Ralph Nader's (and others') talk about the lack of third parties made me want to spend more time on that notion - on our plurality / winner-take-all / first-past-the-post system as compared to a proportional system*.
As a first, and I think very fun, step, let's consider all the possible different parties that could exist in our system if we were starting from scratch. In my mind, the list of parties might look like the following:
On the Right
- Libertarian party
- Tea Party
- Conservative party
- Christian Coalition party
- Pro-Business / Pro-Growth party
On the Left
- Communist party
- Socialist party
- Liberal party
- Progressive party
- Blue Dog party
In a proportional system, all these parties would be likely to have some level of success getting votes to have membership in the elected body. But we don't have a proportional system. So let's imagine these parties in a winner-takes-all system, which is what we have.
For argument's sake, let's say that one group, the Progressive party, has the most support, if only by a small amount. (My choice wasn't totally random, I chose the Progressives because I think that's where I would vote, but for this exercise it could be any party.) So if the progressive party has the most support, two of the parties on the right would have every incentive to get together to beat out the Progressives.
For example, the Conservative party might link up with the Tea party, seeing that they have a lot in common and would hate to see a party on the left win. Well now that those two parties have linked and are in the lead, the Progressives might decide to link with another party so that a group on the right doesn't win. So they link up with the Liberal party.
This back and forth would continue until there are two parties competing for the one position because each party would rather help create a winning party on their side, even if it means compromise, then allow a party on the other side to win (this simple rationality and strategic decision-making didn't seem to appeal to Ralph Nader).
In a proportional system, you don't face that choice because all parties receive seats based on their votes. The only pressure toward fewer parties that I can see would result if the top vote-getting party gets the first opportunity to create a government. In that case, you might see parties merge to create the biggest party.
But besides that scenario, in a proportional system, the coalition-forming and governing comes after the election. If the above-listed parties were in a proportional system, and the Progressive Party received the most votes, they would have to see if they could create a majority governing coalition with other (likely left-leaning) parties.
What seems clear to me is that in a plurality system, strategic decisions (not corruption) lead to a two-party system. If people in this country want more parties, they should fight for a proportional system. I think they know that will never happen, so instead they resort to charges of corruption.
I also think compromise and incremental policy-making is a natural result in either structure. The difference, to my mind, is that in a plurality system the coalitions form before the elections and in a proportional system the coalitions form after the elections. Either way, those governing need to make decisions that are popular with a majority of the people. Those on the extreme or in the minority never like this, but it is a fact of popular government.
So when you find yourself with a belief that is in the minority, you should bemoan not the type of government or the candidates or the number of parties, but the fact that more people don't agree with you. And then you should try to change their minds. Perhaps by debating with them.
*For the purposes of this post, I am referring specifically to a party-proportional system, like that in Israel.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
A Little History, A Little Lite
I just finished reading EH Gombrich's A Little History of the World. The book has a lot of good things about it, and a few negatives. It is a fast read and an easy general history of the world. And each little piece of history you get can prompt you to do further research to get more in depth.
However, because it is so fast, it is very superficial. And times it is very clear that the summary is less than accurate - or just too superficial to be useful. In those cases - or all cases - further research is probably necessary. (The most clear example is the American Civil War. I wouldn't go to this book for a description of that anyway, but when you see what is lacking in that description, you can imagine what is lacking in other descriptions.)
Granted, this book is meant for children, so the lack of depth should be considered in that context. However, children shouldn't be given inaccurate information just for the sake of brevity.
But probably the biggest deficiency of the book is the western focus. When dealing with other cultures outside of Europe, it recognizes some of their accomplishments, but through omission suggests that there wasn't much of interest going on.
The book hardly talks about Russia before the communist revolution. And its coverage of China and the Middle East is similarly lacking. And Africa and South America aren't even covered except to talk about how they were colonized.
A less western-focused book could have talked more about the other great civilizations including the Inca and the Maya, more of the Chinese dynasties, Muslim culture beyond just the conquests, the major African civilizations, and the native tribes in North America.
Considering the strong deficiencies, I am not sure if I would recommend this book to my child (when old enough to read it). I guess as long as he understands what is lacking and will do further research, I would be okay with it. But here's hoping for another author to complete a similar book that includes non-western cultures more. And finds a better way to be brief but more accurate - or admit where he is being too general.
However, because it is so fast, it is very superficial. And times it is very clear that the summary is less than accurate - or just too superficial to be useful. In those cases - or all cases - further research is probably necessary. (The most clear example is the American Civil War. I wouldn't go to this book for a description of that anyway, but when you see what is lacking in that description, you can imagine what is lacking in other descriptions.)
Granted, this book is meant for children, so the lack of depth should be considered in that context. However, children shouldn't be given inaccurate information just for the sake of brevity.
But probably the biggest deficiency of the book is the western focus. When dealing with other cultures outside of Europe, it recognizes some of their accomplishments, but through omission suggests that there wasn't much of interest going on.
The book hardly talks about Russia before the communist revolution. And its coverage of China and the Middle East is similarly lacking. And Africa and South America aren't even covered except to talk about how they were colonized.
A less western-focused book could have talked more about the other great civilizations including the Inca and the Maya, more of the Chinese dynasties, Muslim culture beyond just the conquests, the major African civilizations, and the native tribes in North America.
Considering the strong deficiencies, I am not sure if I would recommend this book to my child (when old enough to read it). I guess as long as he understands what is lacking and will do further research, I would be okay with it. But here's hoping for another author to complete a similar book that includes non-western cultures more. And finds a better way to be brief but more accurate - or admit where he is being too general.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Inside Job: A Review
This year's Oscar for Best Documentary went to Inside Job. Since I read (although didn't quite finish) Sorkin's Too Big to Fail, which is about the financial collapse, I thought I would like the movie even more. I didn't.
