Something occurs to me when I consider the continuing stream of objections and proclamations of doom from the Republicans. The basic argument seems to be that a national health care system would bankrupt the nation and destroy the competition that drives much of medical innovation. To this moment I've been guilty of the same fault I tend to accuse other people of; I've assumed that the logic ad validity of my view has been absolutely, unavoidably, unmistakably obvious. Well in figuring the opposition for asses, I've doubtlessly made one of myself. On that basis, let me lay out the argument.
An Ounce of Prevention is Worth A Pound of Cure
I would assume that when discussing health care, the above needs no explanation but such an assumption may be my basic problem. When we say this, what we mean is that it is often less costly in terms of both expense and effort, as well as time, to prevent or curtail some malady, trouble, complication or other upset before it becomes greatly injurious, compromising or debilitating. Why does this matter? Because very often the cost of correcting the problem after it reaches a critical stage is far greater, even to the point of being itself debilitating.
Case in point: Because Justice Ginsburg's tumors were found and treated early, her prognosis is excellent and she was able to resume her life and her post. Had this been allowed to fester, she would likely have wound up hospitalized and consuming the resources of the hospital in what would very likely have been a terminal care situation.
So how does this translate into national health care? Short version: Lots of people are not getting the kind of health care that would keep them from becoming ill in the first place, thereby adding further burden to the over-all system when they do finally succumb. Furthermore, a great many uninsured people are being treated in emergency rooms around the country and tax payers wind up footing the bill. Now since these people are already costing the public, the most basic argument runs, we ought to try and reduce that cost. The two best immediate actions to do this are A: keep them from misusing the ER to get care without producing payments up-front and B: get them into a good health care program that will prevent them from reaching a critical care status to begin with.
Will this still wind up costing tax payer dollars? Yes. Will it reduce the amount? Also yes.
The net result? A reduction in the amount of wasted public funds and health care resources. This is by no means a perfect solution. Until we can somehow legislate perfect health, anyway. So, what about innovation, competition and advancement of medicine...or, profit margins. Whatever.
As always, the people being financed by the health care industry are prepared to tell you exactly why introducing a new competitor into the competition for health care dollars will destroy innovative competition. They will then ask you for money. Again.
This is something that I simply can't wrap my head around. How does introducing another, cheaper, non-mandated health insurance provider hurt the industry? Seriously, it sounds very much like the current batch of insurers simply don't like the idea of someone coming in and offering the exact same product at a substantially lower rate. Why could this be? Perhaps because they simply don't want to lower their rates and cut into their profit margins. I can sympathize, but that doesn't change the hypocrisy of free market proponents arguing against competition.
Also, exactly how does the issue of where the money to cover care comes from intersect with the issue of medical research? The last time I checked, medical science development didn't occur in the clinic, it happened in the laboratory, the overwhelming majority of which aren't involved in patient treatment. Clinical trials don't start until well after the patents are in process. The drug and bio-tech companies aren't affected at all if the hospitals contracting their products are paid by X or Y. So how does national health care cause the cure for cancer to spontaneously move to China?
Short answer? It doesn't. So the whole faux patriotism angle is basically as reliable as the typical Mexican T-bill. Speaking of which, I wonder why the US drug companies aren't looking south for new research talent...
In any case, with a modicum of luck, this post might just spare us a few more arguments. Pass it on people.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
War of Attrition
That is what we're facing in Washington at the moment. Democrats hold the fort and are damned and determined to keep the Republicans on the out, while Republicans have apparently circled the wagons and launched a siege/guerrilla campaign. While I don't completely endorse what the leading Democrats seem to be doing politically, the fact is that the Republicans aren't doing anything to endear themselves to anyone except their own core. Short version? Republican have adopted a strategy of obstructing, filibustering and fighting tooth and claw everything the Democrats are putting out. They reason that, A: they are scoring points as responsible objectors and B: that eventually the political momentum of the left will be spent and then they can work on rebuilding their own majorities again. Delay, distract and derail are the watchwords of the right in Washington today.
Unfortunately for them, this sort of thing requires time and worsening conditions. Neither of which seem to be in their favor; the recession is expected, by even the most pessimistic economists, to start turning around no later than the 4th quarter this year and the administration is running on all six cylinders in getting the stimulus money out the door and into the economy. Topping it all off, the American people seem to be demonstrating remarkable patience.
The other major problem that the Republican have is the rapidly proliferating consensus regarding their attitude and actions. "The Audacity of Nope" is the new tag line, drawing a lovely contrast with the positive message of the Obama campaign. Its a good hook, its stuck and it just seems to be a better fit every time the Republican leadership opens it's mouth. As an example, the general consensus in the country now favors the so-called "Green Revolution", yet Republican leaders like Boehner are doing their level best to demonize appropriate policies;
“‘Cap-and-trade’ is code for increasing taxes, killing American jobs, and raising energy costs for consumers. Middle-class families are struggling during this recession, and the last thing they need is even higher costs of living and weaker job security, which is exactly what ‘cap-and-trade’ would deliver.”
Now first of all, look at the language of this statement. Its both a prophesy of doom and an accusation of secret malevolence; as if there was a conspiracy among Democrats to wreak hardship on their own constituents, complete with secret codes and hidden agendas. Come on, are you really that paranoid? Or is it simply that your campaign donors don't want to increase the cost of their business? If so, then just say so; trust me when I say that people will give you a great deal more respect for raising and negotiating over legitimate business concerns than for trying to invent conspiracies where there aren't any.
Secondly, if we look at the statement itself we note it makes an assertion about the terrible effects of 'cap & trade' on voters, specifically identified as "Middle-class families" but no effort is made to explain exactly how this will occur. Now I see two possibilities for this omission, either the Congressman can't demonstrate something that won't happen or else he recognizes that by identifying the method he would facilitate its remedy. Neither of these helps him in trying to agitate the emotions of the voting public though, so they are summarily ignored.
Realizing that legitimate argument isn't going to serve them in a majority of discussions, the Republicans feel compelled to resort to procedural wrangling instead of trying to meet Democrats in the middle; admittedly further left than they might like to go, but still further right than they'll get if the Democrats just have to keep ramming legislation through. Why? In brief: pure pig-headedness. The fact is many Republicans are staunch conservatives, they consider it a "Matter of Principle" to oppose government spending or involvement in any aspect of public life beyond the military. While most of us can admire someone for standing up for their principles, you cannot run a government without a degree of compromise.
For the time being the right seems to be intent of trying to insulate itself against the rest of the country and the 21st century. Everywhere you turn they're once again exulting the altar of Reagan and using the language and tactics of the 80's. It seems doomed...but maybe one of them has invented time travel.
Meet Joe Crack
OK, first of all we all know by now his name isn't Joe and that he isn't actually a plumber. Why isn't he a plumber? Because he didn't pay his taxes and as a result, doesn't have the appropriate contracting licence. Curiously enough, Bunky seems to spending a fair amount of time these days blasting certain Democrats for (say it with me now) not paying their taxes. Feel free to insert relevant commentary about pots and kettles.
On the plus side, his completely artless excuses for why his case is different from that of the people he currently feels himself fit to criticize serve to illustrate, beautifully, the fact the current batch of so-called conservatives are as hypocritical as they are predictable. 'Tis far more difficult to be seduced by a snake-charmer when he has such prominent warts.
Interestingly, the man seems to be dispelling rumors that he was planning a run for the House. I'll refrain from speculating why (actually, I'll only refrain from posting my speculation) and instead point out some of the language that came up in when he was briefly interviewed by Tim Farley on POTUS. Let's start with his claims of feeling as though his current status as a cult celebrity is an onerous task he fulfills out of a sense of duty. If Bunky actually didn't want to be a mascot for his particular batch of fanboys then he'd quietly slip off the radar and head back to Ohio. Presently he's working for PJTV and I get the idea he isn't averse to the occasional book signing, since he's got one of those out too.
On the note of his rumored run for public office, he stated that he wasn't interested in doing so now, instead wanting to focus of raising his son to be a good, Christian man...because we need more of those. His words, not mine. I'll bite my tongue here and settle for reminding the man that not paying his taxes might qualify as setting a poor example for that son of his. Unsurprisingly he also said that after his son is raised and off to college that he'd consider a run, because we need honest people interested in the public good rather than their own aggrandizement. He lumps all the politicians from both wings together here, basically setting himself up as their superior. I can practically hear the first strains of "Fanfare for The Common Man" as he tries to sell this sort of "average guy ascendant" rhetoric.
If you need surgery done, do you want a surgeon, or one of your drinking buddies? If you need representation in court, do you look for a lawyer or just ask for a volunteer from the bowling alley? Do you want your house built by an engineer? Do you want your wars fought by professional soldiers?
Why on earth would you even suggest that any random, "normal" citizen is better qualified to run the nation's affairs than, say, a specialist in constitutional law?
I don't doubt that everyone enjoys playing "if I was in charge." The fact is though that the vast majority of citizens aren't qualified to lead a sewing circle, let alone the nation. Brother Sam would be better advised to pay up is taxes, get licence and get some professional credibility in his own trade before trying to teach others theirs.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Food for Thought
Is there any other single more important investment that a people can make in their own future than the education of their children? I rather doubt it and so, it seems, does President Obama.
More than anything else in his joint session speech, it was his remarks regarding the singular importance of education as not only a duty to ourselves as individuals but as a duty owed to the nation, which captured my attention and ignited my enthusiasm. I cannot help but feel that here, here is a leader who truly grasps the interconnectivity of our society; the vital importance of continuing to advance our understanding of our world. So much of our nation’s achievement in the previous century has come about as a direct result of the development, perfection and deployment of new technologies and sciences that I frankly shudder to think of the loss incurred by the neglect of the last several years.
Our Fearless Leader (in case anyone was thinking I’d drunk the Kool-Aid) has transformed a previously minor, politically disposable issue into a matter of national security, economic necessity and national pride. I applaud this move and hope very much to see it taken up by the public in the spirit it was delivered. As a product of the public educational system in the late 80’s through the mid 90’s, I can certainly vouch for the desperate need for reform in the system…and I’m not above laying out a few ideas here.
The first and most important thing we have to get our heads around is this simple, painful fact: the American liberal education doesn’t work anymore. It is no longer possible for us to continue trying to make every 18-year-old a jack of all trades and expect them to be competitive in the global marketplace. There is just entire too much information, too many specialist skills required in the modern professional world for our traditional scattershot approach to be practical anymore. The age of the generalist is over and we need a new model.
