"I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door." -- Emma Lazarus, as inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.
The inanity of GOP candidate proposals is plumbing new depths of idiocy.
First there was the Great Wall of Mexico, which would stretch 2,000 miles along the southern borders of four states. Now, Scott Walker has praised as "legitimate" an idea to erect a 5,000 mile wall along the northern border of the U.S. to keep out undesirables from Canada.
Also, Chris Christie has urged that newcomers and visitors to the U.S. be tracked daily, just as FedEx tracks packages. Perhaps Christie will agree to a microchip under his own skin when he visits Canada.
Question: How dumb do they think voters are? If the politicians think voters are as intelligent as the candidates, that speaks poorly of the candidates.
Here's a very short list of Canadians who have contributed greatly in the U.S.: John Kenneth Galbraith, economist and advisor to Presidents; David Brooks, newspaper columnist; Morley Safer, Peter Jennings, and Ashleigh Banfield, TV journalists; Michael J. Fox, Pamela Anderson, Paul Anka, Dan Aykroyd, and Jim Carey, entertainers.
Other prominent newcomers to America would include Henry Kissinger (Germany), Madeleine Albright (Czechoslovakia), Wolf Blitzer (Germany), Arianna Huffington (Greece), George Soros (Hungary), and Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who was born in Moscow.
Even Donald Trump's grandfather, who immigrated to the U.S. from Germany in 1885. And presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, whose parents came from India.
So to wall off America and close the Golden Door of opportunity is to deprive the nation of a great reservoir of talent.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Nativist Nonsense
"Take our country back!"
For all the warning rants that undocumented or illegal newcomers are either taking jobs away from "good Americans" or draining the social welfare system collecting benefits they are not entitled to, the reality is that newcomers typically sign on for jobs that other Americans do not want and will not take. As for collecting benefits, those who are in America illegally avoid contact with government agencies, lest they be discovered and deported. Meanwhile, payroll deductions help support a social welfare program they dare not use.
But this does not deter the demagogues, because they thrive on fear.
As for promising that "as President, I will build a wall so strong it will make your head spin," this is a meaningless promise, since America's system of government requires approval from both houses of Congress, as well as passage of a funding bill by Congress.
Even a dictator is powerless without a devoted army of followers who do what the beloved leader says. In America, a President may propose, but without the consent and budget approval from Congress, proposals are just that.
Only if a politician is persuasive enough to convince a large enough number of followers to blindly follow his lead, will that politician succeed. Once that happens, America becomes a dictatorship.
But to the issue of closing America's southern border, and financing construction of a wall by seizing remittances that relatives and friends try to send to their needy families, or by imposing prohibitive import tariffs on incoming goods on the pretext of also "saving American jobs," that, too, is dangerous, and leads to retaliatory tariffs on American exports, thus raising prices on both sides of the border.
All of this is counter to the concept of free trade being beneficial to all participants. Not all opposition to free trade pacts comes from Fortress America conservatives. Hard Left liberals also oppose them, but for different reasons. Despite historical economic evidence, both sides warn of a disastrous outflow of jobs, with left-wingers complaining of tyrannical influence on government policy by corporate bosses.
On the Left, many fear a loss of jobs as lower labor costs in other countries prompt firms to relocate their operations. On the Right, the fear of competition is about the loss of contracts and profits, as foreign firms leverage lower costs to make more stuff to sell at lower prices in America.
Lost in the argumentative shuffle is the fact that more jobs in other countries means less emigration to America, legal or otherwise. And while low-wage, low-skill jobs would increase in other countries, high-wage, high-skill jobs would increase in the U.S. At root, this is why highly educated, skilled Americans do not want and will not take low-wage, low-skill jobs. Yet theses same Americans enjoy the services of landscape workers, kitchen helpers and hotel housekeeping staff, many of whom fill the positions that American college students and graduates don't want.
For all the warning rants that undocumented or illegal newcomers are either taking jobs away from "good Americans" or draining the social welfare system collecting benefits they are not entitled to, the reality is that newcomers typically sign on for jobs that other Americans do not want and will not take. As for collecting benefits, those who are in America illegally avoid contact with government agencies, lest they be discovered and deported. Meanwhile, payroll deductions help support a social welfare program they dare not use.
But this does not deter the demagogues, because they thrive on fear.
As for promising that "as President, I will build a wall so strong it will make your head spin," this is a meaningless promise, since America's system of government requires approval from both houses of Congress, as well as passage of a funding bill by Congress.
Even a dictator is powerless without a devoted army of followers who do what the beloved leader says. In America, a President may propose, but without the consent and budget approval from Congress, proposals are just that.