The movie tells a one-sided story about the financial collapse, blaming it all on Wall Street. Since Paul Krugman has actually blamed a global savings glut for the bubble and the recession, I have to accept that the documentary is not telling the full truth.
But I do believe that the financial industry along with moderate and conservative politicians and many economists, bear significant blame for the size of the recession and the need for a bailout. So I am only slightly offended that the movie beat up on those parties that called for deregulation.
What really bothered me about the movie though was that the interviewer was not very good at asking good tough questions. His questions were too broad and vague and he often allowed people to simply disagree without any explanation. He probably thinks this made the respondents just look stupid when you compare their answers to the evidence. But I think it doesn't give the interviewees a fair shake and at the same time it missed an opportunity to really get the interviewees.
For example, when talking about executive compensation, he asks if it is excessive. The industry lobbyist was able to simply say, "no". Instead he should have asked whether the compensation rewarded bad behavior by rewarding short term profit without punishing long term risk and loss.
Similarly, he asked about conflicts of interest among economists. The economists would just say no and were never pushed. Instead of asking whether it impacted objectivity when an economist was writing about complex derivatives but also being paid by companies that made a lot of money on derivatives, the interviewer just asked where the economist got his compensation from.
The whole movie had the feel of wanting to beat up on the guilty parties instead of having a real dialogue with them. It seemed to actually try to avoid conversation and using tricks to tell the viewer to hate the person on screen. In fact, most people it wanted to portray negatively refused to appear on screen, which seemed to work fine for those making the movie since they made it seem like those how refused were trying to hide something. But it would have made a better movie had they been able to convince those people that they would have had a real conversation.
As for how it won an Oscar, I wonder if Hollywood was overjoyed to see a movie that made other really rich people look like monsters and made the Hollywood-types - also very rich - feel superior. Just a hunch.
The one thing I hadn't known or thought about before seeing the movie was the issue of conflicts of interest among economists. I think it is a serious issue, but it is one that permeates so many other industries that need to be regulated (conflicts in the pharmaceutical industry has been getting attention lately, but we know that revolving door issues affect many government programs' effectiveness). An across the board - for all industries - conflicts of interest policy is much needed.
The movie tells a one-sided story about the financial collapse, blaming it all on Wall Street. Since Paul Krugman has actually blamed a global savings glut for the bubble and the recession, I have to accept that the documentary is not telling the full truth.
But I do believe that the financial industry along with moderate and conservative politicians and many economists, bear significant blame for the size of the recession and the need for a bailout. So I am only slightly offended that the movie beat up on those parties that called for deregulation.
What really bothered me about the movie though was that the interviewer was not very good at asking good tough questions. His questions were too broad and vague and he often allowed people to simply disagree without any explanation. He probably thinks this made the respondents just look stupid when you compare their answers to the evidence. But I think it doesn't give the interviewees a fair shake and at the same time it missed an opportunity to really get the interviewees.
For example, when talking about executive compensation, he asks if it is excessive. The industry lobbyist was able to simply say, "no". Instead he should have asked whether the compensation rewarded bad behavior by rewarding short term profit without punishing long term risk and loss.
Similarly, he asked about conflicts of interest among economists. The economists would just say no and were never pushed. Instead of asking whether it impacted objectivity when an economist was writing about complex derivatives but also being paid by companies that made a lot of money on derivatives, the interviewer just asked where the economist got his compensation from.
The whole movie had the feel of wanting to beat up on the guilty parties instead of having a real dialogue with them. It seemed to actually try to avoid conversation and using tricks to tell the viewer to hate the person on screen. In fact, most people it wanted to portray negatively refused to appear on screen, which seemed to work fine for those making the movie since they made it seem like those how refused were trying to hide something. But it would have made a better movie had they been able to convince those people that they would have had a real conversation.
As for how it won an Oscar, I wonder if Hollywood was overjoyed to see a movie that made other really rich people look like monsters and made the Hollywood-types - also very rich - feel superior. Just a hunch.
The one thing I hadn't known or thought about before seeing the movie was the issue of conflicts of interest among economists. I think it is a serious issue, but it is one that permeates so many other industries that need to be regulated (conflicts in the pharmaceutical industry has been getting attention lately, but we know that revolving door issues affect many government programs' effectiveness). An across the board - for all industries - conflicts of interest policy is much needed.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
On Truman
I finished watching the American Experience documentary on Harry Truman and I have to say that I am thoroughly unimpressed. Maybe if I read McCullough's book I'll understand why people seem to love Truman, but I doubt it. Let's look at his record.
The Good
It seems Truman deserves a good deal of respect for his position on civil rights. He was ahead of his time and so took a pro-civil rights position at great political risk. He integrated the military and supported anti-lynching laws. Though his position was the right one, he wasn't wildly successful.
The Marshall Plan is probably Truman's proudest accomplishment. American aid helped get western Europe through the post-war years and prevented what might have been a move to communism. However Truman, wisely and rightly, gave credit to Secretary of State John Marshall.
Truman is also famous for the saying, "The Buck Stops Here." Accountability is a great thing, but shouldn't be considered a major feat or accomplishment.
The Bad
I already talked about the atomic bomb and how he could have and should have had it dropped on military targets first instead of two large cities leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
He was also seemingly anti-union in practice. After the end of the war, there were battles between businesses and unions. Business wanted an end to price controls and unions wanted higher wages. It seemed that Truman hated when unions went on strike. In fact, he proposed - illegally - to draft railroad union members if they went on strike. I'm sure conservatives like this, but I don't.
His conduct during the Korean War was terrible. His decision to advance beyond the 38th parallel when China made it clear they would intervene if the UN / US force did so was appalling. He seemed to blame that situation on MacArthur. Granted, MacArthur was amazingly insubordinate, but the blame for the tens of thousands of American deaths that resulted from the advance beyond the 38th parallel lays entirely with Truman. There was no reason to advance and every reason to think it would be a grave mistake.