With that concept firmly in place, I suggest a new approach I choose to call “mixed education.” This method is characterized by starting children in a general education curriculum geared not towards general mastery but rather skills mastery. Basic concepts of mathematics and literacy, with an introduction to languages. By spending the first year or two teaching these kids firstly that they can learn, and how to do so, we prepare the way for further instruction in a manner that makes the children the engine of their own education. From here we can spend two to three years building a basic repertoire of universally necessary knowledge and skills. The basics of American history, the mechanics of the English language, mathematical skills and the basis of the scientific method.
At this stage, we start looking at an individual student’s aptitudes and interests. From this point forward, education really needs to have an element of personal pursuit. Just as we build towards a goal in our colleges, kids in their 4th and 5th year of public school need to have a goal for their studies. Too many children fall behind or give up altogether simply because they can’t see a purpose to all the information being thrown at them. How many teachers or parents lose a child simply because they can’t give a satisfactory, motivating answer to the question, “Why do I need to know this?” If the kid wants to be a doctor, or has a talent for languages then they need to be moved in those directions, not forced into uniform patterns of development for the sake of appeasing some bizarre notion of competitive conformity. Additionally, gradually focused education will better prepare young persons for entrance into higher education. Under the current system, an ever growing portion of new college freshmen are having to enroll in remedial classes before being able to begin the coursework required for their actual degree programs.
Another vital point that needs reforming is our love affair with the current schedule of the school year. This is no longer an agrarian society and children are not necessary sources of farm labor. Aside from being a grossly inefficient use of available time, the traditional school year encourage a “data dump” mind set. Each new school year, the first words most kids here from a teacher are, “I know we covered this last year, but…” Why does this happen? Why are we constantly reinventing the wheel in our classrooms instead of building upon a constant, steady progression of skills and knowledge building?
Our kids need a year-round schedule of classes. It is absolutely true that down time is needed; every mind needs a break. A three month hiatus doesn’t help these kids however, as with most personal accomplishments, knowledge is a “use it or lose it” trait and protracted summer breaks allow vital information to be lost, forcing a great deal of retraining and wasting years of productive class time. A more productive model would be to have the kids in session for a period of seven weeks at a time, with a one week vacation in between. This will allow our teachers and students to build upon and reinforce knowledge and skills.
As a long term goal, that is something that will stretch over the course of a young person’s entire educational career, we need to start including a standard of multilingual achievement. English is presently the dominant language of trade and commerce but this may not always be the case; furthermore, strong command of foreign languages will make our children more capable of competing in the global economy, allowing them a greater degree of mobility as well as providing insight into other cultures.
Another key change needed by our system is doing away with the idea of keeping students bundled together as age groups or class years. People, young and old, learn at different rates and often in different areas. A good student of language might be poor in mathematics or history; we have got to let our children excel where they excel. Confining them according to age or date of enrollment only creates an artificial median of performance that satisfies no need and demoralizes everyone. Once the children move beyond the basic skills of learning, we need to let them advance as fast as they are able in whatever areas they are able. Also, specialist instructors in a given field are going to be able to provide more and better instruction to the students in their respective classes.
A key part of any process, particularly a skills or knowledge building process, is regular, productive assessment of the student. We have standardized testing already and it has proven to be largely unhelpful for a number of reasons. Perhaps the worst fault in the system is the temptation of schools to simply “teach the test” in order to show high marks and receive greater status and rewards from the government. That said however, testing is vital to tracking performance and we need to re-examine and adjust the model used.
My suggestion to get away from the idea of annual or even quarterly requirements for standardized tests. Instead I propose testing students every 3rd and 7th week, both to determine performance and as a requirement for advancement into the next section of a giving subject of study, be it a class in general mathematics, the specifics of human anatomy or English Literature. Students who are motivated to move forward in their education will strive harder and more diligently to achieve a new level of understanding and mastery.
These are only a few of the reforms I believe are desperately needed by our national educational system. They are also the most important an child-centric policies. I put these forward first because of the importance of beginning with our focus where it belongs in this discussion: on our children, the students, who are going to build our future one way or another, whether we prepare them for success or failure.
More than anything else in his joint session speech, it was his remarks regarding the singular importance of education as not only a duty to ourselves as individuals but as a duty owed to the nation, which captured my attention and ignited my enthusiasm. I cannot help but feel that here, here is a leader who truly grasps the interconnectivity of our society; the vital importance of continuing to advance our understanding of our world. So much of our nation’s achievement in the previous century has come about as a direct result of the development, perfection and deployment of new technologies and sciences that I frankly shudder to think of the loss incurred by the neglect of the last several years.
Our Fearless Leader (in case anyone was thinking I’d drunk the Kool-Aid) has transformed a previously minor, politically disposable issue into a matter of national security, economic necessity and national pride. I applaud this move and hope very much to see it taken up by the public in the spirit it was delivered. As a product of the public educational system in the late 80’s through the mid 90’s, I can certainly vouch for the desperate need for reform in the system…and I’m not above laying out a few ideas here.
The first and most important thing we have to get our heads around is this simple, painful fact: the American liberal education doesn’t work anymore. It is no longer possible for us to continue trying to make every 18-year-old a jack of all trades and expect them to be competitive in the global marketplace. There is just entire too much information, too many specialist skills required in the modern professional world for our traditional scattershot approach to be practical anymore. The age of the generalist is over and we need a new model.
With that concept firmly in place, I suggest a new approach I choose to call “mixed education.” This method is characterized by starting children in a general education curriculum geared not towards general mastery but rather skills mastery. Basic concepts of mathematics and literacy, with an introduction to languages. By spending the first year or two teaching these kids firstly that they can learn, and how to do so, we prepare the way for further instruction in a manner that makes the children the engine of their own education. From here we can spend two to three years building a basic repertoire of universally necessary knowledge and skills. The basics of American history, the mechanics of the English language, mathematical skills and the basis of the scientific method.
At this stage, we start looking at an individual student’s aptitudes and interests. From this point forward, education really needs to have an element of personal pursuit. Just as we build towards a goal in our colleges, kids in their 4th and 5th year of public school need to have a goal for their studies. Too many children fall behind or give up altogether simply because they can’t see a purpose to all the information being thrown at them. How many teachers or parents lose a child simply because they can’t give a satisfactory, motivating answer to the question, “Why do I need to know this?” If the kid wants to be a doctor, or has a talent for languages then they need to be moved in those directions, not forced into uniform patterns of development for the sake of appeasing some bizarre notion of competitive conformity. Additionally, gradually focused education will better prepare young persons for entrance into higher education. Under the current system, an ever growing portion of new college freshmen are having to enroll in remedial classes before being able to begin the coursework required for their actual degree programs.
Another vital point that needs reforming is our love affair with the current schedule of the school year. This is no longer an agrarian society and children are not necessary sources of farm labor. Aside from being a grossly inefficient use of available time, the traditional school year encourage a “data dump” mind set. Each new school year, the first words most kids here from a teacher are, “I know we covered this last year, but…” Why does this happen? Why are we constantly reinventing the wheel in our classrooms instead of building upon a constant, steady progression of skills and knowledge building?
Our kids need a year-round schedule of classes. It is absolutely true that down time is needed; every mind needs a break. A three month hiatus doesn’t help these kids however, as with most personal accomplishments, knowledge is a “use it or lose it” trait and protracted summer breaks allow vital information to be lost, forcing a great deal of retraining and wasting years of productive class time. A more productive model would be to have the kids in session for a period of seven weeks at a time, with a one week vacation in between. This will allow our teachers and students to build upon and reinforce knowledge and skills.
As a long term goal, that is something that will stretch over the course of a young person’s entire educational career, we need to start including a standard of multilingual achievement. English is presently the dominant language of trade and commerce but this may not always be the case; furthermore, strong command of foreign languages will make our children more capable of competing in the global economy, allowing them a greater degree of mobility as well as providing insight into other cultures.
Another key change needed by our system is doing away with the idea of keeping students bundled together as age groups or class years. People, young and old, learn at different rates and often in different areas. A good student of language might be poor in mathematics or history; we have got to let our children excel where they excel. Confining them according to age or date of enrollment only creates an artificial median of performance that satisfies no need and demoralizes everyone. Once the children move beyond the basic skills of learning, we need to let them advance as fast as they are able in whatever areas they are able. Also, specialist instructors in a given field are going to be able to provide more and better instruction to the students in their respective classes.
A key part of any process, particularly a skills or knowledge building process, is regular, productive assessment of the student. We have standardized testing already and it has proven to be largely unhelpful for a number of reasons. Perhaps the worst fault in the system is the temptation of schools to simply “teach the test” in order to show high marks and receive greater status and rewards from the government. That said however, testing is vital to tracking performance and we need to re-examine and adjust the model used.
My suggestion to get away from the idea of annual or even quarterly requirements for standardized tests. Instead I propose testing students every 3rd and 7th week, both to determine performance and as a requirement for advancement into the next section of a giving subject of study, be it a class in general mathematics, the specifics of human anatomy or English Literature. Students who are motivated to move forward in their education will strive harder and more diligently to achieve a new level of understanding and mastery.
These are only a few of the reforms I believe are desperately needed by our national educational system. They are also the most important an child-centric policies. I put these forward first because of the importance of beginning with our focus where it belongs in this discussion: on our children, the students, who are going to build our future one way or another, whether we prepare them for success or failure.
Exclusion 2.0
Scanning the extraterrestrial transmissions for the last couple of days (as well as partaking in a slice of dead-tree format journalism and a little judicious dropping of eaves in a couple of truck stops) I can’t help but note that the national consensus seems to be the Republicans need to figure out exactly what it is they’re about. I’ve mentioned this before but its always gratifying to see other people coming around to a point of view that I expressed weeks ago. Is that arrogance? Certainly it is, but not wholly unjustified.
What is bothersome is the slowly aggregating clique within the RNC that seems to be circling the wagons are the banner of “conservatism”. I keep hearing this phrase out of CPAC this year, “Conservatism 2.0”. This phrase bothers me for a number of reasons, chiefly because of the reasoning I hear behind its usage.
