"That's a word I take from no man! Put up your fists!" -- Victor McLaglen as Will Danaher in "The Quiet Man," (1952).
Time was, using the L word would bring that kind of response, even if metaphorical. And until last year, the L word rarely appeared in mainstream news media.
Now, an entire half-hour segment can list and document the number of times as well as the specific details and background to the falsehoods the current president of the United States has uttered.
Roll the video.
Recently, he was asked about his promise to personally donate $1 million to charity if Sen. Elizabeth Warren took a DNA test to prove her claim of Native American ancestry.
So she did, and the results were positive. But when the president was asked when he would fulfill his promise, his answer was, "I never said that."
So TV stations rolled the video of the president saying exactly that, at a public campaign rally before thousands in the crowd and many more watching on news channels.
Not too long ago, calling someone a liar was too harsh a term to be used in otherwise civil discourse. Mainstream print media rarely, if ever, used the word and broadcast news anchors and commentators apologized up front before showing a video or repeating a quote.
Now the infamy is gone and the word is commonplace.
Language changes over time, of course, with new words entering the national vocabulary and others seeing more widespread use in public discourse.
Whether the use of a particular word is acceptable in public, civil discourse, is a social judgment, not linguistic. But words have power, and overuse can quickly diminish that power. Nevertheless, there are some words whose power deserves respect, and should not be used unless warranted.
The L word is one of them.
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Saturday, October 20, 2018
Breaking the Demand-Supply Law
Once you understand the Law of Demand and Supply, you master Economics 101.
When consumers want something and it's not available nearby at a reasonable price, they go elsewhere.
This principle applies whether it's about one person looking for a cup of coffee or it's about an entire retail chain searching for a new supply of beans.
If, for example, the U.S. government imposes a tariff on coffee beans from Honduras to protect growers in America, the cost of Honduran beans will go up to cover the tariff, and U.S. growers will either maintain their price level as the competition lessens, or they will raise their prices to boost profits, for the same reason -- less competition.
Say what? There are few, if any, coffee bean growers in America?
All the more reason, then, to impose the import tax as a way to encourage a new domestic business activity.
But it takes years to plant, grow, harvest and distribute a new crop, you object.
That's OK, the government replies. We have to protect those who invest in the new industry from unfair competition.
Our resident cynic, Pug Mahoney, notes that to such as these, "unfair competition" is when the other guy sometimes wins. The underlying attitude is that "fair" competition means that they win everything all the time and the other guy always loses.
Besides, they point out, "those other guys are only ____ anyway, so they don't matter."
Those who suspect a touch of bigotry or racism behind such an attitude are likely correct, and could easily recite numerous examples in American history when attitudes like that were widespread, and applied to earlier groups of newcomers. Moreover, similar examples show up in the history of other nations.
Now consider the current flap to keep out stuff made in China in order to "protect" American makers. The result will be that less stuff will come from China or it will be more expensive. Meanwhile, Chinese firms will look to other markets, so consumers in other countries will benefit from the availability of lower priced stuff from China. Once again, the Law of Demand and Supply is enforced, as suppliers look to other markets and consumers seek new suppliers.
When consumers want something and it's not available nearby at a reasonable price, they go elsewhere.
This principle applies whether it's about one person looking for a cup of coffee or it's about an entire retail chain searching for a new supply of beans.
If, for example, the U.S. government imposes a tariff on coffee beans from Honduras to protect growers in America, the cost of Honduran beans will go up to cover the tariff, and U.S. growers will either maintain their price level as the competition lessens, or they will raise their prices to boost profits, for the same reason -- less competition.
Say what? There are few, if any, coffee bean growers in America?
All the more reason, then, to impose the import tax as a way to encourage a new domestic business activity.
But it takes years to plant, grow, harvest and distribute a new crop, you object.
That's OK, the government replies. We have to protect those who invest in the new industry from unfair competition.
Our resident cynic, Pug Mahoney, notes that to such as these, "unfair competition" is when the other guy sometimes wins. The underlying attitude is that "fair" competition means that they win everything all the time and the other guy always loses.
Besides, they point out, "those other guys are only ____ anyway, so they don't matter."
Those who suspect a touch of bigotry or racism behind such an attitude are likely correct, and could easily recite numerous examples in American history when attitudes like that were widespread, and applied to earlier groups of newcomers. Moreover, similar examples show up in the history of other nations.
