casualty rate when planning a military action -- if they calculated the number at all. After the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, the bodies of troops who died in the battle -- more than 7,000 of them -- were simply left, unburied, on the battleground. Soon, locals took it upon themselves to gather and bury them in what became the Gettysburg National Cemetery.
June 6, 1944, D-Day in Normandy as Allied forces landed in France, brought some 4,414 deaths of Allied troops, plus as many as 9,000 German defenders. The exact numbers are still not known, but these are estimates compiled by the web site historystackexchange.com. Throughout the Battle of Normandy, the total number of military dead on both sides numbered more that 425,000, plus another 20,000 French civilians.
After World War II, the public became alarmed at the casualty rate, so that the attitude of the military changed. Still, hundreds of thousands of people died.
Today, America is considering yet more military action in the Middle East, despite the losses taken in recent years from activities in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. The British Army could not control Afghanistan in the 19th Century, and the Soviet military could not do it in the 20th Century. What leads politicians to think the American military can do it in the 21st Century?
Who benefits from war? President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the "military-industrial complex" alliance of executives who profit from the sale of munitions. Earlier, author George Bernard Shaw exposed the practice in his play, "Major Barbara."
It seems the only ones who benefit from war are those who manufacture and sell military hardware. Those who fight in war get medals. Often posthumously.
There is the loss of security provided by strong governments toppled in defeat, whether these governments are monarchies, dictatorships or democracies. The economic and social chaos visited on a nation after military actions stop can be enormous, whether that nation counts itself the victor or loser.
War drains the participants of resources -- human and economic -- that would otherwise be used to build a more prosperous and healthy nation.
World War I set the stage for the Nazi takeover in Germany, partly fueled by resentment over the Allies' attempt to crush the German industrial economy so it could never again supply munitions for war. Moreover, the victors insisted on punitive reparations, which resulted in meteoric inflation as the government in Berlin printed money to pay off debt imposed by the Treaty of Versailles.
In a larger sense, the war started a chain of events that led to the Great Depression of the 1930s, which in turn led to World War II.
The numbers of people killed or wounded during war, whether military or civilian, are enormous, and are readily available. Gone are the days when commanders calculated the "acceptable" casualty rate when planning a military action -- if they calculated the number at all. After the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, the bodies of troops who died in the battle -- more than 7,000 of them -- were simply left, unburied, on the battleground. Soon, locals took it upon themselves to gather and bury them in what became the Gettysburg National Cemetery.
June 6, 1944, D-Day in Normandy as Allied forces landed in France, brought some 4,414 deaths of Allied troops, plus as many as 9,000 German defenders. The exact numbers are still not known, but these are estimates compiled by the web site historystackexchange.com. Throughout the Battle of Normandy, the total number of military dead on both sides numbered more that 425,000, plus another 20,000 French civilians.
After World War II, the public became alarmed at the casualty rate, so that the attitude of the military changed. Still, hundreds of thousands of people died.
Today, America is considering yet more military action in the Middle East, despite the losses taken in recent years from activities in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. The British Army could not control Afghanistan in the 19th Century, and the Soviet military could not do it in the 20th Century. What leads politicians to think the American military can do it in the 21st Century?
Who benefits from war? President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the "military-industrial complex" alliance of executives who profit from the sale of munitions. Earlier, author George Bernard Shaw exposed the practice in his play, "Major Barbara."
It seems the only ones who benefit from war are those who manufacture and sell military hardware. Those who fight in war get medals. Often posthumously.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Health Scare
Throughout America, fewer men have health insurance than women. Moreover, "There are more uninsured working-age adults than uninsured children," according to the U.S. Census.
Only 50 of the 3,143 counties in the United States ( 1.6 percent) can say that most of their population have health insurance. Only 50 counties can say that fewer than 10 percent of the working-age population are uninsured. In some counties, more than half (52.5 percent) of adults have no health insurance.
On a state level, the Census analysis found that as many as 25 percent of a state's population under age 65 have no health insurance. Uninsured rates varied from a low of 4.9 percent to 25.7 percent. And in some counties, the proportion of those under 65 without health insurance was as high as 46 percent.