The reason for this new catchphrase seems to be derived from the success of the Obama ’08 presidential campaign. The campaign succeeded beyond all expectations in mobilizing the youth and utilizing the Internet; what many in “the Biz” call “new media”, presumably because they still don’t quite understand what it is. They completely missed the point, making the assumption that what enabled Obama to win was A: young people and B: “new media”. Somehow they’ve made the classic mistake of the 80’s, assuming that the medium is the message. There is an enormous amount of buzz being generated from within the hive over putting “the conservative message” on the web and the number of young people attending CPAC this year, including a 13-year-old who has proclaimed himself a conservative and even had a book on the subject published. A 13-year-old? Really?
And let's don't ignore the sideshow.
What these wing-nuts seem to be missing is that it really doesn't matter if you publish on broadband or bear skins, if your message doesn't sell.
Frankly, these people should be spending more time on figuring out exactly how they’re going to convince the rest of the country to embrace them when they’re whole message has been boiled down to, “NO!” They like to talk about being committed to principles and uncompromising integrity, et al., ad nauseum. The fact of the matter though, is that politics about compromise. When you declaim at the outset that you won’t give anything, you cannot, rationally, expect to be given anything either. I doubt very strongly that there is a majority of people (specifically, people who call themselves progressives) that have a problem with fiscal conservatism; in point of fact, I’ll go as far as to wager that most could easily see a way to reconcile fiscal conservatism with “pay as you go” spending policies. Unfortunately, the more moderate types on the right are hamstrung by the wing-nuts refusing to compromise on social issues like marriage-rights or birth control.
So what will the future face of the “conservative movement” be? My crystal ball’s in the shop, but I’ll hazard a guess.
Firstly, we have to understand that this all hinges on the ARARA. If it fails to produce measurable results within the next 12 months, you can expect a mass-shift back to the right in the House. Conservatives and their mouth pieces (Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, etc.) will be crowing from the rooftops about the practical failure of the “leftist agenda” and proclaim themselves the champions of American freedoms in the face of a Socialist or Communist conspiracy. You’ll largely be able to write off any kind of social progressivism in favor of reactionary social policies brought in on the heels of free market economic policies. Conversely, if the current stimulus and reform plans succeed in producing something appreciable, the conservatives will be divided against themselves along lines of age, wealth and evangelism. Young people will gravitate towards the glamour of success, the old bible-thumpers will dig deeper into their bunker mentality and the Wall Street crowd will quietly follow the money. Net result: fracture and effective dissolution.
Oh, and Limbaugh will probably retire. Or have a stroke. Or both.
What we have to ask ourselves next is, given the latter (probable, IMO), is the end of the bipartisan system, replaced by a probable one-party state, a “good thing?”
Doubtful. History has shown us that whenever any one group winds up with all the bananas, they tend to become oppressive (or at least neglectful) of the people. Without any significant, organized opposition to challenge the entrenched power structure there is no motivation for rulers to restrain their own agendas and in fairly short order policies are set according to ideological dogma or person benefit. At this point the truly noble thing to do would be to enact legislation barring the formation or maintenance of political parties; give the winners a trophy and don’t play the game again. More likely will be either the rise of a new opposition party or the fracturing of the single dominant party. Any of these is preferable to outright oligarchy.
What is bothersome is the slowly aggregating clique within the RNC that seems to be circling the wagons are the banner of “conservatism”. I keep hearing this phrase out of CPAC this year, “Conservatism 2.0”. This phrase bothers me for a number of reasons, chiefly because of the reasoning I hear behind its usage.
The reason for this new catchphrase seems to be derived from the success of the Obama ’08 presidential campaign. The campaign succeeded beyond all expectations in mobilizing the youth and utilizing the Internet; what many in “the Biz” call “new media”, presumably because they still don’t quite understand what it is. They completely missed the point, making the assumption that what enabled Obama to win was A: young people and B: “new media”. Somehow they’ve made the classic mistake of the 80’s, assuming that the medium is the message. There is an enormous amount of buzz being generated from within the hive over putting “the conservative message” on the web and the number of young people attending CPAC this year, including a 13-year-old who has proclaimed himself a conservative and even had a book on the subject published. A 13-year-old? Really?
And let's don't ignore the sideshow.
What these wing-nuts seem to be missing is that it really doesn't matter if you publish on broadband or bear skins, if your message doesn't sell.
Frankly, these people should be spending more time on figuring out exactly how they’re going to convince the rest of the country to embrace them when they’re whole message has been boiled down to, “NO!” They like to talk about being committed to principles and uncompromising integrity, et al., ad nauseum. The fact of the matter though, is that politics about compromise. When you declaim at the outset that you won’t give anything, you cannot, rationally, expect to be given anything either. I doubt very strongly that there is a majority of people (specifically, people who call themselves progressives) that have a problem with fiscal conservatism; in point of fact, I’ll go as far as to wager that most could easily see a way to reconcile fiscal conservatism with “pay as you go” spending policies. Unfortunately, the more moderate types on the right are hamstrung by the wing-nuts refusing to compromise on social issues like marriage-rights or birth control.
So what will the future face of the “conservative movement” be? My crystal ball’s in the shop, but I’ll hazard a guess.
Firstly, we have to understand that this all hinges on the ARARA. If it fails to produce measurable results within the next 12 months, you can expect a mass-shift back to the right in the House. Conservatives and their mouth pieces (Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, etc.) will be crowing from the rooftops about the practical failure of the “leftist agenda” and proclaim themselves the champions of American freedoms in the face of a Socialist or Communist conspiracy. You’ll largely be able to write off any kind of social progressivism in favor of reactionary social policies brought in on the heels of free market economic policies. Conversely, if the current stimulus and reform plans succeed in producing something appreciable, the conservatives will be divided against themselves along lines of age, wealth and evangelism. Young people will gravitate towards the glamour of success, the old bible-thumpers will dig deeper into their bunker mentality and the Wall Street crowd will quietly follow the money. Net result: fracture and effective dissolution.
Oh, and Limbaugh will probably retire. Or have a stroke. Or both.
What we have to ask ourselves next is, given the latter (probable, IMO), is the end of the bipartisan system, replaced by a probable one-party state, a “good thing?”
Doubtful. History has shown us that whenever any one group winds up with all the bananas, they tend to become oppressive (or at least neglectful) of the people. Without any significant, organized opposition to challenge the entrenched power structure there is no motivation for rulers to restrain their own agendas and in fairly short order policies are set according to ideological dogma or person benefit. At this point the truly noble thing to do would be to enact legislation barring the formation or maintenance of political parties; give the winners a trophy and don’t play the game again. More likely will be either the rise of a new opposition party or the fracturing of the single dominant party. Any of these is preferable to outright oligarchy.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Undue Defference
So today I'm going down the highway today, tuning into the extraterrestrial information streams and all I can say is, "Whoa."
Let me start with the day's World Have Your Say, from the BBC. Today's topic? That trusty stand-by bit of flame bait: Religion.
Specifically, the topic of the day was whether or not religion and it's invocation garners undue deference or special consideration from society. Predictably the lines were swamped and I never made it through. That's a pity, as this is one debate I am absolutely prepared for. There were a number of points brought up; that additional time ceded by employers to religious behavior unfairly increases the burden on nonbelievers, that Atheists are effectively barred from elected office, that differing confessions often generate conflict where there might otherwise be none and that religion in general attempts to impose dogma that flatly contradicts the objective evidence of how the world works.
The first point is obvious; lost productivity has to come from somewhere. It's worth pointing out that the time in question is regarded by many, perhaps most, people in the general populace as being trivial, except when taken over the course of years. Furthermore, the time is generally not begrudged by nonparticipants unless it becomes either excessive and/or above and beyond the normal allotted break time most employers give their workers. I'd like to suggest, however, that the faithful who demand extra time to meet the demands of their faith be made to choose between smoking/snacking/gossiping etc. and fulfilling their religious requirements. Consider it the type of sacrifice (of either profit or leisure) of the sort most religions demand of their adherents.
The discussion of course brought up the question of whether or not Atheists are actively discriminated against. That would be entirely dependant on where one lived and worked. Certainly there are places in the world, particularly the Middle East, where a confession of atheism is followed by swift judicial murder. In the West this isn't exactly common, but other, passive forms of discrimination and disenfranchisement are. In a simple social context, atheists are generally excluded from group activities by their sectarian neighbors, unless the goal is the conversion of said Atheist.
On the grand stage, I needn't do more than point out that of all the elected officials in American national government, there is only one professed Atheist. Given even the most conservative estimates of how many Americans are Atheists, this statistic is obviously unrepresentative of the population. Then again, looking at the poll results that anyone with political aspirations cannot hope to escape, that should come as no surprise.
The funny thing is that a prospective candidate's atheist status trumps all other concerns. forget the fact that they might be pro-gun, pro-life and speak eloquently on making English the official language; they'll lose out to an ill-spoken incompetent who loudly professes that Jesus is their special friend and tells them what to do.
One of the more staggering blind spots that people in the West seem to have stems from religious hypersensitivity. As look we at conflicts throughout the world, we go to great lengths to avoid attaching appropriate sectarian labels; we misidentify these battles, willfully, and thus fail to deal with them properly. Look at the Balkan fighting during the 90's; the groups in question were identified in the US according to political labels, with the exception of the Muslim minority. We tagged the other two factions as Croat's and Serb's. In point of fact, the internal language of the battle was religious. Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim groups. Certainly there were important political, social and economic issues involved but the participants identified themselves, tribally, by their sectarian confessions. Pictures of the Virgin taped to rifles and prominently displayed Orthodox Icons, etc. The exact same thing occurred for decades in Ireland; "A Protestant State for a Protestant People." Political conflicts that could be and were resolved via political solutions were subsumed and ratcheted up by religious rhetoric and terminology. The Nationalist and Unionist factions referred to each other chiefly by confession; A gunman jumps out of a doorway, holds a gun to a man’s head and asks, “Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Actually,” says the man, “I’m an atheist.” “Ah, yes,” replies the gunman, “but are you a Catholic or a Protestant atheist?”
The joke is cheap but it makes the point.
Finally we come, as we should when talking about religion, to the point that every single religion out there espouses dogma that flatly contradicts facts established by the methodical collection of evidence. The Scientific Method runs in direct opposition to the very concept of "Faith". The former demands evidence and the latter denies, dismisses and/or demonizes it.
