Let me see if I have this right. I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me.
For thirty years you believed Republicans when they said deficits don't matter. While they were promoting this idea, you were happy with the tax cuts they made, believing that "starving the beast" was a good thing because Republicans told you it was.
Now you've changed your tune and you believe that deficits do matter but hasn't occurred to you that they lied to you for thirty years about deficits. Deficits do matter and they told you they didn't.
In the meantime, they've cut taxes - i.e. revenue - and made up the difference by borrowing so that the government could maintain it's obligations to it's people. Even though they've cut revenue income and replaced it with borrowed funds that must be repaid, you now believe them when they tell you that we have a spending crisis and not a revenue crisis?
Beyond that, when it comes to creating jobs you believe Republicans when they tell you that further tax cuts (additional reductions in revenue forcing more borrowing) will somehow create jobs. Yet the numbers are pretty clear. During the Clinton administration (eight years), more jobs were created than during the Reagan administration (eight years), the Bush I administration (four years) and the Bush II administration (eight years) ... combined! But, in spite of the numbers, you believe them.
When Republicans tell you that "tax credits" are a good thing you believe them because you believe anything that reduces taxes for anyone must be a good thing ... and because that's what Republicans have been telling you for years. They don't bother to mention that even though "tax credits" may reduce taxes for some, they leave a gap in tax revenue that must be made up for either by additional borrowing or higher taxes for others.
For years Republicans have told you that government is inefficient and you believe them ... in spite of the fact that Medicare (a government administered program) delivers excellent health care for 41.61 million people with only a 3% overhead while private insurance companies require more the 15% to provide service that's not as good. Paying 5x for the same or inferior service doesn't seem like the epitome of efficiency. (Ask anyone who's paid for their own insurance for any period of time before qualifying for Medicare which of the two they prefer.) Keep in mind that for the most part Medicare delivers services to people who are 65+; people who tend to need more health care services, while private insurance companies a.) serve a younger demographic who tend to need less health care overall, b.) have eliminated people with preexisting conditions (i.e., people who actually need health care) and retain people who don't need health care and c.) limit coverage with it gets too expensive - making the disparity even more striking.
Every system has waste but when Republicans talk about waste, they only talk about it in terms of government waste, without comparison to anything else ... but you believe them when they say government is wasteful. It is. But compared to what?
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
10 Republican Lies About the Bush Tax Cuts
So it's come down to this. On Saturday, David Stockman, the legendary Reagan budget chief who presided over the Gipper's supply-side tax cuts, announced that the "debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." The next day, the former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who famously helped sell the 2001 Bush tax cuts to Congress, declared them simply "disastrous."
Sadly, Stockman and Greenspan are just about the only voices in the Republican Party speaking the truth about the fiscal devastation wrought by the expiring Bush tax cuts. After all, the national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again during the tenure of George W. Bush. And as it turns out, the Bush tax cut windfall for the wealthy accounted for almost half the budget deficits during his presidency and, if made permanent, would contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession - combined. Of course, you'd never know it listening to the leaders of GOP.
Read up on the 10 Lies here ...
Sadly, Stockman and Greenspan are just about the only voices in the Republican Party speaking the truth about the fiscal devastation wrought by the expiring Bush tax cuts. After all, the national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan, only to double again during the tenure of George W. Bush. And as it turns out, the Bush tax cut windfall for the wealthy accounted for almost half the budget deficits during his presidency and, if made permanent, would contribute more to the U.S. budget deficit than the Obama stimulus, the TARP program, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and revenue lost to the recession - combined. Of course, you'd never know it listening to the leaders of GOP.
Read up on the 10 Lies here ...
Monday, May 09, 2011
Sunday, May 08, 2011
An Open Apology to an Ayn Rand Fan
I'm sorry you've taken what I've said as an attack on your intellect. I admit that my interpersonal skills are flawed but I honestly though I was giving your opinions all the respect they are due. After all, you offered a tightly reasoned argument (in the form of an urban legend written by someone else that you didn't credit) and concluded "Socialism doesn't work."
I attempted to question your logic by offering a counter example of a situation in which capitalism didn't work (18th and early 19th century fire companies*) followed by a text book recitation of why it's a logical error to extract a general principle from a single, specific instance: effectively, if a saw fails at pounding nails does that mean it fails as a tool?
You quickly, succinctly and eloquently refuted my argument - well, not really refuted it. To refute it would involve pointing out where my error was. What you did say was, "I don't buy it."
Now, given that the example of fire companies that I gave is historically accurate and the recitation I provided demonstrating that it's a logical error to draw a general conclusion from a single instance parallels every textbook on the subject of logic, I can only conclude that what you're not buying is logic itself and that you have developed a means of analysis superior to logic. I'll take your word for it. Unfortunately, my intellect is saddled with the constraints of logic which render me incapable of "free thinking". I now recognize that logic is a handicap like the blinders worn by slavish draft horses that prevent them from looking at anything that isn't directly in front of them.