Truman was also the first president to have to deal with the communist threat, and he used scare tactics that would persist for decades to achieve his foreign policy goals. But those same tactics boxed him in domestically where he required federal employees to take loyalty oaths. And this same rhetoric arguably gave rise to to Senator Joseph McCarthy. A more wise and able president could have presented the threat to communism in a way that didn't allow for people on the far left - ones who had no desire to overthrow the government - to have their lives ruined.
Maybe it is unfair, but there are other small examples that leave me with a low impression of him. His own draft speech against unions, portrayed in the documentary, was amateurish and extreme. Even more so was his letter to the journalist that attacked his daughter's signing.
And I can't get over his relationship with his wife. She seemed to treat him badly and maybe didn't even respect him. Yet he always seemed to grovel and flatter her. Sure, patience is a virtue, but being a doormat is not.
Conclusion
Overall, I don't see enough good from President Truman to have a high opinion of him. In fact, I get every impression that he was in over his head - which he himself thought at times. Although he originally was elevated to president after Roosevelt died, he ran for his own term in 1948.
I have long thought that President Bush was in over his head and should not have ran for president. Even more so with Sarah Palin. The "everyman" should not be president. Only extraordinary men and women should be president. This doesn't mean ivy league, but it does mean people that are smart and well-educated and well-informed on history and current events.
After watching this movie, I have to think that Truman was in over his head, as was Bush. And neither should have put the country at risk by running for president when they felt - or should have felt - under-qualified.
The Good
It seems Truman deserves a good deal of respect for his position on civil rights. He was ahead of his time and so took a pro-civil rights position at great political risk. He integrated the military and supported anti-lynching laws. Though his position was the right one, he wasn't wildly successful.
The Marshall Plan is probably Truman's proudest accomplishment. American aid helped get western Europe through the post-war years and prevented what might have been a move to communism. However Truman, wisely and rightly, gave credit to Secretary of State John Marshall.
Truman is also famous for the saying, "The Buck Stops Here." Accountability is a great thing, but shouldn't be considered a major feat or accomplishment.
The Bad
I already talked about the atomic bomb and how he could have and should have had it dropped on military targets first instead of two large cities leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
He was also seemingly anti-union in practice. After the end of the war, there were battles between businesses and unions. Business wanted an end to price controls and unions wanted higher wages. It seemed that Truman hated when unions went on strike. In fact, he proposed - illegally - to draft railroad union members if they went on strike. I'm sure conservatives like this, but I don't.
His conduct during the Korean War was terrible. His decision to advance beyond the 38th parallel when China made it clear they would intervene if the UN / US force did so was appalling. He seemed to blame that situation on MacArthur. Granted, MacArthur was amazingly insubordinate, but the blame for the tens of thousands of American deaths that resulted from the advance beyond the 38th parallel lays entirely with Truman. There was no reason to advance and every reason to think it would be a grave mistake.
Truman was also the first president to have to deal with the communist threat, and he used scare tactics that would persist for decades to achieve his foreign policy goals. But those same tactics boxed him in domestically where he required federal employees to take loyalty oaths. And this same rhetoric arguably gave rise to to Senator Joseph McCarthy. A more wise and able president could have presented the threat to communism in a way that didn't allow for people on the far left - ones who had no desire to overthrow the government - to have their lives ruined.
Maybe it is unfair, but there are other small examples that leave me with a low impression of him. His own draft speech against unions, portrayed in the documentary, was amateurish and extreme. Even more so was his letter to the journalist that attacked his daughter's signing.
And I can't get over his relationship with his wife. She seemed to treat him badly and maybe didn't even respect him. Yet he always seemed to grovel and flatter her. Sure, patience is a virtue, but being a doormat is not.
Conclusion
Overall, I don't see enough good from President Truman to have a high opinion of him. In fact, I get every impression that he was in over his head - which he himself thought at times. Although he originally was elevated to president after Roosevelt died, he ran for his own term in 1948.
I have long thought that President Bush was in over his head and should not have ran for president. Even more so with Sarah Palin. The "everyman" should not be president. Only extraordinary men and women should be president. This doesn't mean ivy league, but it does mean people that are smart and well-educated and well-informed on history and current events.
After watching this movie, I have to think that Truman was in over his head, as was Bush. And neither should have put the country at risk by running for president when they felt - or should have felt - under-qualified.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Dear Conservative: Stimuls or What? Update
Dear Conservative, (Update)
(This was a crappy post and so I want to re-write it.)
I am baffled by the Republican (your) response to this recession. The economic data tells us that fiscal stimulus is the only solution. We are up against the zero bound for interest rates, rendering monetary fixes useless (unless we change inflation expectations, which isn't going to happen and why QE2 was so ineffective).
So explain to me why another stimulus is a bad idea. Either you don't think government should do anything (which puts you farther right than Greenspan and Bernake) or you only support monetary policy and so are okay with ineffective policy and ultimately a lasting recession.
Maybe you don’t feel quite prepared to talk about this; that you aren’t that well versed on economics - specifically liquidity traps - and so for now you trust your party. Fine. Let’s do this. We’ll read two books. One by liberal Paul Krugman. The other by Fed Chairman (appointed by George W. Bush) Ben Bernake. Deal?
(This was a crappy post and so I want to re-write it.)
I am baffled by the Republican (your) response to this recession. The economic data tells us that fiscal stimulus is the only solution. We are up against the zero bound for interest rates, rendering monetary fixes useless (unless we change inflation expectations, which isn't going to happen and why QE2 was so ineffective).
So explain to me why another stimulus is a bad idea. Either you don't think government should do anything (which puts you farther right than Greenspan and Bernake) or you only support monetary policy and so are okay with ineffective policy and ultimately a lasting recession.