Only if a politician is persuasive enough to convince a large enough number of followers to blindly follow his lead, will that politician succeed. Once that happens, America becomes a dictatorship.
But to the issue of closing America's southern border, and financing construction of a wall by seizing remittances that relatives and friends try to send to their needy families, or by imposing prohibitive import tariffs on incoming goods on the pretext of also "saving American jobs," that, too, is dangerous, and leads to retaliatory tariffs on American exports, thus raising prices on both sides of the border.
All of this is counter to the concept of free trade being beneficial to all participants. Not all opposition to free trade pacts comes from Fortress America conservatives. Hard Left liberals also oppose them, but for different reasons. Despite historical economic evidence, both sides warn of a disastrous outflow of jobs, with left-wingers complaining of tyrannical influence on government policy by corporate bosses.
On the Left, many fear a loss of jobs as lower labor costs in other countries prompt firms to relocate their operations. On the Right, the fear of competition is about the loss of contracts and profits, as foreign firms leverage lower costs to make more stuff to sell at lower prices in America.
Lost in the argumentative shuffle is the fact that more jobs in other countries means less emigration to America, legal or otherwise. And while low-wage, low-skill jobs would increase in other countries, high-wage, high-skill jobs would increase in the U.S. At root, this is why highly educated, skilled Americans do not want and will not take low-wage, low-skill jobs. Yet theses same Americans enjoy the services of landscape workers, kitchen helpers and hotel housekeeping staff, many of whom fill the positions that American college students and graduates don't want.
Petulance and Insecurity
Bullying covers up fear.
"My way or the highway!"
The root cause of rude, obnoxious and overbearing behavior is insecurity. A bully does what he does because he is basically insecure. To cover up his lack of self-confidence, he over-compensates by bullying others into submission, forcing them to yield and do what he wants, thus "proving," to himself at least his competence.
The odd thing is, this tactic often works, since it relies on a strong sense of courtesy and civility that most people have, and on some level they see that the one with the loudest mouth must want whatever the issue is quite strongly.
News reporters, meanwhile, develop a shield of courtesy that enables them to listen and record what is being said, no matter how rude the assault. They rely on time and exposure, knowing that eventually the demagogue will overstep the bounds of civility that even the most devoted supporter ignores.
Currently, one man dominates the media field and provides entertainment for many with his often outrageous outbursts. Behavior like that is only entertaining, but easy for journalists to cover. The story practically writes itself, especially when presentations by other candidates are dull by comparison, even when their policies and positions are well thought out and have substantial depth.
A score of candidates from the two major parties in America want to move to the White House, but with Mr. Bluster attracting all the cameras, and before larger crowds, the others try to compete by matching the bombast.
However, their attack skills are no match for Mr. Bluster, and the exchanges only drag down what little quality of debate there was to begin with.
"My way or the highway!"
The root cause of rude, obnoxious and overbearing behavior is insecurity. A bully does what he does because he is basically insecure. To cover up his lack of self-confidence, he over-compensates by bullying others into submission, forcing them to yield and do what he wants, thus "proving," to himself at least his competence.
The odd thing is, this tactic often works, since it relies on a strong sense of courtesy and civility that most people have, and on some level they see that the one with the loudest mouth must want whatever the issue is quite strongly.
News reporters, meanwhile, develop a shield of courtesy that enables them to listen and record what is being said, no matter how rude the assault. They rely on time and exposure, knowing that eventually the demagogue will overstep the bounds of civility that even the most devoted supporter ignores.
Currently, one man dominates the media field and provides entertainment for many with his often outrageous outbursts. Behavior like that is only entertaining, but easy for journalists to cover. The story practically writes itself, especially when presentations by other candidates are dull by comparison, even when their policies and positions are well thought out and have substantial depth.
A score of candidates from the two major parties in America want to move to the White House, but with Mr. Bluster attracting all the cameras, and before larger crowds, the others try to compete by matching the bombast.
However, their attack skills are no match for Mr. Bluster, and the exchanges only drag down what little quality of debate there was to begin with.
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Newsiness
Competent Journalism is not an oxymoron.
News media do not mold public opinion so much as they reflect it.
There's often a thin line between news and gossip.
The term "Newsiness," like "Truthiness," may sound like a story is important, but a closer look often reveals little of substance.
Sometimes "wolfpack journalism" and often "herd journalism" overwhelms the crowd of reporters at an event and influences the way the story is covered. This can be a good thing, as reporters chase a big story, but too often the subject is a very easy target, as news crews surround the stumbling subject.