In case there is any possible doubt (have you been paying the slightest attention?) I stand firmly in the camp of the Scientists. Certainly there are many things in our existence we do not yet understand, which we cannot control or properly anticipate; that does not mean, however, that we never will. It is the habit of the religious person to assert that present ignorance is the same as permanent ignorance; that no amount of study, research or experience will ever reveal certain mysteries. I would point out to these people the history of chemistry, biology and physics.
Let's cut to the chase; why do the worst of superstitious people try so hard to contradict the constantly expanding realm of scientific discovery and understanding?
Short version: with fewer and fewer unexplained phenomena, they have fewer and fewer things with which to credit to their various deities. The more sophisticated types try to get around the continuing explication of the universe by assigning to religion the task of investigating a cosmological motive. "Why" questions, versus "how" questions.
This is asinine. As wiser persons than I have already explained, just because you can phrase a grammatically correct question with the word "why", doesn't make it anything more than nonsense.
"Why is the earth flat?"
There are no "why" questions when it comes to natural phenomena and inferring intention or meaning serves only to confuse things. If you want meaning in your life, then you need to put it there.
Let me start with the day's World Have Your Say, from the BBC. Today's topic? That trusty stand-by bit of flame bait: Religion.
Specifically, the topic of the day was whether or not religion and it's invocation garners undue deference or special consideration from society. Predictably the lines were swamped and I never made it through. That's a pity, as this is one debate I am absolutely prepared for. There were a number of points brought up; that additional time ceded by employers to religious behavior unfairly increases the burden on nonbelievers, that Atheists are effectively barred from elected office, that differing confessions often generate conflict where there might otherwise be none and that religion in general attempts to impose dogma that flatly contradicts the objective evidence of how the world works.
The first point is obvious; lost productivity has to come from somewhere. It's worth pointing out that the time in question is regarded by many, perhaps most, people in the general populace as being trivial, except when taken over the course of years. Furthermore, the time is generally not begrudged by nonparticipants unless it becomes either excessive and/or above and beyond the normal allotted break time most employers give their workers. I'd like to suggest, however, that the faithful who demand extra time to meet the demands of their faith be made to choose between smoking/snacking/gossiping etc. and fulfilling their religious requirements. Consider it the type of sacrifice (of either profit or leisure) of the sort most religions demand of their adherents.
The discussion of course brought up the question of whether or not Atheists are actively discriminated against. That would be entirely dependant on where one lived and worked. Certainly there are places in the world, particularly the Middle East, where a confession of atheism is followed by swift judicial murder. In the West this isn't exactly common, but other, passive forms of discrimination and disenfranchisement are. In a simple social context, atheists are generally excluded from group activities by their sectarian neighbors, unless the goal is the conversion of said Atheist.
On the grand stage, I needn't do more than point out that of all the elected officials in American national government, there is only one professed Atheist. Given even the most conservative estimates of how many Americans are Atheists, this statistic is obviously unrepresentative of the population. Then again, looking at the poll results that anyone with political aspirations cannot hope to escape, that should come as no surprise.
The funny thing is that a prospective candidate's atheist status trumps all other concerns. forget the fact that they might be pro-gun, pro-life and speak eloquently on making English the official language; they'll lose out to an ill-spoken incompetent who loudly professes that Jesus is their special friend and tells them what to do.
One of the more staggering blind spots that people in the West seem to have stems from religious hypersensitivity. As look we at conflicts throughout the world, we go to great lengths to avoid attaching appropriate sectarian labels; we misidentify these battles, willfully, and thus fail to deal with them properly. Look at the Balkan fighting during the 90's; the groups in question were identified in the US according to political labels, with the exception of the Muslim minority. We tagged the other two factions as Croat's and Serb's. In point of fact, the internal language of the battle was religious. Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim groups. Certainly there were important political, social and economic issues involved but the participants identified themselves, tribally, by their sectarian confessions. Pictures of the Virgin taped to rifles and prominently displayed Orthodox Icons, etc. The exact same thing occurred for decades in Ireland; "A Protestant State for a Protestant People." Political conflicts that could be and were resolved via political solutions were subsumed and ratcheted up by religious rhetoric and terminology. The Nationalist and Unionist factions referred to each other chiefly by confession; A gunman jumps out of a doorway, holds a gun to a man’s head and asks, “Are you Catholic or Protestant?” “Actually,” says the man, “I’m an atheist.” “Ah, yes,” replies the gunman, “but are you a Catholic or a Protestant atheist?”
The joke is cheap but it makes the point.
Finally we come, as we should when talking about religion, to the point that every single religion out there espouses dogma that flatly contradicts facts established by the methodical collection of evidence. The Scientific Method runs in direct opposition to the very concept of "Faith". The former demands evidence and the latter denies, dismisses and/or demonizes it.
In case there is any possible doubt (have you been paying the slightest attention?) I stand firmly in the camp of the Scientists. Certainly there are many things in our existence we do not yet understand, which we cannot control or properly anticipate; that does not mean, however, that we never will. It is the habit of the religious person to assert that present ignorance is the same as permanent ignorance; that no amount of study, research or experience will ever reveal certain mysteries. I would point out to these people the history of chemistry, biology and physics.
Let's cut to the chase; why do the worst of superstitious people try so hard to contradict the constantly expanding realm of scientific discovery and understanding?
Short version: with fewer and fewer unexplained phenomena, they have fewer and fewer things with which to credit to their various deities. The more sophisticated types try to get around the continuing explication of the universe by assigning to religion the task of investigating a cosmological motive. "Why" questions, versus "how" questions.
This is asinine. As wiser persons than I have already explained, just because you can phrase a grammatically correct question with the word "why", doesn't make it anything more than nonsense.
"Why is the earth flat?"
There are no "why" questions when it comes to natural phenomena and inferring intention or meaning serves only to confuse things. If you want meaning in your life, then you need to put it there.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Nerd Wrangling for Dummies
Now this is what I was talking about the other day. Tim the Enchanter is a smart, smart guy...but basically a PR disaster waiting to happen.
Here's the short version: the nerds were doing what the president asked them to do (come up with an effective method of unsticking the transmission on the the engine of commerce) and as they got up to their ears in numbers (a true nerd's "happy place") they suddenly realized just how absolutely broken things are. Like good nerds they immediately discarded the ideas that couldn't stand up to Occam's Razor and started looking into something completely different. Also like good nerds, they basically ignored the world outside the data they were dealing with and as a result had to hastily assemble something for the press conference.
A rush job almost never looks good, which is made so very much worse when you consider that in this case it was the very purpose of the press conference to look good, to inspire confidence. Attention was focused, expectations were high and the whole thing landed with a magnificent "thud!"
In My Not So Humble Opinion, they really ought to have come forth and simply stated the facts as they had them; that the previously considered plans were not good options and so they were developing new plans in the direction then outlined. Also, while I have enormous affection for my fellow nerdlings...Tim really needs a stand in to deliver his lines.
I suspect strongly that the administration will shortly see about either preparing the nerds for prime time a bit better, or else let them stay in their respective dens whilst better "Faces" confront the cameras.
Here's the short version: the nerds were doing what the president asked them to do (come up with an effective method of unsticking the transmission on the the engine of commerce) and as they got up to their ears in numbers (a true nerd's "happy place") they suddenly realized just how absolutely broken things are. Like good nerds they immediately discarded the ideas that couldn't stand up to Occam's Razor and started looking into something completely different. Also like good nerds, they basically ignored the world outside the data they were dealing with and as a result had to hastily assemble something for the press conference.
A rush job almost never looks good, which is made so very much worse when you consider that in this case it was the very purpose of the press conference to look good, to inspire confidence. Attention was focused, expectations were high and the whole thing landed with a magnificent "thud!"
In My Not So Humble Opinion, they really ought to have come forth and simply stated the facts as they had them; that the previously considered plans were not good options and so they were developing new plans in the direction then outlined. Also, while I have enormous affection for my fellow nerdlings...Tim really needs a stand in to deliver his lines.
I suspect strongly that the administration will shortly see about either preparing the nerds for prime time a bit better, or else let them stay in their respective dens whilst better "Faces" confront the cameras.
From the Babe's Mouth
Perhaps I'm just being too charitable by far; I can honestly say that if my mother was major, controversial political figure with national media attention, I would probably learn very quickly not to say anything directly contradictory in the vicinity of (or same county as) a live mic. Even after the campaigning was over (is it ever? really?) I would say that watching your mouth qualified as a basic component of life anywhere near the public gaze.
Not so, dear, darling Bristol Palin.
Now I for one don't have a problem with the girl having her own opinion. In fact I applaud her for saying something that might just get some people thinking outside the bounds of unreasoning, rigid doctrine. As a political wonk though...I'm forced to wonder if anyone explained to the girl about the concept of "staying on message." This interview put the self proclaimed Pitbull on defense, eliciting an interesting statement.
"Get beyond the ideal of abstinence," the 44 year old, new grandmother said. "Hey, life happens."
I hope I don't have to spell out exactly what sort of reaction this is going to elicit from the Republicans core constituency. On the plus side, this demonstrates something very important and in a particular, very relevant way. The Republican Party, such as it is, has developed a rock-solid case of schizophrenia.
They are divided against themselves and expending a great deal of energy on trying to figure out exactly what it is they represent, in leadership terms. As many have pointed out, since the evangelical "social conservatives" became the base of the party (Goldwater is doing about a kajillion rpm's in his grave I expect) they have increasingly defined themselves by what they are against, by what they won't tolerate or endorse. Even the much vaunted fiscal policy of the Free Marketer's has been reduced to, "less regulation, less taxation." Easily parroted and popular with people that don't understand the complexities of the world beyond the Podunk town limits.
To give a specific example; many young members of the evangelical demographic are breaking with the "single-issue" tradition of their parents and grandparents. They are far more tolerant of "alternate lifestyles" for instance, and see environmentalism as an extension of the "good steward" doctrines of their religion. To be blunt, they're more interested in what they should be doing to make the world better than in what others shouldn't. The fissures are becoming visible and the shuddering monolith of the Republican base is poised to shatter like a frozen river in March; Bristol Palin's words many be the sound of the ice cracking and the sudden flood that may soon follow is an unknown.