On a county level, the median uninsured rate for people of working age (18 to 64) was 21.5 percent. For those under 19, the county median was 7.7 percent, the report said.
The analysis covered health insurance availability during 2011. In every state, the report said, the uninsured rate was highest for Hispanics, followed by non-Hispanic blacks. Moreover, low-income groups were more likely to lack health insurance. On a county level, the uninsured rate ranged from 10.7 percent to 43.6 percent, and for blacks, the range of those without health insurance was from 6.6 percent to 29.1 percent.
Texas leads the nation in the number of those without health insurance -- more than 25 percent of its population. Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Alaska, Georgia, Montana, Mississippi, California, Arkansas and Louisiana follow with uninsured rates of 20 percent of more.
Only Massachusetts, home of Romneycare, the statewide mandate for universal health coverage, posted less than 5 percent of its population as lacking health coverage.
All data are from 2011. Whether things have improved measurably in less than two years is another question. Meanwhile, here's a link to the full Census Bureau report:
http://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/data/2011/SAHIE_Highlights_2011.pdf
Only 50 of the 3,143 counties in the United States ( 1.6 percent) can say that most of their population have health insurance. Only 50 counties can say that fewer than 10 percent of the working-age population are uninsured. In some counties, more than half (52.5 percent) of adults have no health insurance.
On a state level, the Census analysis found that as many as 25 percent of a state's population under age 65 have no health insurance. Uninsured rates varied from a low of 4.9 percent to 25.7 percent. And in some counties, the proportion of those under 65 without health insurance was as high as 46 percent.
On a county level, the median uninsured rate for people of working age (18 to 64) was 21.5 percent. For those under 19, the county median was 7.7 percent, the report said.
The analysis covered health insurance availability during 2011. In every state, the report said, the uninsured rate was highest for Hispanics, followed by non-Hispanic blacks. Moreover, low-income groups were more likely to lack health insurance. On a county level, the uninsured rate ranged from 10.7 percent to 43.6 percent, and for blacks, the range of those without health insurance was from 6.6 percent to 29.1 percent.
Texas leads the nation in the number of those without health insurance -- more than 25 percent of its population. Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Alaska, Georgia, Montana, Mississippi, California, Arkansas and Louisiana follow with uninsured rates of 20 percent of more.
Only Massachusetts, home of Romneycare, the statewide mandate for universal health coverage, posted less than 5 percent of its population as lacking health coverage.
All data are from 2011. Whether things have improved measurably in less than two years is another question. Meanwhile, here's a link to the full Census Bureau report:
http://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/data/2011/SAHIE_Highlights_2011.pdf
Keep Spending
There's more good news today about American economic recovery, as the number-crunchers reported increases in income and spending by consumers.
In July, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, personal income rose by $14.1 billion, disposable income by $21.7 billion, and consumption expenditures by $16.3 billion. The jumps are not as high as those recorded for June, according to revised estimates for that month, but the trend is still upward.
Even so, the spending increase could be attributed to more mothers going back to work, and more families relying on food stamps. The Census Bureau reported those elements in the same survey that found a drop in home ownership.
In July, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, personal income rose by $14.1 billion, disposable income by $21.7 billion, and consumption expenditures by $16.3 billion. The jumps are not as high as those recorded for June, according to revised estimates for that month, but the trend is still upward.
Even so, the spending increase could be attributed to more mothers going back to work, and more families relying on food stamps. The Census Bureau reported those elements in the same survey that found a drop in home ownership.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Roundup
Recovery accelerated in the U.S. during the second quarter, even as central banks held to a low rate policy to continue an economic stimulus. Homeownership in America has declined, however, from a peak of 69 percent of all households a decade ago to 65 percent now.
In Washington, the government said GDP grew by 2.5 percent in the second three months of this year, up from 1.1 percent in the first quarter. An earlier estimate put second quarter growth at 1.7 percent. Primary driver of the increase was consumer spending, the government said.