Other times, clever marketing of an entertaining politician attracts and manipulates journalists, enticing them with frothy phrases and and catchy quotes. The problem here, of course, is that while the subjects may sound like they know what they're talking about, that's no guarantee that they do.
So it is with the current political campaign. Smart candidates, like corporate executives, recognize that reporters are sometimes lazy, and can be easily led or misled with tales of sound and fury. But as Shakespeare pointed out, these tales are often told by idiots, and signify nothing.
At the same time, the more competent, aggressive journalists struggle to get through the crowd to ask the tough questions. They then face the accusation -- usually from an aggrieved, novice politician -- that they are pushy, unfair, or disrespectful. Far too many corporate executives and politicians believe that if a reporter is not an advocate for their positions, they are therefore adversaries, are treated as enemies.
While it may occasionally be true that reporters show little respect for certain politicians, this could well be justified. More often, however, it's important to remember that good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
So there needs to be a balance. When news subjects -- man or woman -- show little depth or knowledge of the field they hope to work in, whether corporate, diplomatic, international relations, economic policy or anything else, it's the duty and obligation of journalists to expose that incompetence. Not because they are vindictive, although politicians may say that in an attack response, but because reporters have an obligation to the general public, and to voters especially.
Demagogues are particularly glib in arousing the ire of crowds, and they do this by smearing minorities and attacking those who question or disagree with their political platitudes.
Journalists, then, must keep a thick skin and not be offended by such machinations, and to continue their neutrality and report just what the candidate says, and to explain its consequences.
News media do not mold public opinion so much as they reflect it.
There's often a thin line between news and gossip.
The term "Newsiness," like "Truthiness," may sound like a story is important, but a closer look often reveals little of substance.
Sometimes "wolfpack journalism" and often "herd journalism" overwhelms the crowd of reporters at an event and influences the way the story is covered. This can be a good thing, as reporters chase a big story, but too often the subject is a very easy target, as news crews surround the stumbling subject.
Other times, clever marketing of an entertaining politician attracts and manipulates journalists, enticing them with frothy phrases and and catchy quotes. The problem here, of course, is that while the subjects may sound like they know what they're talking about, that's no guarantee that they do.
So it is with the current political campaign. Smart candidates, like corporate executives, recognize that reporters are sometimes lazy, and can be easily led or misled with tales of sound and fury. But as Shakespeare pointed out, these tales are often told by idiots, and signify nothing.
At the same time, the more competent, aggressive journalists struggle to get through the crowd to ask the tough questions. They then face the accusation -- usually from an aggrieved, novice politician -- that they are pushy, unfair, or disrespectful. Far too many corporate executives and politicians believe that if a reporter is not an advocate for their positions, they are therefore adversaries, are treated as enemies.
While it may occasionally be true that reporters show little respect for certain politicians, this could well be justified. More often, however, it's important to remember that good reporters are neither advocates nor adversaries. They ask the tough questions because they need to be asked.
So there needs to be a balance. When news subjects -- man or woman -- show little depth or knowledge of the field they hope to work in, whether corporate, diplomatic, international relations, economic policy or anything else, it's the duty and obligation of journalists to expose that incompetence. Not because they are vindictive, although politicians may say that in an attack response, but because reporters have an obligation to the general public, and to voters especially.
Demagogues are particularly glib in arousing the ire of crowds, and they do this by smearing minorities and attacking those who question or disagree with their political platitudes.
Journalists, then, must keep a thick skin and not be offended by such machinations, and to continue their neutrality and report just what the candidate says, and to explain its consequences.
Friday, August 28, 2015
Zombie Economics
The Silent Majority is neither
silent nor a majority.
If you make it, they will
buy.
"You ain't seen nothin' yet." --
Al Jolson
The U.S. economy continues to
show healthy signs even as other major countries struggle, but America is not
strong enough to carry the world, and any attempts to wall off the country from
others can only lead to international disaster.
Domestic economic growth jumped
to 3.7 percent in the second quarter of this year, according to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, up from an earlier estimate of 2.3 percent. That
compares to a first quarter growth in GDP of 0.6 percent.
Even so, the financial yo-yo on
Wall Street and stock markets around the world prompted officials at the Federal
Reserve to suggest that the nation's central bank will not raise its base
interest rate next month, as many have expected.
Meanwhile, leading presidential
candidates have been making noises reminiscent of the supply-side mavens of the
Reagan Era, when the cry was "cut taxes and government revenues will increase."
This strategy was also known as trickle-down economics, and voodoo economics.