What does it mean though? If the base of the Republican Party splinters, what happens next? Do we get two separate parties? Republicans and Nationalists, maybe? It's an interesting idea and they certainly need to come up with some sort of plan, but I've never claimed much skill at prognostication.
On the other hand, maybe I should. I could certainly use the income.
Not so, dear, darling Bristol Palin.
Now I for one don't have a problem with the girl having her own opinion. In fact I applaud her for saying something that might just get some people thinking outside the bounds of unreasoning, rigid doctrine. As a political wonk though...I'm forced to wonder if anyone explained to the girl about the concept of "staying on message." This interview put the self proclaimed Pitbull on defense, eliciting an interesting statement.
"Get beyond the ideal of abstinence," the 44 year old, new grandmother said. "Hey, life happens."
I hope I don't have to spell out exactly what sort of reaction this is going to elicit from the Republicans core constituency. On the plus side, this demonstrates something very important and in a particular, very relevant way. The Republican Party, such as it is, has developed a rock-solid case of schizophrenia.
They are divided against themselves and expending a great deal of energy on trying to figure out exactly what it is they represent, in leadership terms. As many have pointed out, since the evangelical "social conservatives" became the base of the party (Goldwater is doing about a kajillion rpm's in his grave I expect) they have increasingly defined themselves by what they are against, by what they won't tolerate or endorse. Even the much vaunted fiscal policy of the Free Marketer's has been reduced to, "less regulation, less taxation." Easily parroted and popular with people that don't understand the complexities of the world beyond the Podunk town limits.
To give a specific example; many young members of the evangelical demographic are breaking with the "single-issue" tradition of their parents and grandparents. They are far more tolerant of "alternate lifestyles" for instance, and see environmentalism as an extension of the "good steward" doctrines of their religion. To be blunt, they're more interested in what they should be doing to make the world better than in what others shouldn't. The fissures are becoming visible and the shuddering monolith of the Republican base is poised to shatter like a frozen river in March; Bristol Palin's words many be the sound of the ice cracking and the sudden flood that may soon follow is an unknown.
What does it mean though? If the base of the Republican Party splinters, what happens next? Do we get two separate parties? Republicans and Nationalists, maybe? It's an interesting idea and they certainly need to come up with some sort of plan, but I've never claimed much skill at prognostication.
On the other hand, maybe I should. I could certainly use the income.
Termporary Mortality
Never before have I had such stark proof of my induction into the streams of information as today. As of about noon last Wednesday I found myself out of communication with the world; no national radio, no cable news, no Internet, no reliable phone, not even a single bloody national news rag. I tell you, the company headquarters exists in a place out of time, squatting, annoyed, like some old hillbilly on the crest of the Ozark mountains in Arkansas. So when I finally get loose from the place and back out to where I can get a feed, I am not surprised (but certainly as annoyed as that shoeless wonder mentioned above) to find that the world has gone through important, dramatic changes without telling me.
I feel like Jesus, coming back to find out that the landlord already let out my hovel.
My bitterness aside, what does this say about me? Have I become an information addict without realizing it over the last year and a half? So it would seem; sweaty palms, irritability and constant feeling of distraction...like a cold sore on the roof of your mouth. On the plus side, I don't think that's such a bad thing. At least information isn't a chemical addiction and its certainly both easier and less felonious to get a fix.
None of which is particularly relevant. I might take this as motivation to get an Air Card, but with money being as tight as it is I doubt I'll get around to it until at least the third quarter. What is worth noting; I obviously have way, way to much to get down in print, as it were.
I feel like Jesus, coming back to find out that the landlord already let out my hovel.
My bitterness aside, what does this say about me? Have I become an information addict without realizing it over the last year and a half? So it would seem; sweaty palms, irritability and constant feeling of distraction...like a cold sore on the roof of your mouth. On the plus side, I don't think that's such a bad thing. At least information isn't a chemical addiction and its certainly both easier and less felonious to get a fix.
None of which is particularly relevant. I might take this as motivation to get an Air Card, but with money being as tight as it is I doubt I'll get around to it until at least the third quarter. What is worth noting; I obviously have way, way to much to get down in print, as it were.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Clear as Mud
There seems to be a great deal of confusion over the new plan for the old plan, when it comes to exactly what Secretary Geithner is going to be doing to try and relieve the credit crisis.
Geithner is a smart man undoubtedly and has the confidence of the president, another smart man. As such, I feel sorry for him; I am also a smart man and have first hand experience with how much fun it is to try and explain complex, arcane processes to the uninitiated. Add to that the combination of a desperate leadership vacuum and his general lack of charisma and you begin understand why the Secretary's announcement today fell flat. It's a sad thing that so often the persons most qualified to talk about something are the least capable of doing so. Let's see if I can help the man out a bit.
What The Enchanter is proposing seems to be a financial pincer attack, with an eye towards maintaining laissez-faire economic liberalism. That is, he's wont to help get the markets freed up then let the market run free. Think of it as wild animal rescue; after the critter is stable and healthy, you release it back into the wild.
So if this is a pincer movement, what are the particular gambits? Well first there is the move to get bad assets off the books as fast as possible. The obvious thing to do would be to have the Federal Government suck them all up. Unfortunately, this would require way more money than Timmy has access to, would send the message that tax payers will save banks from piss poor decisions and create a situation where a massive chunk of the economy is directly controlled by the Federal Government. Barely palatable in the extreme short term, none of these are acceptable long term policies. On the other hand, no private investor is going to touch any of these "assets" with a ten foot pole without some serious encouragement. So that's exactly what we do, pairing up public and private funds. We create a bridge to private funding, eventually shifting the full burden to the private sector.
The second line of assault on Ft. Credit is something so simple and well advised that I am absolutely floored that it didn't exist yet. A joint project by the various Federal agencies responsible for this sort of thing actually doing regular stress testing on banks' structures. See what they can actually do and find out where the weak spots are. The old saw about "an ounce of prevention" stands true. More than immediate need though, this principle stands out as a long term policy that will go great lengths toward prevent future financial fubars caused by what amounts to "funny money".
Finally, Brother Tim is putting together the framework necessary to start reworking mortgages already on the ground. He largely failed to explain how this is going to work because; A, this is still a work in progress and B, he's a lousy orator. Fortunately, the subject of this particular maneuver was brought up at the president's Town hall in Florida today and Obama managed to articulate what they do have much more clearly than Geithner. I'm trying not to be too down on the man; he is after all a fellow nerd. I can't help thinking though, "Its a bloody good thing his boss is so popular."
So, drawing all this together, what is going to happen? Well a lot of banks are going to make less money on real estate than they thought they would. At least a few more will undoubtedly disappear. All of them are going to come under much more scrutiny and will likely become more conservative in their investment practices. It's going to be a financially lean couple of seasons. The banks that emerge however will be cleaner, wiser and stronger. Individual home owners are going to lose some equity on their homes. Most of that will probably be the sublimating of inflated values; the venting of "false equity", like so much methane. With similar social connotations, I might add. The general public will be the last ones to see over all benefit. I anticipate it will be at least two full fiscal quarters before the banks resume spreading assets on a scale that will produce large scale job creation. I doubt very much if they'll go back to facilitating the same sort of wide spread consumer debt of recent years.
Hyperp-ageddon
Apparently the market for ridiculous, hyperbolic doom saying has tightened and the random crazy people wandering the streets are facing new competition from lawmakers on The Hill. Furthermore we have recently seen the development of an exciting new contact sport in D.C., "Partisan Chicken". In this game, we have the two political blocks attempt to force agenda items into a vital piece of legislation then dare each other to risk obliterating society. The winner gets to take credit for saving mankind, unless the whole things fails to do so in a shameless excess of gutless compromise; in this case the winners lose and the lose get to blame them for destroying civilization as we know it. Also, there is a pool for side bets on how long it will take to pay off the mortgage on Florida.
Failing in Public
There are times in the public forum when its necessary to call someone on the carpet. This is one of those times.
I advise you to pull the full article and read it for yourself, but I'll give you the short version here. Rod Dreher seems to be having some trouble with reconciling the duty of a reporter to tell the public useful things with protecting the faith of believers. This individual had a personal crisis of faith, according to the article in question, and changed confessions after digging deep into the Catholic Church's various sex scandals. Now Dreher is an Orthodox Christian and has chosen to ignore scandals in his new confession. He has decided for his family that they need religion more than he needs to uncover corruption but hen asks us, his readers, if he is being prudent or cowardly.
Well, Rod, if you're reading, here's my reply; yes. If you're most important goal is to protect yourself and/or others from having their eyes opened to the realities of ecclesiastical practice, the blatant hypocrisies and deceptions of people who claim to draw moral and spiritual authority from some perfectly good and just being, then yes you are exercising prudence. That does not however absolve you of neglecting your duty as a journalist to tell your fellow human beings when the people they count on for leadership and/or guidance are abusing that trust. So, since you are abandoning your duty in order to spare yourself an unpleasant but hardly dangerous experience, I have to say you most certainly are being cowardly also.
Dreher quotes scripture, "You shall know truth, and the truth shall set you free." What he seems to not understand is that freedom (physical, mental or spiritual) makes no promise of comfort and often demands that you make changes that it also liberates you to achieve. He complains that the truth in this instance, "nearly Destroyed my Christian faith." In the first place I suspect that this is more a matter of his dependence on an external institution for his faith; in the second I would point out that the line about truth and freedom makes no mention of what exactly you are to be freed from/of when you "know truth."
I advise you to pull the full article and read it for yourself, but I'll give you the short version here. Rod Dreher seems to be having some trouble with reconciling the duty of a reporter to tell the public useful things with protecting the faith of believers. This individual had a personal crisis of faith, according to the article in question, and changed confessions after digging deep into the Catholic Church's various sex scandals. Now Dreher is an Orthodox Christian and has chosen to ignore scandals in his new confession. He has decided for his family that they need religion more than he needs to uncover corruption but hen asks us, his readers, if he is being prudent or cowardly.
Well, Rod, if you're reading, here's my reply; yes. If you're most important goal is to protect yourself and/or others from having their eyes opened to the realities of ecclesiastical practice, the blatant hypocrisies and deceptions of people who claim to draw moral and spiritual authority from some perfectly good and just being, then yes you are exercising prudence. That does not however absolve you of neglecting your duty as a journalist to tell your fellow human beings when the people they count on for leadership and/or guidance are abusing that trust. So, since you are abandoning your duty in order to spare yourself an unpleasant but hardly dangerous experience, I have to say you most certainly are being cowardly also.