Now consider the current flap to keep out stuff made in China in order to "protect" American makers. The result will be that less stuff will come from China or it will be more expensive. Meanwhile, Chinese firms will look to other markets, so consumers in other countries will benefit from the availability of lower priced stuff from China. Once again, the Law of Demand and Supply is enforced, as suppliers look to other markets and consumers seek new suppliers.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Political Fakers
Political types often masquerade as being devoted to the public good, even as they rely on corporate money to finance their campaigns.
In addition, they are fond of attempting to humiliate those who disagree with them -- other candidates -- as well as those who disclose information embarrassing to them -- journalists.
It matters not whether the report is true. The point is that it tarnishes their Golden Image.
Lost in the tirade of verbal venom against the news media, for example, is the idea that reporters really don't care about the politician's Golden Image. Their concern is about getting a good story, and it doesn't matter whether the subject is a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal, a conservative, or anything else. If the report tarnishes the carefully polished Golden Image, so much more the fun for the reporters.
Perhaps it's time that the general public remember that's what reporters do. It's part of the job to expose the corruption, malice, petty behavior, and the fakery so common among political types.
If some are more adept at camouflaging their fakery, that just means it's more of a challenge for reporters. And the more politicians attack the news media as they try to cover up their shenanigans, the harder and the deeper reporters dig.
In addition, they are fond of attempting to humiliate those who disagree with them -- other candidates -- as well as those who disclose information embarrassing to them -- journalists.
It matters not whether the report is true. The point is that it tarnishes their Golden Image.
Lost in the tirade of verbal venom against the news media, for example, is the idea that reporters really don't care about the politician's Golden Image. Their concern is about getting a good story, and it doesn't matter whether the subject is a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal, a conservative, or anything else. If the report tarnishes the carefully polished Golden Image, so much more the fun for the reporters.
Perhaps it's time that the general public remember that's what reporters do. It's part of the job to expose the corruption, malice, petty behavior, and the fakery so common among political types.
If some are more adept at camouflaging their fakery, that just means it's more of a challenge for reporters. And the more politicians attack the news media as they try to cover up their shenanigans, the harder and the deeper reporters dig.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Do Deficits Matter?
"Deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney
Many folks claim difficulty understanding economics, but that's partly the fault of teachers who rely heavily on abstract numbers to explain arcane theories. Except that the theories are neither abstract nor arcane. They deal with the study of what people do with the resources available to them.
Granted, some resources are not as readily available as others, but that too is part of the study.
Consider the concept of deficit spending by government. For a long time, conservative politicians touted the notion that balanced budgets are the only way to run a government. Now we hear that any loss from that strategy can be made up by tax reductions, which will increase production, which will boost purchasing, which will hike tax revenue, and as the change trickles down through the economy, everyone is better off.
Say what?
It sounds wonderful, except when reality steps in and points out that things don't work that way.
The government just reported that the budget deficit for the fiscal year just ended was $779 billion, a 17 percent increase from the year before. Experts attributed that change to tax cuts that ate into government revenue.
But it doesn't matter, Republicans are fond of saying now, and that's a major turnaround from their historical position that insisted on a balanced budget.
However, consider this: When you decrease revenue and increase spending, eventually you go broke.
Granted, it's harder for a nation to go bankrupt, since it can stall the problem by printing more money. But inflating the amount of cash in the economy only leads to higher costs, as prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
And if wages don't keep pace with prices, the result is poverty.
Eventually, the problem catches up to society as inflation soars to uncontrollable levels.
A nation's central bank, however -- in America that's the Federal Reserve -- tries to keep inflation under control. That is, to keep it within a acceptable level. But what is an "acceptable" level?
That is the question that puzzles the experts almost daily. The Fed has settled on approximately 2 percent, and the agency tries to reach this target by controlling the supply of money in circulation. With less money available, prices cannot rise as fast, and wages are more likely to enable workers to stay within reach of buying stuff.
However, when business feels free to boost prices to increase profits, even as they trim expenses by stifling wage growth, soon enough, someone will suffer.
And on a government level, cutting taxes to encourage corporate profit really amounts to reducing government revenue. But if government increases spending -- on the military, for instance, while it cuts social welfare expenditures -- soon enough, there will be problems.