The chant was that if government reduces taxes on the wealthy, more money would
be available for investment, which would lead to more production on the supply
side, which meant consumers would buy more stuff. Hence the name "supply-side
economics." What was forgotten was that with little or no demand for a product,
an increase in supply was pointless and wasteful.
Political opponents of the
strategy were fond of saying it would reduce taxes across the board, and the
resulting increases in supply and consumption would mean more tax revenue for
government. However, as Bruce Bartlett, a government official who help to bring
about the emphasis on supply-side economics in the 1970s, pointed out years
later, there were several qualifiers. In an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times
in April of 2007, "The original supply-siders suggested that some tax
cuts under very special circumstances, might induce an unlocking
effect" that would bring more gains and more taxes, "even at a lower
rate."
Note the four qualifiers
(italics added): suggested, some, might, very special circumstances. No
guarantees there. In any case, the proposal was to be applied to marginal tax
rates at upper income levels, not lower taxes at all levels.
Bartlett also pointed out that
many of the supply-side proposals have, in fact, been adopted by
mainstream economists.
To some extent, trimming tax
rates on high earners will add some additional cash to the investment stream,
enabling more production and an increased supply of goods. But if demand does
not also increase to absorb that additional supply, the change is
pointless.
"Buy now," is the chant. "With
what?" is the reply from the unemployed.
If the U.S. walls off the rest
of the world, as was done by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the 1930s, and as proposed by
a leading GOP presidential candidate today, the result will be a replay of the
Great Depression of the 1930s.
Punitive tariffs and
confiscation of remittances that workers in America attempt to send to their
needy friends and relatives in Mexico and other countries will only bring
retaliation by other governments.
Halting immigration reduces the
labor supply and leads to higher wages, in turn causing higher prices, which
cuts down sales, which slows production, which eliminates jobs, which boosts
unemployment, which leads to hunger and homelessness, which causes political
upheaval.
People come to America because
this is where the jobs are, and those who come often pick up the jobs that nativists do not want and will not take.
So despite all the metaphorical
stakes driven through the heart of a fatally flawed doctrine, extremist
supply-side acolytes continue to suck the life blood of a healthy, recovering
economy, and threaten a repeat of the 1930s-era disaster.
Like all the walking dead, the
zombie of "voodoo economics" lives on in the minds of those who fear the
"Other."
"Take our country back," is the
chant. That, too, is an echo of demagogues who rise to power on the xenophobic
fears of a few.
But this new Silent Majority is
neither silent nor a majority.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Bump the Blowhard
Never pick a fight with some one who buys ink by the barrel.
A popular TV news anchor, Jorge Ramos of Univision, was tossed out of a news conference with GOP candidate Donald J. Trump when he tried to ask questions about the candidate's immigration statements.
Trump's response: "Sit down. Sit down. You weren't called on. Go back to Univision."
In fairness, it must be said that Ramos was allowed to return, and there was then a strong encounter between the two. Nevertheless, to evict a prominent journalist from a public setting while cameras are rolling can only come back to haunt.
I saw the NBC coverage of the Trump-Ramos duel, and thought they were bending over backwards to be "neutral." I saw a longer clip last night on CNN, which was more informative. I can only guess what Univision will be doing. Should the rest of the press corps have left in a protest of Trump's treatment of the news anchor? A mass walkout like that is not likely until and unless the candidate really goes around the bend.
Attacking the media suits his purpose, and as long as reporters provide him with a forum, he'll use it. Besides, a mass walkout would only "prove" his point that the media "don't like him," and aren't "fair," which will play well with his base of followers, and there are many of them. He attracts a crowd, no question, and he's more interesting to listen to than the other candidates, whether you support his "positions" or not. All this, especially the large crowds he attracts, make him hard to ignore. Again, ignoring him only feeds his ego and "supports" his contention that the media are "unfair."
His treatment of Ramos only worsens his relationship with potential Latino voters, and echoes his attack on Megyn Kelly after the Fox News anchor questioned the candidate about his attitudes and comments on women. Trump then complained that Kelly's question meant she was not "being nice," that she was "not fair," and that "you see her bleeding from her ... wherever."
Childish, of course. All of this is the behavior of a petulant bully who doesn't get his own way. At the same time, ignoring him can be counterproductive, since it not only supports his arguments to his most ardent followers, but also fails to warn the wider public of the danger he poses. And that, I believe is more important. It's a reporter's job to remain neutral and record what is said.
The real power is the pen. Besides, the columnists and
commentators have the duty and obligation to criticize.