Dreher quotes scripture, "You shall know truth, and the truth shall set you free." What he seems to not understand is that freedom (physical, mental or spiritual) makes no promise of comfort and often demands that you make changes that it also liberates you to achieve. He complains that the truth in this instance, "nearly Destroyed my Christian faith." In the first place I suspect that this is more a matter of his dependence on an external institution for his faith; in the second I would point out that the line about truth and freedom makes no mention of what exactly you are to be freed from/of when you "know truth."
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Howling
I find it more and more difficult to ignore the old rule, "Those that know the least, speak the most."
This evening's PC by the President is barely more than 2 hours old and already the troglodytes of both right and left are forming skirmish lines. Like rival troops of ideological monkeys.
The funny part is that this isn't really the president's problem(s), per se. Its the Legislature. The core conflict between the left and right wingers comes down, unfortunately, to ideologies. Democrats are largely convinced that they have a mandate to do whatever they think is best; undoubtedly they also have more than a little revenge in mind. After all, they spent years under Bush being marginalized, isn't it time to return the favor? Abso-fragging-lutely not.
This is a huge part of what Obama was talking about during his campaign. Yes, the Democrats have a majority, a large one that is no doubt painful for most Republicans to acknowledge. That doesn't mean we want them to ram a leftist agenda through. That doesn't mean we want them to "punish" the right. I strongly suspect that a vast majority of the Democrats in Washington at the moment are at least a little drunk with power; they need to get over it now or the subsequent sociopolitical hangover is going to knock them on their collective asses and find the Republicans quite possibly back in charge. That sort of wild legislative vacillation will undermine and horribly destabilize the authority of the Federal Government.
By the same token, Republicans need to get their collective heads out of their collective asses and recognize two vital and immutable facts about the current state of affairs: A, they are in the minority right now because of their own reckless, excessive and exclusionary policies and B, that the American people are not going to be bought off with tax returns. Let's call a spade a spade; regardless of their popularity and various levels of usefulness, tax cuts amount to bribing the public. In the current climate cutting taxes will have only minimal stimulative usefulness because the people will save rather than spend most of it and once it's spent the money will wind up being deposited in banks which are not lending and therefore will not continue circulating, fueling growth. The party has allowed itself to become prisoner to a sort of economic ideological extremism which has in turn caused them to lose sight of at least one of their core principals and a basic law of economic realty.
Ronald Reagan once characterized government as "the problem". This has mutated into a perception among many that government is "the enemy". The so-called advocates of the free market have as their mantra, "government doesn't create jobs" and they repeat it ad nauseum, as if saying it often enough will cause it to be so. In a way this is true, although the statement becomes, "government won't create jobs". Obviously the government does in fact create jobs; what they mean to say is "government does not drive the economy". Nor should it, as has been very publicly acknowledged by everyone from the President on down; we all saw how well that worked in Soviet Russia. What the vast majority of Republicans (voters and politicians alike) seem to be hung up on is the idea that the government should or even can intervene in the current crisis; particularly they object over the spending of public funds. I cannot tell you how many times I have been in some random truck stop or warehouse listening to people complain that,"I don't see why I should spend my money to solve other people's problems."
What these people, both in and out of Washington and Wall Street, seem to have trouble with these days is the idea of "The National Interest". They can't seem to understand that if we, as a nation, don't commit resources to breaking the various log jams in the financial system and getting people employed again that the continuing losses will drag the rest of us right down too. This is the economic equivalent of Benjamin Franklin's warning that, "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." To illustrate; Why should a diner waitress in Arkansas care about the failings of a bank in NYC? That bank supplies the revolving loans that supply a toy manufacturer's payroll in Toledo. If that manufacturer goes bust he no longer supplies goods to a retailer in Texas, who then cancels his shipping contract with my employer, who then stops sending one more shipment past that diner in Arkansas where I like to stop for a night's rest and particularly good stack of pancakes in the morning. So now that waitress is short by that much less in tips. Now multiply that out and don't forget all the people being laid off at the bank, toy maker and retailer and you start to get a sense of things. In short, this is the other side of Uncle Ron's "supply side" economic theory. Personally, I find it hilarious that that most vocal proponents of supply side, the Republicans, are now decrying the same spiderweb effect from the various public works projects being financed by the ARARA Bill.
Let's don't act like this is a purely Republican problem though. There are more than a few projects included in the correct Bill that are questionable. Personally I'm a bit confused by the DoD spending for anything _other_ than weatherizing and other energy efficiency projects. Also there are provisions being made for WIC and school lunch programs; not unworthy projects, but things that should be going through the normal appropriations process. There are other examples, I encourage you to read it through. Nobody can deny that, although the President is honestly and correctly saying there are no earmarks in the Bill, the Democrats have been trying to add far too many ornaments to this particular tree and not giving enough room for some the very good Republican ideas on tax relief in specific, targeted cases.
In the end, this is more or less a done deal. At this point what we are seeing is mostly a great deal of sound and fury. What we ought to be focused on, going forward from this moment is making absolutely bloody certain that nobody misappropriates any of this money and that we having the greatest possible public scrutiny. The president mentioned the establishing of a funds tracking website. Another key point is for us, the American Public, to keep in mind that we are in part responsible for this fiasco; a large part of the financial crisis was fueled consumer credit and inflated real-estate values. There is absolutely nothing wrong with spending and making a nice life for yourself but it vital to stay within your means and not try to push yourself to the edge. Leave a buffer so that when the economy does turn sour (as all economies must at times) you aren't suddenly faced with massive obligations that you can't meet.
This evening's PC by the President is barely more than 2 hours old and already the troglodytes of both right and left are forming skirmish lines. Like rival troops of ideological monkeys.
The funny part is that this isn't really the president's problem(s), per se. Its the Legislature. The core conflict between the left and right wingers comes down, unfortunately, to ideologies. Democrats are largely convinced that they have a mandate to do whatever they think is best; undoubtedly they also have more than a little revenge in mind. After all, they spent years under Bush being marginalized, isn't it time to return the favor? Abso-fragging-lutely not.
This is a huge part of what Obama was talking about during his campaign. Yes, the Democrats have a majority, a large one that is no doubt painful for most Republicans to acknowledge. That doesn't mean we want them to ram a leftist agenda through. That doesn't mean we want them to "punish" the right. I strongly suspect that a vast majority of the Democrats in Washington at the moment are at least a little drunk with power; they need to get over it now or the subsequent sociopolitical hangover is going to knock them on their collective asses and find the Republicans quite possibly back in charge. That sort of wild legislative vacillation will undermine and horribly destabilize the authority of the Federal Government.
By the same token, Republicans need to get their collective heads out of their collective asses and recognize two vital and immutable facts about the current state of affairs: A, they are in the minority right now because of their own reckless, excessive and exclusionary policies and B, that the American people are not going to be bought off with tax returns. Let's call a spade a spade; regardless of their popularity and various levels of usefulness, tax cuts amount to bribing the public. In the current climate cutting taxes will have only minimal stimulative usefulness because the people will save rather than spend most of it and once it's spent the money will wind up being deposited in banks which are not lending and therefore will not continue circulating, fueling growth. The party has allowed itself to become prisoner to a sort of economic ideological extremism which has in turn caused them to lose sight of at least one of their core principals and a basic law of economic realty.
Ronald Reagan once characterized government as "the problem". This has mutated into a perception among many that government is "the enemy". The so-called advocates of the free market have as their mantra, "government doesn't create jobs" and they repeat it ad nauseum, as if saying it often enough will cause it to be so. In a way this is true, although the statement becomes, "government won't create jobs". Obviously the government does in fact create jobs; what they mean to say is "government does not drive the economy". Nor should it, as has been very publicly acknowledged by everyone from the President on down; we all saw how well that worked in Soviet Russia. What the vast majority of Republicans (voters and politicians alike) seem to be hung up on is the idea that the government should or even can intervene in the current crisis; particularly they object over the spending of public funds. I cannot tell you how many times I have been in some random truck stop or warehouse listening to people complain that,"I don't see why I should spend my money to solve other people's problems."
What these people, both in and out of Washington and Wall Street, seem to have trouble with these days is the idea of "The National Interest". They can't seem to understand that if we, as a nation, don't commit resources to breaking the various log jams in the financial system and getting people employed again that the continuing losses will drag the rest of us right down too. This is the economic equivalent of Benjamin Franklin's warning that, "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." To illustrate; Why should a diner waitress in Arkansas care about the failings of a bank in NYC? That bank supplies the revolving loans that supply a toy manufacturer's payroll in Toledo. If that manufacturer goes bust he no longer supplies goods to a retailer in Texas, who then cancels his shipping contract with my employer, who then stops sending one more shipment past that diner in Arkansas where I like to stop for a night's rest and particularly good stack of pancakes in the morning. So now that waitress is short by that much less in tips. Now multiply that out and don't forget all the people being laid off at the bank, toy maker and retailer and you start to get a sense of things. In short, this is the other side of Uncle Ron's "supply side" economic theory. Personally, I find it hilarious that that most vocal proponents of supply side, the Republicans, are now decrying the same spiderweb effect from the various public works projects being financed by the ARARA Bill.
Let's don't act like this is a purely Republican problem though. There are more than a few projects included in the correct Bill that are questionable. Personally I'm a bit confused by the DoD spending for anything _other_ than weatherizing and other energy efficiency projects. Also there are provisions being made for WIC and school lunch programs; not unworthy projects, but things that should be going through the normal appropriations process. There are other examples, I encourage you to read it through. Nobody can deny that, although the President is honestly and correctly saying there are no earmarks in the Bill, the Democrats have been trying to add far too many ornaments to this particular tree and not giving enough room for some the very good Republican ideas on tax relief in specific, targeted cases.