Maybe you don’t feel quite prepared to talk about this; that you aren’t that well versed on economics - specifically liquidity traps - and so for now you trust your party. Fine. Let’s do this. We’ll read two books. One by liberal Paul Krugman. The other by Fed Chairman (appointed by George W. Bush) Ben Bernake. Deal?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Deja Vu
As you might guess, I have less time to read the news and blog these days. But one place I still check in on is Paul Krugman's blog. When it comes to economics, budget, and spending issues - including health care - he has the most clear writing and the best analysis.
Yet it seems to me he spends a lot of time repeating himself. I don't blame him of course. I think it stems from the fact that he makes obvious points that fail to make any traction. Take a recent post explaining that federal spending as a percent of GDP has increased recently in large part because GDP growth has slowed so much and because spending on the safety net increased to deal with the recession. I swear I have read this at least a few times. (It is also true that much of the budget debt we have is due to Bush policies - and Krugman has made this point as well.)
In another post, Krugman makes the point that the health care plan we have is as conservative as it can be if we want to have something close to universal coverage. I am sure Krugman has made this point before as well.
It is a shame that Krugman, and those making similar points, are not being heard.
Yet it seems to me he spends a lot of time repeating himself. I don't blame him of course. I think it stems from the fact that he makes obvious points that fail to make any traction. Take a recent post explaining that federal spending as a percent of GDP has increased recently in large part because GDP growth has slowed so much and because spending on the safety net increased to deal with the recession. I swear I have read this at least a few times. (It is also true that much of the budget debt we have is due to Bush policies - and Krugman has made this point as well.)
In another post, Krugman makes the point that the health care plan we have is as conservative as it can be if we want to have something close to universal coverage. I am sure Krugman has made this point before as well.
It is a shame that Krugman, and those making similar points, are not being heard.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Welcome Back Mr. President
This is the president I voted for! This is what I want from him. He lays out a clear vision of the government he wants and he attacks the Republican (Paul Ryan) plan.
Maybe I misjudged him. Maybe he was right to keep quiet and get the small compromise victories of the tax deal and the 2011 budget and save the big government discussion for the real big compromise. And maybe this compromise would not have happened had he been as vocal as I would have liked. Maybe.
Let's hope though that Obama doesn't let this be the one time he speaks about his vision. He needs to keep hammering home what a deficit plan should look like. Not everyone will read this speech. But if he talks enough about it, people will know what he wants and may be convinced he is right. But they can only do that if they hear him often.
Maybe I misjudged him. Maybe he was right to keep quiet and get the small compromise victories of the tax deal and the 2011 budget and save the big government discussion for the real big compromise. And maybe this compromise would not have happened had he been as vocal as I would have liked. Maybe.
Let's hope though that Obama doesn't let this be the one time he speaks about his vision. He needs to keep hammering home what a deficit plan should look like. Not everyone will read this speech. But if he talks enough about it, people will know what he wants and may be convinced he is right. But they can only do that if they hear him often.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Mandate and Overreach
If I have learned anything from Obama's election followed by Republican victories in the mid-terms, it is that both sides are bound to misinterpret their victories. Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party, saw the election as a mandate on liberal policies (as opposed to short term correction from bad Bush policies and a victory over an inferior candidate). So they went big and they went hard. They passed a health care reform that was complicated and let Republicans define it as excessively liberal and an overreach.
Looking back, I think Democrats should have focused entirely on the financial crisis, the economy and financial reform. And they could have also made small improvements on health reform.
Republicans though seem to similarly think that there is a huge mandate to reform government. They are talking about drastic cuts to current spending and major changes to entitlement programs and government regulation like EPA. John Boehner seems to be playing it smart and not overreaching on his election. He reached a decent compromise (one I am not happy about, but was good for him), instead of allowing for a government shut-down. There was a lot of talk about how Republicans would be blamed for a shut-down - talk I found nauseating, but probably true. I don't think the 2010 elections were a signal that the public wants serious cuts in programs.
That being said, we'll see if the Republicans can maintain discipline. There is a fight coming up around the debt ceiling, and there is a good chance they will overreach and draw a backlash. (There is also a good chance that the opposite happens; that they extract major concessions from the craven Democrats.)
My basic point is that rarely does public opinion change so much to warrant major policy changes. Those rare examples usually come from major upheavals like the Great Depression - and as bad as this financial crisis has been, it doesn't seem to be having the same widespread impact, thankfully. Politicians should instead realize that the public is often ready for incremental change. If you want to go bigger, you can, but be prepared for a backlash and hope that your changes withstand it.
Looking back, I think Democrats should have focused entirely on the financial crisis, the economy and financial reform. And they could have also made small improvements on health reform.
Republicans though seem to similarly think that there is a huge mandate to reform government. They are talking about drastic cuts to current spending and major changes to entitlement programs and government regulation like EPA. John Boehner seems to be playing it smart and not overreaching on his election. He reached a decent compromise (one I am not happy about, but was good for him), instead of allowing for a government shut-down. There was a lot of talk about how Republicans would be blamed for a shut-down - talk I found nauseating, but probably true. I don't think the 2010 elections were a signal that the public wants serious cuts in programs.
That being said, we'll see if the Republicans can maintain discipline. There is a fight coming up around the debt ceiling, and there is a good chance they will overreach and draw a backlash. (There is also a good chance that the opposite happens; that they extract major concessions from the craven Democrats.)
My basic point is that rarely does public opinion change so much to warrant major policy changes. Those rare examples usually come from major upheavals like the Great Depression - and as bad as this financial crisis has been, it doesn't seem to be having the same widespread impact, thankfully. Politicians should instead realize that the public is often ready for incremental change. If you want to go bigger, you can, but be prepared for a backlash and hope that your changes withstand it.
Budget Deal: When Bipartisanship Sucks
I like to think of myself as a moderate - or at least as a reasonable person supportive of compromise and happy when compromise happens. However, the recent budget deal does not make me happy - and for two reasons.