A popular TV news anchor, Jorge Ramos of Univision, was tossed out of a news conference with GOP candidate Donald J. Trump when he tried to ask questions about the candidate's immigration statements.
Trump's response: "Sit down. Sit down. You weren't called on. Go back to Univision."
In fairness, it must be said that Ramos was allowed to return, and there was then a strong encounter between the two. Nevertheless, to evict a prominent journalist from a public setting while cameras are rolling can only come back to haunt.
I saw the NBC coverage of the Trump-Ramos duel, and thought they were bending over backwards to be "neutral." I saw a longer clip last night on CNN, which was more informative. I can only guess what Univision will be doing. Should the rest of the press corps have left in a protest of Trump's treatment of the news anchor? A mass walkout like that is not likely until and unless the candidate really goes around the bend.
Attacking the media suits his purpose, and as long as reporters provide him with a forum, he'll use it. Besides, a mass walkout would only "prove" his point that the media "don't like him," and aren't "fair," which will play well with his base of followers, and there are many of them. He attracts a crowd, no question, and he's more interesting to listen to than the other candidates, whether you support his "positions" or not. All this, especially the large crowds he attracts, make him hard to ignore. Again, ignoring him only feeds his ego and "supports" his contention that the media are "unfair."
His treatment of Ramos only worsens his relationship with potential Latino voters, and echoes his attack on Megyn Kelly after the Fox News anchor questioned the candidate about his attitudes and comments on women. Trump then complained that Kelly's question meant she was not "being nice," that she was "not fair," and that "you see her bleeding from her ... wherever."
Childish, of course. All of this is the behavior of a petulant bully who doesn't get his own way. At the same time, ignoring him can be counterproductive, since it not only supports his arguments to his most ardent followers, but also fails to warn the wider public of the danger he poses. And that, I believe is more important. It's a reporter's job to remain neutral and record what is said.
The real power is the pen. Besides, the columnists and
commentators have the duty and obligation to criticize.
Friday, August 21, 2015
Double Dip Danger
Evidence is piling up that the Federal Reserve will not boost interest rates next month, as some have predicted. Instead, that move may not come until some time next year, probably in the summer, a point made here July 8.
Today, New York Stock Exchange reported a major plunge, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost some 530 points, continuing a six-day decline.
Also, a blogger for Marketwatch wrote that the Fed "would be nuts" to raise interest rates in September. The crisis may be gone, "but the effects still linger," said Cullen Roche, insisting that the economy remains sluggish.
And Mike Bird of Business Insider pointed to disasters around the world and said the Fed "is at risk of repeating one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the U.S. economy." In 1936, encouraging signs led the central bank and the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to pull back its support measures. Result: A second crash, sending the economy further into its Great Depression.
Last week, Japan reported a drop in second quarter output, and China devalued its currency to help stimulate its world trade and keep its growth rate of about 7 percent.
And in a report on the most recent meeting of its Open Market Committee, which regulates the money supply, the Fed maintained that the economy continued to expand, but the Fed would remain watchful "for some time" before acting to bring its key interest rate to what it considers a level that is "normal in the longer run."
That meeting, however, was held in late July, and the minutes of the meeting were released on Wednesday, as the Wall Street plunge was gaining momentum.
But there was some hope. The proposed federal budget for the coming fiscal year "would make U.S. output larger over the next decade" and proposed changes in immigration laws would help to reduce deficits. That analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Today, New York Stock Exchange reported a major plunge, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost some 530 points, continuing a six-day decline.
Also, a blogger for Marketwatch wrote that the Fed "would be nuts" to raise interest rates in September. The crisis may be gone, "but the effects still linger," said Cullen Roche, insisting that the economy remains sluggish.
And Mike Bird of Business Insider pointed to disasters around the world and said the Fed "is at risk of repeating one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the U.S. economy." In 1936, encouraging signs led the central bank and the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to pull back its support measures. Result: A second crash, sending the economy further into its Great Depression.
Last week, Japan reported a drop in second quarter output, and China devalued its currency to help stimulate its world trade and keep its growth rate of about 7 percent.
And in a report on the most recent meeting of its Open Market Committee, which regulates the money supply, the Fed maintained that the economy continued to expand, but the Fed would remain watchful "for some time" before acting to bring its key interest rate to what it considers a level that is "normal in the longer run."
That meeting, however, was held in late July, and the minutes of the meeting were released on Wednesday, as the Wall Street plunge was gaining momentum.
But there was some hope. The proposed federal budget for the coming fiscal year "would make U.S. output larger over the next decade" and proposed changes in immigration laws would help to reduce deficits. That analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)