In the end, this is more or less a done deal. At this point what we are seeing is mostly a great deal of sound and fury. What we ought to be focused on, going forward from this moment is making absolutely bloody certain that nobody misappropriates any of this money and that we having the greatest possible public scrutiny. The president mentioned the establishing of a funds tracking website. Another key point is for us, the American Public, to keep in mind that we are in part responsible for this fiasco; a large part of the financial crisis was fueled consumer credit and inflated real-estate values. There is absolutely nothing wrong with spending and making a nice life for yourself but it vital to stay within your means and not try to push yourself to the edge. Leave a buffer so that when the economy does turn sour (as all economies must at times) you aren't suddenly faced with massive obligations that you can't meet.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Soft-Peddling Bias
So on Thursday (02/05/09) I'm rolling down the highway in the Garbage State, immersing myself in the extraterrestrial information stream-of-consciousness when I run into Brother Ron's show on POTUS. I admit to being slightly curious about his choice of topics to discuss that day, given that the focus of everyone else in the country over the drinking age was the economy and the disposition of the bill currently in the Senate. So I listened on for a bit, Ron specifically talking about the need to properly identify a problem before you can hope to resolve it. I absolutely agree with that point.
What prompted me to pick up my phone and hit speed dial was the illustrative content of his cogitation; referring to the so-called "war on Terror" (I don't recall if he used that phrase) and saying that we specifically need to identify "the enemy" as "Islamic Medieval Totalitarians." Now, the point is taken but I couldn't resist wondering why it was necessary to specifically identify these people by a religious label and I could only come to a single conclusion. I think Brother Ron isn't satisfied with simply identifying these people as criminals only, citing (correctly) that a large part of their self-identity stems from their religious background. He shies at the fence though, not willing to admit that a large part of that background is universal to the other two Western religious traditions and all such superstitions in general. He'll acknowledge them as "Islamic" but not "Religious".
So, I say lets carry the argument to its actual, logical conclusion; these are Religious Medieval Totalitarians. All religions, all superstitions, not merely Islam, have tenets that are used to justify horrific and anti-human behavior.
If a person is made uncomfortable with this notion, then they are well advised to leave religion out of the equation and focus on dealing with these persons and groups as civil criminals. Comparisons may be odious but that makes them no less accurate.
A Stimulating Idea
At the moment there is a food fight going on up on Capitol Hill, with left and right both acting, appropriately, like children. Our economy has flagged so far that I'm tempted to start calling it a pennant and the only thing that our representatives seem able to agree on is that something needs done, PDQ. Neither Democrats or Republicans are apparently interested in reaching for an acceptable compromise, since the former are feeling their stones and the later won't stop holding their breath. What do I mean? Simply that Democrats want it all their own way on spending and they want it now while Republicans refuse to even discuss the concept that spending might be more useful than yet round another of tax cuts. The irresistible farce and the immovable objection.
My own view is that this whole bill needs to be reworked from the ground up, starting by separating it into two bills; lets have one for stimulus in the short term and another for recovery in the long.
"Beginnings are important."
I will not venture to toss about numbers because I am not presently qualified to do so; I will suggest a few specific items that might be suitable foundation pieces for a national stimulus package. Since I am of the opinion that stimulus and recovery are two separate and distinct aims with separate and distinct processes for achievement I am going to skip some exceptionally good ideas that won't do anything immediately helpful. I'll come back to them later.
Let's start by getting something established at the outset: there are lots of good economically stimulative expenditures that also produce beneficial effects in the long term in other, seemingly unrelated areas. My personal torch is for a national mass transit system. In the very short term building a nation wide people moving system would employing a veritable army in a multitude of capacities. From sophisticated engineering professionals to base laborers, the direct employment would be excellent; I can't assert specific numbers but I can easily imagine tens of thousands in each of the lower 48, especially if we include non-skilled labor. A shovel and a wheel barrow might not be as fast as a back-hoe but they certainly do work, particularly in tight spaces. As for the knock-on effect from materials, equipment, maintenance, logistics, communications et al., I have to boggle at the amount of work created and the level of employment thereby necessitated.
There are a number other benefits created by such a program, so painfully obvious that I need anesthetic eye-drops to point them out. Start with the drop in automobile traffic; less congestion, less pollution, less wear on the highways, fewer accidents and less demand for fossil fuel energy. This also increases mobility; more options for living, working, shopping, health care and education. This is just a drop in the bucket. A national, high-speed mass-transit system would correct and/or improve so many problems that the only thing anyone should have difficulty grasping is why this isn't happening yet.
I'll stop and let your eyes recover.
The next item on my agenda of neat ideas for putting people back to work is, if not original, at least reached independently. Resource extraction.
I know what you're thinking; you're wrong, so shush and listen instead.
We have created, in These United States, the single most wasteful and short-sighted society in history. There are, all across this land, titanic deposits of our own refuse. Holes and hills full to bursting with wasted products that could be salvaged and reprocessed. How difficult is it to suggest that the Department of The Interior might be funded and directed to tap these reservoirs of material and render it for sale to manufacturers? Bales of cleaned wood and fiber pulp, simple ingots of copper or aluminum and containers full of plastic beads for extrusion machines?
I know the basic idea of recycling isn't original but if we re-imagine the scale, then maybe everything old can be new again.
The last thing I want to suggest here is what the current President has already pointed out. There are a number of skilled workers and facilities all over the country that can be used to produce wind turbines and solar cells. Here's an idea; what say local municipalities in the multitude of regions across the nation that aren't dense, urban centers invest some of their tax money into getting windmills set up? Any excess power generated for the grid could easily be reimbursed to the public in the form of a tax credit and thereby allow the public to profit by their investment. In addition to immediate domestic benefits, this primes the U.S. to become the primary exporter of renewable energy technology to the rest of the world. That would include interesting places like India; or China, that huge, ever-more energy hungry nation we currently have a huge, ever-more frightening trade deficit with.
These are not pipedreams people. We're already talking about spending close to 1 Trillion dollars on this effort so I think we can all agree that we recognize the need to invest in ourselves. Think about it and pass it along. If we move this enough it might just make it to the right people.
The Market is Dead; Long Live the Market!
Nothing endures but Change.
How many times in modern history have people proclaimed the end of a major institution, only to be proven wrong? Hard saying.
How many times have people, upon surviving the end of an institution, later proclaimed the vindication of said institution when its vanquisher is later brought into disrepute or is itself deposed in favor of a third thing? Equally hard to say.
One thing that is beyond debate however is that there is currently a fad of claiming that the failure of present capitalist market systems somehow vindicates Communism. I am not making this up. In my regular daily immersion in the information streams supplied by extraterrestrial sources (not as crazy as it sounds) I have in the previous few weeks heard a small but growing number of voices from all over the world and many walks of life proclaiming that the current global economic crisis is proof positive that capitalism is a failed, non-viable, inequitable and basically evil horror, finally revealed for the monster it is. These people are not universally insane, ignorant or anarchists or tyrants. Although even Marx would admit that a disproportionate number of collectivists are generally poor and for various reasons disaffected.
What is disturbing (particularly here in the U.S.) is that so many people seem to be caught in a bi-polar cognitive extremism; the argument essentially being that, "An economy must be either Capitalist or Communist. There are no other options nor any middle ground."
This is obviously a false dilemma to anyone with a fractional understanding of economic systems and/or the reasoning ability of a small child. When people's finances are threatened however, both understanding and reason often go out the window, hurled by a massive explosion of emotional reaction. This is neither surprising nor difficult to understand. Wealth is the medium of survival in the modern world and the most primal instinct burned into every cell of every living creature is survive. I'm getting ahead of myself however. Let's start (as always) with first principles.
What is money? Money is not, in and of itself, anything real. Money is a symbol, a marker like a poker chip. So what, then, is it symbolic of? Without delving into a lot of history that is not, for the moment, relevant in a practical sense we'll simply say that money is representative of the amount of energy available in the social system. Any commodity or service can be explained in terms of the amount of energy it requires to produce/provide. This is where all economic theories begin and from whence they begin to diverge.
One argument says that the social system is closed in this regard, that no energy is gained or lost, only distributed. Detractors call it the "zero sum game" and it is the underlying basis of Communism, "There's only so much wealth to go around, so we have to make sure everyone gets a fair share." The counter argument says that new energy is added by the labor of participants in the social system. "Work creates wealth," as they say in Capitalist circles. What the proponents of this argument tend to fail to address is whether not the door swings both ways; can energy also leave the system? Some adamantly deny this, most ignore it and a few spend uncomfortable minutes examining their shoes. What most Communists get hung up on isn't actually where it all might go, but rather where it comes from. The question/argument boils down to, "Energy cannot be either created or destroyed, so where are you bastards getting it from?"
As it happens, they're both right.
Here's the short version: Energy (money) cannot be created, but it can be converted from one form to another. Work transforms energy and moves it into the economic system. A good analog might be to think of the economy as a plant and work as sunlight. Light (work) does not strictly speaking create more plant(economic growth) but it does supply energy to the system...and without it, obviously the whole thing fails, withering and dying.
Now lets get complicated.
The market force itself is a mechanism, matching supply with demand. This machine, seemingly as simple as a lever and fulcrum, is instantly complicated by human motivations that frequently ignore the simple logic of a mechanism. Often there are demands created not by a genuine need (in the survival sense of the word) but by a perceived need. Also there are wants, which create further demands that the market must, by its very nature as an exchange mechanism for energy within the system, try and fulfill.
Now lets draw these threads together; Money is the medium by which we manipulate the free energy in the social system, allowing demands (including survival demands such as food and shelter) to be met in an efficient manner. Got that? Moving on...
So if money is the key to meeting demands (of whatever kind) in the social system, nobody should be surprised by the idea that every single rational human being wants to have as much of it as they can possibly get. There are a host of natural and manufactured imperatives for this, ranging from instinctual survival to dating/mating and social dominance to entertainment. The most valuable asset most people have is their house and/or land. Since the population is almost always increasing and there is almost always a demand for more housing, the temptation to sell for a substantial profit is great. Especially if you can artificially inflate the sale price.
This is where the whole thing really starts.
I choose my words intentionally when I say "artificially inflate". There are a host of reasons why a house might be sold at more or less than its "real" price. Location matters such as proximity to hospitals or schools, retailers or employers. Crime rates or vulnerability to natural disasters might factor in as well. The immediacy of need; my own family once found itself in a situation where we absolutely needed to find a place to live in particular region during the winter. Not exactly optimal for the buyer's side of the ledger. All of these things are perfectly normal and generally do not disrupt normal market functions much, if at all, depending on how acute they may be. In a Capitalist economy though, you can try and buy or sell at whatever price you think you can get away with.