First, to the extent that we have a debt problem that needs to be addressed, it is a long term problem. Our current spending levels are unsustainable only in the long term considering the trends we see in our entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid. But there is no evidence of short term problems; bond markets are not signifying that they are worried about American debt.
And yet, if you listen to our dialogue, you would think the problems are short term and immediate. Republicans have done a great job at framing the issue about something that has to be addressed now.
Whether or not deficit spending is dangerous right now is especially important since we are in a recession where monetary policy is largely ineffective (as we are up against the zero bound). Since deficit spending is not a problem, the ideal policy, if we were actually smart and objective, would be to deficit spend (fiscal stimulus) right now to help get the economy going while addressing the long term problems.
We are of course doing the opposite. We are cutting spending now, when we need it most, and not addressing future issues at all. And Paul Ryan's plan, which pretends to be addressing those issues, cuts taxes as much as revenues, leaving us in the same place long term we are now (the plan also uses unbelievable forecasts about employment and discretionary spending).
The second reason this budget deal depresses me is that Democrats, especially the President, have not been standing up for Democratic causes and they have not been making the case I made above. Instead, they have ceded the issue, accepting that we need to make cuts. And Democrats have refused to point out that as Republicans talk about making sacrifices, they are really asking the poor and middle class to make sacrifices while pushing for the rich to get rewards.
I would feel much better about compromise if Democrats were at least defending their position before accepting a deal. There is a real argument for why cuts shouldn't happen now, and nobody in government is making them.
First, to the extent that we have a debt problem that needs to be addressed, it is a long term problem. Our current spending levels are unsustainable only in the long term considering the trends we see in our entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid. But there is no evidence of short term problems; bond markets are not signifying that they are worried about American debt.
And yet, if you listen to our dialogue, you would think the problems are short term and immediate. Republicans have done a great job at framing the issue about something that has to be addressed now.
Whether or not deficit spending is dangerous right now is especially important since we are in a recession where monetary policy is largely ineffective (as we are up against the zero bound). Since deficit spending is not a problem, the ideal policy, if we were actually smart and objective, would be to deficit spend (fiscal stimulus) right now to help get the economy going while addressing the long term problems.
We are of course doing the opposite. We are cutting spending now, when we need it most, and not addressing future issues at all. And Paul Ryan's plan, which pretends to be addressing those issues, cuts taxes as much as revenues, leaving us in the same place long term we are now (the plan also uses unbelievable forecasts about employment and discretionary spending).
The second reason this budget deal depresses me is that Democrats, especially the President, have not been standing up for Democratic causes and they have not been making the case I made above. Instead, they have ceded the issue, accepting that we need to make cuts. And Democrats have refused to point out that as Republicans talk about making sacrifices, they are really asking the poor and middle class to make sacrifices while pushing for the rich to get rewards.
I would feel much better about compromise if Democrats were at least defending their position before accepting a deal. There is a real argument for why cuts shouldn't happen now, and nobody in government is making them.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
At Least It Will Be Published
In the NY Times today, there is a sad story about an author that has passed away days before his book - his magnum opus they say - is to be published. It is sad because it is supposed to be the new definitive book on Malcom X and the author won't be able to see how it is received. He also was looking forward to promoting and defending his work.
If there is any consolation, it is that the book is finished and the world will be able to read it and learn from it - as I intend to do. The book is supposed to be thorough (using new sources including documents from the FBI), and more objective and accurate than Alex Haley's Autobiography of Malcom X. It is better for the world that Manning Marable completed his work, as it is expected to help the world to better understand a very controversial figure. I'll definitely be adding the book to my to-read list.
If there is any consolation, it is that the book is finished and the world will be able to read it and learn from it - as I intend to do. The book is supposed to be thorough (using new sources including documents from the FBI), and more objective and accurate than Alex Haley's Autobiography of Malcom X. It is better for the world that Manning Marable completed his work, as it is expected to help the world to better understand a very controversial figure. I'll definitely be adding the book to my to-read list.
Economy: Question for Business
Paul Krugman believes (and I am convinced) that the reason we are still in a recession is because of depressed demand. Consumers have stopped borrowing and slowed spending and so there is excess supply of consumer goods and excess business capacity. He therefore believes that we need expansionary policy. Monetary policy won't work because we are up against the zero bound on interest rates. So we need fiscal stimulus - which is hopeless since Democrats aren't even making that pitch.
As we see the from recent job numbers, small gains get a positive reaction. It frustrates me that we could do so much better if there was some urgency. Instead, getting below 8 percent unemployment by 2013 seems acceptable. Way too often government and the public accept suffering of segments of our society - more often less visible segments.
But my real question is this: if the problem facing businesses really is excess supply and unused capacity, why are businesses okay with Republican calls for austerity and budget cuts? Krugman believes that we need government to expand to make up for the cuts in consumer spending and to help consumers spend. Republicans are saying the real problem is taxes - or at least tax uncertainty.
On its face, the Republican point seems absurd. There is almost no talk of tax increases, so that can't be the reason businesses are not hiring.
But if Republicans are wrong and Krugman is right, why aren't businesses calling for fiscal expansion? Reports from the Chamber of Commerce say the biggest problem is excess supply. Are the businesses acting against their interest in support of ideology? Or is Krugman (and me) wrong? Or are businesses content with the meager growth if it means smaller government?
As we see the from recent job numbers, small gains get a positive reaction. It frustrates me that we could do so much better if there was some urgency. Instead, getting below 8 percent unemployment by 2013 seems acceptable. Way too often government and the public accept suffering of segments of our society - more often less visible segments.
But my real question is this: if the problem facing businesses really is excess supply and unused capacity, why are businesses okay with Republican calls for austerity and budget cuts? Krugman believes that we need government to expand to make up for the cuts in consumer spending and to help consumers spend. Republicans are saying the real problem is taxes - or at least tax uncertainty.