Rationalizing that policy by endorsing the "trickle down" theory may sound good, but that's what rationalizing often does.
Reality, however, has a way stepping in when you least expect it. It may take a while, but it will happen.
Many folks claim difficulty understanding economics, but that's partly the fault of teachers who rely heavily on abstract numbers to explain arcane theories. Except that the theories are neither abstract nor arcane. They deal with the study of what people do with the resources available to them.
Granted, some resources are not as readily available as others, but that too is part of the study.
Consider the concept of deficit spending by government. For a long time, conservative politicians touted the notion that balanced budgets are the only way to run a government. Now we hear that any loss from that strategy can be made up by tax reductions, which will increase production, which will boost purchasing, which will hike tax revenue, and as the change trickles down through the economy, everyone is better off.
Say what?
It sounds wonderful, except when reality steps in and points out that things don't work that way.
The government just reported that the budget deficit for the fiscal year just ended was $779 billion, a 17 percent increase from the year before. Experts attributed that change to tax cuts that ate into government revenue.
But it doesn't matter, Republicans are fond of saying now, and that's a major turnaround from their historical position that insisted on a balanced budget.
However, consider this: When you decrease revenue and increase spending, eventually you go broke.
Granted, it's harder for a nation to go bankrupt, since it can stall the problem by printing more money. But inflating the amount of cash in the economy only leads to higher costs, as prices rise to absorb the amount of money available.
And if wages don't keep pace with prices, the result is poverty.
Eventually, the problem catches up to society as inflation soars to uncontrollable levels.
A nation's central bank, however -- in America that's the Federal Reserve -- tries to keep inflation under control. That is, to keep it within a acceptable level. But what is an "acceptable" level?
That is the question that puzzles the experts almost daily. The Fed has settled on approximately 2 percent, and the agency tries to reach this target by controlling the supply of money in circulation. With less money available, prices cannot rise as fast, and wages are more likely to enable workers to stay within reach of buying stuff.
However, when business feels free to boost prices to increase profits, even as they trim expenses by stifling wage growth, soon enough, someone will suffer.
And on a government level, cutting taxes to encourage corporate profit really amounts to reducing government revenue. But if government increases spending -- on the military, for instance, while it cuts social welfare expenditures -- soon enough, there will be problems.
Rationalizing that policy by endorsing the "trickle down" theory may sound good, but that's what rationalizing often does.
Reality, however, has a way stepping in when you least expect it. It may take a while, but it will happen.
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Economic Politics
Not to decide is to decide. -- Pug Mahoney
When economics and politics mix, the result can be prosperity or chaos, partly depending on the strategy and goals of the political manipulators.
Liberals and conservatives both try to manipulate an economy for the benefit of their supporters, each with varying degrees of success. And depending on your own political, social and economic views, these attempts may or may not be admirable or even appropriate goals.
In any case, an economy -- national or regional -- has a life of its own, and the political views of the society where it functions determines and reflects that life.
So which comes first, politics or economics? Or are they both equal, even as politicians try to influence economic welfare and as economists insist what people do with what's available is independent of political manipulation?
Part of the problem is that for years, economists tried to remove their academic specialty from the real world and apply abstract mathematical principles to the study.
They called it econometrics.
A useful tool, to be sure, but any tool is only as good is its user, and when the academics removed their subject from the real world, they lost some touch with reality.
The subject was originally known as political economics, stressing the notion that the study dealt with what people do with what's available, and differentiating this larger field from what was known as home economics. What a family does and what a community, industry or a nation does are to be studied separately.
To be overly simplistic, that's the difference between micro and macro economics.
Either way, it's a matter of who decides what to use, how and when to use the resources available.
And if the choice is none of the above, that also is a decision.
When economics and politics mix, the result can be prosperity or chaos, partly depending on the strategy and goals of the political manipulators.
Liberals and conservatives both try to manipulate an economy for the benefit of their supporters, each with varying degrees of success. And depending on your own political, social and economic views, these attempts may or may not be admirable or even appropriate goals.
In any case, an economy -- national or regional -- has a life of its own, and the political views of the society where it functions determines and reflects that life.
So which comes first, politics or economics? Or are they both equal, even as politicians try to influence economic welfare and as economists insist what people do with what's available is independent of political manipulation?