When selling real property, there is almost always a third party involved whose job it is to assess the value of the property in question. A number of factors are involved, include those mentioned above. During the latest housing boom though, a new factor entered the equation, "How much do you want this to sell for and what's my commission going to look like?"
This started small but grew rapidly until houses and properties were being valued not according to what they were actually worth but rather how much profit could be made by sellers, lenders and assessment companies. As a result, the entire market started selling houses at inflated rates to people whose needs frequently forced them to accept loan terms they wouldn't be able to meet in anything but absolutely _perfect_ circumstances.
The first, most obvious question we all have to ask is, "Why on earth did lenders make such obviously irresponsible loans in the first place? Why weren't they afraid of a wave of mass defaults?" The answer is painful and in some ways brilliant, at least on their part. They didn't hold onto the debts.
Once large numbers of these mortgages started to accumulate, the lending institutions started bundling them together as blocks of debt, sold under the label of "Mortgage Backed Securities." American real-estate was the most solid asset in the world and buyers around the world flocked to buy these products, assuming them to all be guaranteed income generators as debtors payed off their mortgages. The bad paper by this point was spread all about the world.
The defaults began and red ink ran like blood at Iwo Jima.
This is a simplified version of things. The cascade hasn't finished yet and more factors are coming into play.
The point is, none of this is the fault of the free market itself. The market is a mechanism, nothing more or less. Like any machine it functions exactly as it is designed to unless you screw with it. Artificially inflating home prices counted as screwing with it and as a result the entire system operated, for years, as though it had more money than it really did. Goods and services were produced that weren't backed up by real energy and as a result the entire system is now, violently, re-balancing itself. All of this comes about, not because the market is good or evil or because of anything outside of the stupid, short-sighted decisions made by the operators of that vast mechanism we call the market.
People did this. Not systems, people.
So, as the song goes, "Where do we go from here?"
The simple answer is, we go forward. In one sense, the current would-be Proletariat are right; the free market has failed, though not because of any systemic flaw. Rather it has failed because we haven't operated it correctly. The near future will undoubtedly see a shift towards greater oversight, more extensive regulations to try and deter this sort of abuse. That is as it should be but I must emphasize and cannot overemphasize that we must be extremely cautious that we do not over correct, dipping towards command economics. Perhaps a mixed-economy approach would be good, allowing businesses free reign until they become a threat to national interest, then either breaking them up into smaller interests or outright nationalizing them, if their product or service becomes essential, such with utilities or transportation networks.
Whatever the case, we can safely say that the market as we have known it is certainly going to go away, replaced by something that will, in all probability, be very much the same, but different in a small but important way that will make it more robust in the face of parasitic cleverness. Systemic Darwinism, if you like, "Decent with modification."
It is interesting and perhaps worthwhile to note that the Tarot symbol for change is the Death card, capturing the concept that in order for something new to begin, some old has to end. Therefore, again, the would be revolutionaries around the world are right, in a sense.
The Market is Dead; Long Live the Market!
How many times in modern history have people proclaimed the end of a major institution, only to be proven wrong? Hard saying.
How many times have people, upon surviving the end of an institution, later proclaimed the vindication of said institution when its vanquisher is later brought into disrepute or is itself deposed in favor of a third thing? Equally hard to say.
One thing that is beyond debate however is that there is currently a fad of claiming that the failure of present capitalist market systems somehow vindicates Communism. I am not making this up. In my regular daily immersion in the information streams supplied by extraterrestrial sources (not as crazy as it sounds) I have in the previous few weeks heard a small but growing number of voices from all over the world and many walks of life proclaiming that the current global economic crisis is proof positive that capitalism is a failed, non-viable, inequitable and basically evil horror, finally revealed for the monster it is. These people are not universally insane, ignorant or anarchists or tyrants. Although even Marx would admit that a disproportionate number of collectivists are generally poor and for various reasons disaffected.
What is disturbing (particularly here in the U.S.) is that so many people seem to be caught in a bi-polar cognitive extremism; the argument essentially being that, "An economy must be either Capitalist or Communist. There are no other options nor any middle ground."
This is obviously a false dilemma to anyone with a fractional understanding of economic systems and/or the reasoning ability of a small child. When people's finances are threatened however, both understanding and reason often go out the window, hurled by a massive explosion of emotional reaction. This is neither surprising nor difficult to understand. Wealth is the medium of survival in the modern world and the most primal instinct burned into every cell of every living creature is survive. I'm getting ahead of myself however. Let's start (as always) with first principles.
What is money? Money is not, in and of itself, anything real. Money is a symbol, a marker like a poker chip. So what, then, is it symbolic of? Without delving into a lot of history that is not, for the moment, relevant in a practical sense we'll simply say that money is representative of the amount of energy available in the social system. Any commodity or service can be explained in terms of the amount of energy it requires to produce/provide. This is where all economic theories begin and from whence they begin to diverge.
One argument says that the social system is closed in this regard, that no energy is gained or lost, only distributed. Detractors call it the "zero sum game" and it is the underlying basis of Communism, "There's only so much wealth to go around, so we have to make sure everyone gets a fair share." The counter argument says that new energy is added by the labor of participants in the social system. "Work creates wealth," as they say in Capitalist circles. What the proponents of this argument tend to fail to address is whether not the door swings both ways; can energy also leave the system? Some adamantly deny this, most ignore it and a few spend uncomfortable minutes examining their shoes. What most Communists get hung up on isn't actually where it all might go, but rather where it comes from. The question/argument boils down to, "Energy cannot be either created or destroyed, so where are you bastards getting it from?"
As it happens, they're both right.
Here's the short version: Energy (money) cannot be created, but it can be converted from one form to another. Work transforms energy and moves it into the economic system. A good analog might be to think of the economy as a plant and work as sunlight. Light (work) does not strictly speaking create more plant(economic growth) but it does supply energy to the system...and without it, obviously the whole thing fails, withering and dying.
Now lets get complicated.
The market force itself is a mechanism, matching supply with demand. This machine, seemingly as simple as a lever and fulcrum, is instantly complicated by human motivations that frequently ignore the simple logic of a mechanism. Often there are demands created not by a genuine need (in the survival sense of the word) but by a perceived need. Also there are wants, which create further demands that the market must, by its very nature as an exchange mechanism for energy within the system, try and fulfill.
Now lets draw these threads together; Money is the medium by which we manipulate the free energy in the social system, allowing demands (including survival demands such as food and shelter) to be met in an efficient manner. Got that? Moving on...
So if money is the key to meeting demands (of whatever kind) in the social system, nobody should be surprised by the idea that every single rational human being wants to have as much of it as they can possibly get. There are a host of natural and manufactured imperatives for this, ranging from instinctual survival to dating/mating and social dominance to entertainment. The most valuable asset most people have is their house and/or land. Since the population is almost always increasing and there is almost always a demand for more housing, the temptation to sell for a substantial profit is great. Especially if you can artificially inflate the sale price.
This is where the whole thing really starts.
I choose my words intentionally when I say "artificially inflate". There are a host of reasons why a house might be sold at more or less than its "real" price. Location matters such as proximity to hospitals or schools, retailers or employers. Crime rates or vulnerability to natural disasters might factor in as well. The immediacy of need; my own family once found itself in a situation where we absolutely needed to find a place to live in particular region during the winter. Not exactly optimal for the buyer's side of the ledger. All of these things are perfectly normal and generally do not disrupt normal market functions much, if at all, depending on how acute they may be. In a Capitalist economy though, you can try and buy or sell at whatever price you think you can get away with.
When selling real property, there is almost always a third party involved whose job it is to assess the value of the property in question. A number of factors are involved, include those mentioned above. During the latest housing boom though, a new factor entered the equation, "How much do you want this to sell for and what's my commission going to look like?"
This started small but grew rapidly until houses and properties were being valued not according to what they were actually worth but rather how much profit could be made by sellers, lenders and assessment companies. As a result, the entire market started selling houses at inflated rates to people whose needs frequently forced them to accept loan terms they wouldn't be able to meet in anything but absolutely _perfect_ circumstances.
The first, most obvious question we all have to ask is, "Why on earth did lenders make such obviously irresponsible loans in the first place? Why weren't they afraid of a wave of mass defaults?" The answer is painful and in some ways brilliant, at least on their part. They didn't hold onto the debts.
Once large numbers of these mortgages started to accumulate, the lending institutions started bundling them together as blocks of debt, sold under the label of "Mortgage Backed Securities." American real-estate was the most solid asset in the world and buyers around the world flocked to buy these products, assuming them to all be guaranteed income generators as debtors payed off their mortgages. The bad paper by this point was spread all about the world.
The defaults began and red ink ran like blood at Iwo Jima.
This is a simplified version of things. The cascade hasn't finished yet and more factors are coming into play.
The point is, none of this is the fault of the free market itself. The market is a mechanism, nothing more or less. Like any machine it functions exactly as it is designed to unless you screw with it. Artificially inflating home prices counted as screwing with it and as a result the entire system operated, for years, as though it had more money than it really did. Goods and services were produced that weren't backed up by real energy and as a result the entire system is now, violently, re-balancing itself. All of this comes about, not because the market is good or evil or because of anything outside of the stupid, short-sighted decisions made by the operators of that vast mechanism we call the market.
People did this. Not systems, people.
So, as the song goes, "Where do we go from here?"
The simple answer is, we go forward. In one sense, the current would-be Proletariat are right; the free market has failed, though not because of any systemic flaw. Rather it has failed because we haven't operated it correctly. The near future will undoubtedly see a shift towards greater oversight, more extensive regulations to try and deter this sort of abuse. That is as it should be but I must emphasize and cannot overemphasize that we must be extremely cautious that we do not over correct, dipping towards command economics. Perhaps a mixed-economy approach would be good, allowing businesses free reign until they become a threat to national interest, then either breaking them up into smaller interests or outright nationalizing them, if their product or service becomes essential, such with utilities or transportation networks.
Whatever the case, we can safely say that the market as we have known it is certainly going to go away, replaced by something that will, in all probability, be very much the same, but different in a small but important way that will make it more robust in the face of parasitic cleverness. Systemic Darwinism, if you like, "Decent with modification."
It is interesting and perhaps worthwhile to note that the Tarot symbol for change is the Death card, capturing the concept that in order for something new to begin, some old has to end. Therefore, again, the would be revolutionaries around the world are right, in a sense.
The Market is Dead; Long Live the Market!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)