In Britain, the new governor of the Bank of England said interest rates will stay low, with a central bank target of 0.5 percent, until the unemployment rate drops to 7 percent.
The Federal Reserve has been holding to its policy of keeping interest rates low, even as it suggests it might pull back from stimulus efforts if things go well. The governor of the Bank of England, however, says he is not ready to ease off stimulus efforts.
In Washington, the government said GDP grew by 2.5 percent in the second three months of this year, up from 1.1 percent in the first quarter. An earlier estimate put second quarter growth at 1.7 percent. Primary driver of the increase was consumer spending, the government said.
In Britain, the new governor of the Bank of England said interest rates will stay low, with a central bank target of 0.5 percent, until the unemployment rate drops to 7 percent.
The Federal Reserve has been holding to its policy of keeping interest rates low, even as it suggests it might pull back from stimulus efforts if things go well. The governor of the Bank of England, however, says he is not ready to ease off stimulus efforts.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Subsidizing Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart is the largest private-sector employer in America, yet many of its workers are on public assistance, such as food stamps and Medicaid -- health care for the poor. This means that government is subsidizing corporate profits. It also means that the bargain you think you're getting isn't a bargain at all, since you're paying in other ways -- tax dollars for public assistance programs.
The company has some 1.4 million workers, including part-timers. One survey put the average pay for sales associates at $8.85 an hour, which means many make less than that, or get the legal federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. And if they work only part-time, that means they are not likely to get any benefits.
So someone who works 20 hours a week gets $155, with a take-home net of less than that. Nationwide, according to the Department of Labor, 22 states set a minimum wage the same as the federal mandate, 19 states have minimum wage rates higher than the federal law, five states (all in the South) have no minimum wage law, and another four set a minimum wage rate lower than the federal. And if a person works fewer than 40 hours in a week, they can be treated as part-time employees and thus not be eligible for company benefit programs.
To be fair, in many areas, labor market conditions drive the minimum wage higher than the legal minimum, but often that's still not enough to live on.
So a person can put in 39 hours in a week, earn about $280 at the minimum wage level, take home less than that, and try to support a family.
Can it be done? Perhaps. But that's a yearly total of $14,560, assuming the employee works all 52 weeks, and does not take a vacation. Federal guidelines, set by the Department of Health and Human Services, put the income level for a household of two persons at $15,510, and for a family of four at $23,550.
Do the math. Even if that employee is paid $10 an hour, the yearly total is $20,280 for a full 52 weeks, no vacation, and that's still below the government poverty level. Can a worker support a spouse and two children on that income? Not without food stamps or rent assistance, much less Medicaid for health care.
Therefore, the government is subsidizing Wal-Mart profits.
In its defense, the company has claimed that the average hourly wage for all its employees is $12.78, and only 5 percent of its workers were on Medicaid.
Again, do the math. At $12.78 an hour, assuming two weeks (unpaid) vacation, that's a yearly total of $25,560, just a tad more than the federal poverty level of $23,550 for a family of four.
And if "only" 5 percent of its 1.4 million employees are on Medicaid, that's 70,000 people getting government-sponsored health care because they don't earn enough to get their own, or their employer doesn't provide a health care insurance plan.
That's 70,000 people too many, especially while the Walton family, owners of the Wal-Mart chain, enjoys a net worth of an estimated $100 billion. There are just six heirs to the Walton fortune, according to published reports, and their net worth is more than nearly half of all other American households combined -- the lower half, of course.
The company has some 1.4 million workers, including part-timers. One survey put the average pay for sales associates at $8.85 an hour, which means many make less than that, or get the legal federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. And if they work only part-time, that means they are not likely to get any benefits.
So someone who works 20 hours a week gets $155, with a take-home net of less than that. Nationwide, according to the Department of Labor, 22 states set a minimum wage the same as the federal mandate, 19 states have minimum wage rates higher than the federal law, five states (all in the South) have no minimum wage law, and another four set a minimum wage rate lower than the federal. And if a person works fewer than 40 hours in a week, they can be treated as part-time employees and thus not be eligible for company benefit programs.