On its face, the Republican point seems absurd. There is almost no talk of tax increases, so that can't be the reason businesses are not hiring.
But if Republicans are wrong and Krugman is right, why aren't businesses calling for fiscal expansion? Reports from the Chamber of Commerce say the biggest problem is excess supply. Are the businesses acting against their interest in support of ideology? Or is Krugman (and me) wrong? Or are businesses content with the meager growth if it means smaller government?
Trump and Palin
I for one completely agree with Steve Kornacki at Salon: Donald Trump is not really running for president. It is all a publicity stunt - just as it has been in the past.
But I have to hand it to him, no one is better at manipulating the media for free publicity. Consider this, the man is only the 420 richest person in the world, and only number 27 in New York. Yet he is more well known than most people ahead of him. He is like the Anna Kournikova of rich people; he is more popular than he should be given his position in his industry. Although where Kournikova did it through her looks, Trump does it through media manipulation.
He fully embodies the maxim that there is no such thing as bad press, and it works for him. Developers pay him to put his name on their buildings; he didn't actually build many of the Trump buildings you see. He is shameless, but that is what keeps him in the spotlight. He is paid for his brand because of his ability to stay in the news - for things like supporting the birthers and being on bad reality shows - not in spite of it.
His strategy makes me feel dirty. But it is brilliant. If we had a media that covered the middle of the debate instead of the extremes, Trump would probably have to work a little harder for his publicity.
Another potential but unlikely Republican presidential candidate that gets out-sized media coverage is Sarah Palin. Sometimes I wonder why she gets so much coverage; the media seems to hand on her every word. Then I realize it's because the public eats up all the stories - myself included.
When I asked myself why I read all the stories, I realized it's because I keep thinking that this story, this comment, will finally be the one that shows the world that she is a complete moron. Saying she has a superficial understanding of the major issues is generous. And she has not demonstrated an interest in really understanding them.
While I keep thinking it will be one comment that will finally convince everyone, it seems instead that people are slowly getting it, even Republicans. She is good at avoiding major gaffes, but the sum of her statements is turning people off. They are seeing that she is self-involved and superficial.
At first, when she attacked the press, it came off like she was attacking a liberal media bias. But now it is clear to most people that she is attacking their coverage of her. And when she weighed in on the Gifford's shooting, she didn't defend conservatives or conservative issues, she defended herself. Her self-involvement and victimization are turning off her own base. If it takes constant media coverage to make that point, then so be it.
But I have to hand it to him, no one is better at manipulating the media for free publicity. Consider this, the man is only the 420 richest person in the world, and only number 27 in New York. Yet he is more well known than most people ahead of him. He is like the Anna Kournikova of rich people; he is more popular than he should be given his position in his industry. Although where Kournikova did it through her looks, Trump does it through media manipulation.
He fully embodies the maxim that there is no such thing as bad press, and it works for him. Developers pay him to put his name on their buildings; he didn't actually build many of the Trump buildings you see. He is shameless, but that is what keeps him in the spotlight. He is paid for his brand because of his ability to stay in the news - for things like supporting the birthers and being on bad reality shows - not in spite of it.
His strategy makes me feel dirty. But it is brilliant. If we had a media that covered the middle of the debate instead of the extremes, Trump would probably have to work a little harder for his publicity.
Another potential but unlikely Republican presidential candidate that gets out-sized media coverage is Sarah Palin. Sometimes I wonder why she gets so much coverage; the media seems to hand on her every word. Then I realize it's because the public eats up all the stories - myself included.
When I asked myself why I read all the stories, I realized it's because I keep thinking that this story, this comment, will finally be the one that shows the world that she is a complete moron. Saying she has a superficial understanding of the major issues is generous. And she has not demonstrated an interest in really understanding them.
While I keep thinking it will be one comment that will finally convince everyone, it seems instead that people are slowly getting it, even Republicans. She is good at avoiding major gaffes, but the sum of her statements is turning people off. They are seeing that she is self-involved and superficial.
At first, when she attacked the press, it came off like she was attacking a liberal media bias. But now it is clear to most people that she is attacking their coverage of her. And when she weighed in on the Gifford's shooting, she didn't defend conservatives or conservative issues, she defended herself. Her self-involvement and victimization are turning off her own base. If it takes constant media coverage to make that point, then so be it.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Economy: Invisible Unemployed
Right now the unemployed are just a number - not a vocal group of affected people. In effect, it is the worst of both worlds. Conditions are bad and will hurt Obama in 2012, but not bad enough to cause urgency of action and therefore give him room to do what really needs to be done (fiscal stimulus since monetary policy has been ineffective).
The best we can hope for is that the lack of urgency means Obama won’t be punished that much. But it means our economy doesn't improve. The picture seems bleak to say the least.
The best we can hope for is that the lack of urgency means Obama won’t be punished that much. But it means our economy doesn't improve. The picture seems bleak to say the least.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Five Retirement Myths from the WSJ
I just thought this was a helpful article from the Journal. Note: all of these are untrue.
Retirement Myths
1. $1 Million Will Be Enough
2. You'll Spend Less When You're Older (some expenses go down, others go up)
3. Older People Need More Bonds
4. Your Money Lasts Longer if You Move (states with no income tax make up for it with sales taxes)
5. Uncle Sam Has Got Your Back (retirees often need to supplement Medicare)
Retirement Myths
1. $1 Million Will Be Enough
2. You'll Spend Less When You're Older (some expenses go down, others go up)
3. Older People Need More Bonds
4. Your Money Lasts Longer if You Move (states with no income tax make up for it with sales taxes)
5. Uncle Sam Has Got Your Back (retirees often need to supplement Medicare)
Book Report: 1984
I read 1984 a few years ago, but a friend was shocked to learn that I didn't like it. So here is my review.