Part of the problem is that for years, economists tried to remove their academic specialty from the real world and apply abstract mathematical principles to the study.
They called it econometrics.
A useful tool, to be sure, but any tool is only as good is its user, and when the academics removed their subject from the real world, they lost some touch with reality.
The subject was originally known as political economics, stressing the notion that the study dealt with what people do with what's available, and differentiating this larger field from what was known as home economics. What a family does and what a community, industry or a nation does are to be studied separately.
To be overly simplistic, that's the difference between micro and macro economics.
Either way, it's a matter of who decides what to use, how and when to use the resources available.
And if the choice is none of the above, that also is a decision.
Saturday, October 13, 2018
It Can't Happen Here
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Sometimes attributed to Voltaire or Patrick Henry, but actually written by Evelyn Hall in 1906.
When people of a free society lose their right to speak freely and disagree with others, that society itself is in danger of no longer being a democracy.
When a political candidate urges violence against protestors and those who disagree, he hastens the nation's decline toward tyranny or dictatorship.
"Get him outta here" and "I'd like to punch him in the face" are some of the things a current American official has said publicly, as he encouraged chants of "Lock her up!" among his crowds of supporters.
This same politician spent a lifetime in business demanding unquestioning loyalty from everyone he dealt with, but when that same attitude is carried into a government position, especially at a high level, the danger of that nation's democracy collapsing into autocracy rises sharply.
It may well be a natural tendency among some people to expect loyalty and agreement from everyone in all things, but when that attitude is carried forward into government positions and opposition is forcibly repressed, freedom and democracy are imperiled.
It doesn't take much knowledge of history to list several examples of that phenomenon causing serious problems, even war, in other countries. Moreover, that issue can be found in news reports even today.
"It can't happen here," you say.
But it can, and very nearly did, several times, and several books have been written documenting that very real possibility.
When people of a free society lose their right to speak freely and disagree with others, that society itself is in danger of no longer being a democracy.
When a political candidate urges violence against protestors and those who disagree, he hastens the nation's decline toward tyranny or dictatorship.
"Get him outta here" and "I'd like to punch him in the face" are some of the things a current American official has said publicly, as he encouraged chants of "Lock her up!" among his crowds of supporters.
This same politician spent a lifetime in business demanding unquestioning loyalty from everyone he dealt with, but when that same attitude is carried into a government position, especially at a high level, the danger of that nation's democracy collapsing into autocracy rises sharply.
It may well be a natural tendency among some people to expect loyalty and agreement from everyone in all things, but when that attitude is carried forward into government positions and opposition is forcibly repressed, freedom and democracy are imperiled.
It doesn't take much knowledge of history to list several examples of that phenomenon causing serious problems, even war, in other countries. Moreover, that issue can be found in news reports even today.
"It can't happen here," you say.
But it can, and very nearly did, several times, and several books have been written documenting that very real possibility.
Friday, October 12, 2018
In Loco Parenthesis
The president now says the Federal Reserve Board is "loco," and "out of control." Moreover, he adds, "I know more than they do."
News flash: The White House does not control the Federal Reserve, whose responsibility is to monitor the economy and try to prevent extreme swings that would endanger the national welfare.
But this president seems to want totally free business and financial markets, with no government influence or interference of any kind. Ever.
Been there, done that, and the result was chaos, rampant in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, with economic crashes that spread poverty and distress not only around the country but around the world.
It was not until 1917 that the Federal Reserve was founded, and not until the Great Depression of the 1930s that government took a more firm hand in regulating business and financial activities.
Before that, big business management showed a penchant for full control of what they do, with no government interference. This included wages and salaries, and treatment of workers. Management preferred government cooperation in controlling things that might interfere with profits, and that included labor costs as well as foreign competition.
If management had treated workers fairly and humanely, there would have no need for labor unions. Taken to extremes, the reaction to unfair treatment leads to widespread strikes and violence. Even worse, this leads to a dictatorship of either a political group favorable to management or another group favorable to workers. In some countries, that's called the proletariat.
At one extreme, then, is suppression of workers by governments supported by corporate management, and at the other extreme, suppression of management.
Somewhere in the middle may be a better system, which would satisfy both sides in the social hierarchy. Put simply, that's what happened in America and in some other countries, avoiding both extremes.