To be fair, in many areas, labor market conditions drive the minimum wage higher than the legal minimum, but often that's still not enough to live on.
So a person can put in 39 hours in a week, earn about $280 at the minimum wage level, take home less than that, and try to support a family.
Can it be done? Perhaps. But that's a yearly total of $14,560, assuming the employee works all 52 weeks, and does not take a vacation. Federal guidelines, set by the Department of Health and Human Services, put the income level for a household of two persons at $15,510, and for a family of four at $23,550.
Do the math. Even if that employee is paid $10 an hour, the yearly total is $20,280 for a full 52 weeks, no vacation, and that's still below the government poverty level. Can a worker support a spouse and two children on that income? Not without food stamps or rent assistance, much less Medicaid for health care.
Therefore, the government is subsidizing Wal-Mart profits.
In its defense, the company has claimed that the average hourly wage for all its employees is $12.78, and only 5 percent of its workers were on Medicaid.
Again, do the math. At $12.78 an hour, assuming two weeks (unpaid) vacation, that's a yearly total of $25,560, just a tad more than the federal poverty level of $23,550 for a family of four.
And if "only" 5 percent of its 1.4 million employees are on Medicaid, that's 70,000 people getting government-sponsored health care because they don't earn enough to get their own, or their employer doesn't provide a health care insurance plan.
That's 70,000 people too many, especially while the Walton family, owners of the Wal-Mart chain, enjoys a net worth of an estimated $100 billion. There are just six heirs to the Walton fortune, according to published reports, and their net worth is more than nearly half of all other American households combined -- the lower half, of course.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Fiscal Infatuation
The siren call of cost-cutting to balance a national budget continues to whine its way through the semi-conscious thought of the True Believers. Despite the lessons of history and long experience that budget-cutting only builds more obstacles on the road to prosperity, the True Believers invent new names to label the old, unworkable strategies.
Fiscal consolidation and sequester are just the latest examples of relabeling to disguise an old product that may sell well to the 1 percent who don't need it, but is distasteful to the 99 percent, who won't buy it.
It's a universal issue, not limited to America, but based on economic principles and observed history. And you don't have to stay home to find examples.
Consider this analysis:
"Heightened domestic uncertainty, government underspending, and a difficult external environment have contributed to a marked economic slowdown.
"In the short term, the government needs to overcome recent budget under-spending and allow a higher budget deficit later this year, to the extent that revenues are lower due to the slowdown. Further monetary loosening, coupled with measures to strengthen the transmission mechanism, also appears warranted. Political stability together with greater clarity on government policies would also help reduce business uncertainty."
Sound familiar? It's an analysis with recommendations that are needed in America, but it's not about America. It's from a critique by the International Monetary Fund about current economic issues in the East European Republic of Georgia. The economy has slowed there, for the reasons given.
Comparisons to other nations can be dicey, but some economic principles are universal. One is that government intervention is imperative when an economy falters, remembering that government should step back when business and consumer confidence and activity resumes.
Fiscal consolidation and sequester are just the latest examples of relabeling to disguise an old product that may sell well to the 1 percent who don't need it, but is distasteful to the 99 percent, who won't buy it.
It's a universal issue, not limited to America, but based on economic principles and observed history. And you don't have to stay home to find examples.
Consider this analysis:
"Heightened domestic uncertainty, government underspending, and a difficult external environment have contributed to a marked economic slowdown.
"In the short term, the government needs to overcome recent budget under-spending and allow a higher budget deficit later this year, to the extent that revenues are lower due to the slowdown. Further monetary loosening, coupled with measures to strengthen the transmission mechanism, also appears warranted. Political stability together with greater clarity on government policies would also help reduce business uncertainty."
Sound familiar? It's an analysis with recommendations that are needed in America, but it's not about America. It's from a critique by the International Monetary Fund about current economic issues in the East European Republic of Georgia. The economy has slowed there, for the reasons given.
Comparisons to other nations can be dicey, but some economic principles are universal. One is that government intervention is imperative when an economy falters, remembering that government should step back when business and consumer confidence and activity resumes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)