Let me start by saying that my review, coming so many years after the book was written, should be taken with a grain of salt. I can't speak to its originality, since I have experienced all that has come since. I can believe that it was original and ground-breaking, but I can't experience that.
So while I can't say first-hand what impact the book had, I can speak to is whether the book still holds up. And it doesn't. It's ideas might stay with us - like thought crime, newspeak, etc. While those concepts can still teach us, the story does not. And therefore the book no longer needs to be read.
The biggest problem is that as a dystopian novel, it doesn't show us anything particularly new or extra scary, nor does it enlighten us in any way. The only thing 1984 teaches us is how bad dictatorships are, which we know just by reading the news. To the extent that it tries to show us how much worse dictatorships can be with new technologies, it fails.
One of the ideas that Orwell seems most proud of is Newspeak, which is just a form of propaganda. But that doesn't seem any different than propaganda one would find in North Korea or Iran.
Thought crime and actually the level of control of the government is more total than you would find in modern dictatorships, but I would say only marginally so. Maybe the technology prevents you from even writing in a journal, but how much worse is that than other dictatorships which don't allow you to say what you think. Not being allowed to express yourself publicly is horrible; not being able to express yourself privately seems only marginally worse.
My point is that I never got the sense from the book that the author is presenting something significantly more horrible or unique than we see in our world. The world of 1984 isn't much scarier than what we see in North Korea, China, or Iran.
A dystopia is supposed to show a horrible and scary world - something unrecognizable from our own. But 1984 doesn't do that. It shows us a more futuristic version, marginally worse, of a dictatorship. If it isn't much worse than what we know exists, than what is Orwell's book teaching us? I would say not very much.
Let me start by saying that my review, coming so many years after the book was written, should be taken with a grain of salt. I can't speak to its originality, since I have experienced all that has come since. I can believe that it was original and ground-breaking, but I can't experience that.
So while I can't say first-hand what impact the book had, I can speak to is whether the book still holds up. And it doesn't. It's ideas might stay with us - like thought crime, newspeak, etc. While those concepts can still teach us, the story does not. And therefore the book no longer needs to be read.
The biggest problem is that as a dystopian novel, it doesn't show us anything particularly new or extra scary, nor does it enlighten us in any way. The only thing 1984 teaches us is how bad dictatorships are, which we know just by reading the news. To the extent that it tries to show us how much worse dictatorships can be with new technologies, it fails.
One of the ideas that Orwell seems most proud of is Newspeak, which is just a form of propaganda. But that doesn't seem any different than propaganda one would find in North Korea or Iran.
Thought crime and actually the level of control of the government is more total than you would find in modern dictatorships, but I would say only marginally so. Maybe the technology prevents you from even writing in a journal, but how much worse is that than other dictatorships which don't allow you to say what you think. Not being allowed to express yourself publicly is horrible; not being able to express yourself privately seems only marginally worse.
My point is that I never got the sense from the book that the author is presenting something significantly more horrible or unique than we see in our world. The world of 1984 isn't much scarier than what we see in North Korea, China, or Iran.
A dystopia is supposed to show a horrible and scary world - something unrecognizable from our own. But 1984 doesn't do that. It shows us a more futuristic version, marginally worse, of a dictatorship. If it isn't much worse than what we know exists, than what is Orwell's book teaching us? I would say not very much.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Obama on Gun Control
President Obama finally weighed in on gun control. He didn't talk about assault rifles or the large magazines, and that is a shame. But what he does talk about is important - namely improved and consistent background checks. And he tries to make it clear that we can have some gun control without people being afraid we are taking away the second amendment. In other words he is advocating for a common sense solution.
Unfortunately, I am afraid he might have lost the moment. Will there be any momentum behind this - either natural or created by the administration? I'm not optimistic.
Unfortunately, I am afraid he might have lost the moment. Will there be any momentum behind this - either natural or created by the administration? I'm not optimistic.
Nuclear Japan
I must admit that I have been paying more attention to the drama around Japan's nuclear reactors than to the number of deaths from the earthquake and tsunami (1,800 last count). I have learned a lot about nuclear reactors during all of this - relying on Physics for Future Presidents (by Richard Muller), the New York Times, and especially the Wall Street Journal.
Throughout all of this, I still think nuclear power can be a very useful energy source. And I think the danger is overrated (while the negative aspects of other fuel sources underrated). In Muller's book, he says that the number of excess cancer deaths* from cancer at Chernobyl is 4,000. Note that Chernobyl is the only full nuclear meltdown. The number of excess cancer deaths from Three Mile Island is 1. Compare that to Bhopal's chemical plant leak which killed 5,000 people instantly and may total 20,000 deaths.
I could be wrong, but from reading the news accounts, it doesn't seem like anyone will die immediately - either from explosions or radiation poisoning. And since a full meltdown (ie nuclear fuel melting through the containment structures) still seems unlikely, I think estimated deaths from cancer due to exposure will also be very low.
The bottom line to me is that we can make these technologies safer - and I think that will be the ultimate change that happens as a result of these partial meltdowns. I think we'll systems with much better back-ups, like longer battery power in the case that diesel generators fail and cannot be brought back online.
* Muller used the linear hypothesis when estimating excess cancer deaths.
Throughout all of this, I still think nuclear power can be a very useful energy source. And I think the danger is overrated (while the negative aspects of other fuel sources underrated). In Muller's book, he says that the number of excess cancer deaths* from cancer at Chernobyl is 4,000. Note that Chernobyl is the only full nuclear meltdown. The number of excess cancer deaths from Three Mile Island is 1. Compare that to Bhopal's chemical plant leak which killed 5,000 people instantly and may total 20,000 deaths.