After much conflict, labor and management compromised. Moreover, that spirit of joint effort for the common good of all still prevails, despite occasional eruptions.
One of these eruptions is a move to impose high taxes on goods imported from other nations. These are called tariffs, and are levied as a way to protect domestic producers.
The problem with that, however, is that other countries retaliate, so consumers on both sides suffer as management raises prices to maintain profits. That doesn't last, because soon enough people stop buying.
Result: Economic crash.
It happened after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed into law on June 17, 1930, raising U.S. import taxes on more than 20,000 goods.
Along with the stock market crash of the previous October, the combination of higher prices to consumers already suffering from lower wages and fewer jobs led to a worsening of an already harsh economic environment.
If any of this sounds familiar to what's happening now, perhaps it's time to be afraid. Be very afraid.
October 1929 saw a stock market crash. October 1987 saw another Wall Street debacle. This week, the stock market stumbled by more than 800 points on the widely followed Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Is this a harbinger of things to come? Perhaps. Or not.
Such a warning assumes that the stock market is directly related to the economy and is, as some put it, a barometer of economic growth. Others disagree, noting that very few Americans actually own stock, and many of those who do invest their money in mutual funds, rather than in individual companies.
That, however, doesn't stop politicians from blaming others for things that they don't like.
So why is the president criticizing the Fed for its efforts to smooth out radical changes in the economy even though activities on Wall Street stock markets have little directly to do with overall economic growth? Could it be that he wants full control of this, too, overturning nearly one hundred years of efforts to stabilize financial whiplash?
News flash: The White House does not control the Federal Reserve, whose responsibility is to monitor the economy and try to prevent extreme swings that would endanger the national welfare.
But this president seems to want totally free business and financial markets, with no government influence or interference of any kind. Ever.
Been there, done that, and the result was chaos, rampant in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, with economic crashes that spread poverty and distress not only around the country but around the world.
It was not until 1917 that the Federal Reserve was founded, and not until the Great Depression of the 1930s that government took a more firm hand in regulating business and financial activities.
Before that, big business management showed a penchant for full control of what they do, with no government interference. This included wages and salaries, and treatment of workers. Management preferred government cooperation in controlling things that might interfere with profits, and that included labor costs as well as foreign competition.
If management had treated workers fairly and humanely, there would have no need for labor unions. Taken to extremes, the reaction to unfair treatment leads to widespread strikes and violence. Even worse, this leads to a dictatorship of either a political group favorable to management or another group favorable to workers. In some countries, that's called the proletariat.
At one extreme, then, is suppression of workers by governments supported by corporate management, and at the other extreme, suppression of management.
Somewhere in the middle may be a better system, which would satisfy both sides in the social hierarchy. Put simply, that's what happened in America and in some other countries, avoiding both extremes.
After much conflict, labor and management compromised. Moreover, that spirit of joint effort for the common good of all still prevails, despite occasional eruptions.
One of these eruptions is a move to impose high taxes on goods imported from other nations. These are called tariffs, and are levied as a way to protect domestic producers.
The problem with that, however, is that other countries retaliate, so consumers on both sides suffer as management raises prices to maintain profits. That doesn't last, because soon enough people stop buying.
Result: Economic crash.
It happened after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed into law on June 17, 1930, raising U.S. import taxes on more than 20,000 goods.
Along with the stock market crash of the previous October, the combination of higher prices to consumers already suffering from lower wages and fewer jobs led to a worsening of an already harsh economic environment.
If any of this sounds familiar to what's happening now, perhaps it's time to be afraid. Be very afraid.
October 1929 saw a stock market crash. October 1987 saw another Wall Street debacle. This week, the stock market stumbled by more than 800 points on the widely followed Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Is this a harbinger of things to come? Perhaps. Or not.
Such a warning assumes that the stock market is directly related to the economy and is, as some put it, a barometer of economic growth. Others disagree, noting that very few Americans actually own stock, and many of those who do invest their money in mutual funds, rather than in individual companies.
That, however, doesn't stop politicians from blaming others for things that they don't like.
So why is the president criticizing the Fed for its efforts to smooth out radical changes in the economy even though activities on Wall Street stock markets have little directly to do with overall economic growth? Could it be that he wants full control of this, too, overturning nearly one hundred years of efforts to stabilize financial whiplash?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)