I could be wrong, but from reading the news accounts, it doesn't seem like anyone will die immediately - either from explosions or radiation poisoning. And since a full meltdown (ie nuclear fuel melting through the containment structures) still seems unlikely, I think estimated deaths from cancer due to exposure will also be very low.
The bottom line to me is that we can make these technologies safer - and I think that will be the ultimate change that happens as a result of these partial meltdowns. I think we'll systems with much better back-ups, like longer battery power in the case that diesel generators fail and cannot be brought back online.
* Muller used the linear hypothesis when estimating excess cancer deaths.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Charlie Sheen / The Disposable Woman
This column in the NY Times is pretty powerful. It points out the difference between how Chris Brown was treated when he assaulted Rhianna (his girlfriend at the time) and how Charlie Sheen has been treated after assaulting his various wives and girlfriends.
The author suggests that the difference is in how society sees the women. Rhianna of course is a talented musician. In Sheen's case, his women are less sympathetic and therefore almost deserving of the abuse.
Either way, we should be focusing much more on his behavior towards women - as we should have all along - and less on his absurd rants and drinks of tiger juice.
The author suggests that the difference is in how society sees the women. Rhianna of course is a talented musician. In Sheen's case, his women are less sympathetic and therefore almost deserving of the abuse.
But there’s something else at work here: the seeming imperfection of Mr. Sheen’s numerous accusers. The women are of a type, which is to say, highly unsympathetic. Some are sex workers — pornographic film stars and escorts — whose compliance with churlish conduct is assumed to be part of the deal. (For the record: It is not.)The only other reason for the difference in treatment is just as appalling: the difference in race between him and Chris Brown.
Others, namely Ms. Richards and Ms. Mueller, are less-famous starlets or former “nobodies” whose relationships with Mr. Sheen have been disparaged as purely sexual and transactional. The women reside on a continuum in which injuries are assumed and insults are expected.
[Edit]
It’s these sorts of explicit and implicit value judgments that underscore our contempt for women who are assumed to be trading on their sexuality. A woman’s active embrace of the fame monster or participation in the sex industry, we seem to say, means that she compromises her right not to be assaulted, let alone humiliated, insulted or degraded; it’s part of the deal. The promise of a modern Cinderella ending — attention, fame, the love and savings account of a rich man — is always the assumed goal.
Either way, we should be focusing much more on his behavior towards women - as we should have all along - and less on his absurd rants and drinks of tiger juice.
McCain's Grudges
I have no idea if this is true - that McCain's politics can be explained by his grudges. True, he did move to the center after losing the primary to Bush II in 2000. And now he has moved far to the right after losing to Obama in 2008 (granted he started that move during the election).
So it seems perfectly plausible. But then again, we should remind ourselves that correlation does not imply causation. Either way, it is interesting to think about.
So it seems perfectly plausible. But then again, we should remind ourselves that correlation does not imply causation. Either way, it is interesting to think about.
Huckabee on Single Moms
Huckabee has had some bad press lately - after having some good press. I don't feel the need to talk about his Kenya comments - they are ridiculous and speak for themselves. But I do want to talk about his comments about single moms.
Actually, first, let me say I don't care that much about his insult (whether it was or not) of Natalie Portman. I think she is a great actress and seems to be a decent person. But if she was offended, she can take care of herself.
What concerns me more is what his comments about single moms say about the policies he supports. He recognizes that single mothers receive, and he says rightly so, government subsidy because without it they might not be able to feed themselves and their kids. But his solution to this dependency is judgment and a strong wish for them not to have babies.
Let's be clear, there are many reasons why women are having babies before or without getting married, but I can bet it isn't because they think they are, or want to be like, Natalie Portman. In fact, I would say that the reason many women are not married has to do with social conditions facing the men in their world like lack of jobs and over-incarceration for minor drug offenses.
Huckabee would rather these women not have kids. I would rather there were jobs for everyone in their community; I would rather there were better education services; I would rather we didn't penalize people of color for dealing drugs to rich people and addicts. I would rather they lived in a world where they could have kids and raise them in a happy and healthy environment.
Having said that, I do recognize that there are people that have kids that clearly cannot care for them. The city has a whole (very expensive but still underfunded) agency to deal with that - the Administration for Children's Services. But that isn't what Huckabee is talking about. He is referring to parents receiving public assistance. I would rather that the parents that abuse or neglect their kids would not have kids. But I don't know how to stop that.
The bottom line is that I don't think poor people should have to forgo the beauty and joy of having kids just because we are failing to serve them. Huckabee seems to think differently.
Actually, first, let me say I don't care that much about his insult (whether it was or not) of Natalie Portman. I think she is a great actress and seems to be a decent person. But if she was offended, she can take care of herself.
What concerns me more is what his comments about single moms say about the policies he supports. He recognizes that single mothers receive, and he says rightly so, government subsidy because without it they might not be able to feed themselves and their kids. But his solution to this dependency is judgment and a strong wish for them not to have babies.
Let's be clear, there are many reasons why women are having babies before or without getting married, but I can bet it isn't because they think they are, or want to be like, Natalie Portman. In fact, I would say that the reason many women are not married has to do with social conditions facing the men in their world like lack of jobs and over-incarceration for minor drug offenses.
Huckabee would rather these women not have kids. I would rather there were jobs for everyone in their community; I would rather there were better education services; I would rather we didn't penalize people of color for dealing drugs to rich people and addicts. I would rather they lived in a world where they could have kids and raise them in a happy and healthy environment.
Having said that, I do recognize that there are people that have kids that clearly cannot care for them. The city has a whole (very expensive but still underfunded) agency to deal with that - the Administration for Children's Services. But that isn't what Huckabee is talking about. He is referring to parents receiving public assistance. I would rather that the parents that abuse or neglect their kids would not have kids. But I don't know how to stop that.
The bottom line is that I don't think poor people should have to forgo the beauty and joy of having kids just because we are failing to serve them. Huckabee seems to think differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)