I admit that I made a grave error in neglecting to point out that the socialism practiced by the successful constitutional democracies of Europe (and Japan) is not quite the same socialism that was practiced by the totalitarian Soviet Union - which history indeed tells us failed - so you were right about history! Well, you were sorta right... if you assume the the socialism of the successful countries of Europe was the same as the Soviet socialism... but, heck, the Soviet Union did actually have "Socialist" in their name and that should be enough to settle the matter! (Of course, the National Socialist German Workers Party [NAZI] had socialist in their name, too, yet they were rabidly anti-Communist. History tells us that socialists were among the first people they sent to the camps .... but that's another story altogether.)
In the meantime, we'll just have to wait a bit for history to prove that the now successful countries of Europe will fail as a result of their misguided implementations of what I believe you would define as socialist ideas throughout their economies. But from my read of what you'd written, it's obvious that history will vindicate your position and that the now successful countries of Europe (and Japan) will eventually fail.
Far from questioning your intellect, I admire it! History shows us that single minded, blind dedication to an idea often triumphs over mere logic. That's why I recommended that you establish an economics consultancy in order to save the countries of Europe (and Japan) from their inevitable failure. I would not presume to do so myself because my knowledge of economics (hampered as it is by the restrictions of logic) is incomplete and obviously inadequate. But you, on the other hand - unhampered by logic and in possession of the truth that history shows us - that socialism doesn't work - have far more to offer than I would.
So, bottom line, I most sincerely apologize if you took what I have written as questioning your intellect. I hope that you will accept my apology in the spirit in which it's offered.
*Late 18th and early 19th century for-profit fire companies did, in the spirit of totally unrestricted , unregulated free enterprise, evolved a business model that would be admired by Mafia dons running down and dirty protection rackets in the early and mid-20th century - as in "pay up or we'll burn yer f&%king house down."
I attempted to question your logic by offering a counter example of a situation in which capitalism didn't work (18th and early 19th century fire companies*) followed by a text book recitation of why it's a logical error to extract a general principle from a single, specific instance: effectively, if a saw fails at pounding nails does that mean it fails as a tool?
You quickly, succinctly and eloquently refuted my argument - well, not really refuted it. To refute it would involve pointing out where my error was. What you did say was, "I don't buy it."
Now, given that the example of fire companies that I gave is historically accurate and the recitation I provided demonstrating that it's a logical error to draw a general conclusion from a single instance parallels every textbook on the subject of logic, I can only conclude that what you're not buying is logic itself and that you have developed a means of analysis superior to logic. I'll take your word for it. Unfortunately, my intellect is saddled with the constraints of logic which render me incapable of "free thinking". I now recognize that logic is a handicap like the blinders worn by slavish draft horses that prevent them from looking at anything that isn't directly in front of them.
I admit that I made a grave error in neglecting to point out that the socialism practiced by the successful constitutional democracies of Europe (and Japan) is not quite the same socialism that was practiced by the totalitarian Soviet Union - which history indeed tells us failed - so you were right about history! Well, you were sorta right... if you assume the the socialism of the successful countries of Europe was the same as the Soviet socialism... but, heck, the Soviet Union did actually have "Socialist" in their name and that should be enough to settle the matter! (Of course, the National Socialist German Workers Party [NAZI] had socialist in their name, too, yet they were rabidly anti-Communist. History tells us that socialists were among the first people they sent to the camps .... but that's another story altogether.)
In the meantime, we'll just have to wait a bit for history to prove that the now successful countries of Europe will fail as a result of their misguided implementations of what I believe you would define as socialist ideas throughout their economies. But from my read of what you'd written, it's obvious that history will vindicate your position and that the now successful countries of Europe (and Japan) will eventually fail.
Far from questioning your intellect, I admire it! History shows us that single minded, blind dedication to an idea often triumphs over mere logic. That's why I recommended that you establish an economics consultancy in order to save the countries of Europe (and Japan) from their inevitable failure. I would not presume to do so myself because my knowledge of economics (hampered as it is by the restrictions of logic) is incomplete and obviously inadequate. But you, on the other hand - unhampered by logic and in possession of the truth that history shows us - that socialism doesn't work - have far more to offer than I would.
So, bottom line, I most sincerely apologize if you took what I have written as questioning your intellect. I hope that you will accept my apology in the spirit in which it's offered.
*Late 18th and early 19th century for-profit fire companies did, in the spirit of totally unrestricted , unregulated free enterprise, evolved a business model that would be admired by Mafia dons running down and dirty protection rackets in the early and mid-20th century - as in "pay up or we'll burn yer f&%king house down."
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Who Really Won This Round?
The question that troubles me is who is going to have the last laugh?
In his first taped statement following the 9/11 attack, bed Linen outlined his strategy. His objective, he said, was to bankrupt America. His plan was to do something very dramatic (9/11) to which we'd have to react. He succeeded. He anticipated that we would over react. We did. We put an army in the field at great cost. Bed Linen must have been rolling with laughter when we invaded Iraq and opened a second war in a place that would be significantly more expensive to field an army that Afghanistan. That it had nothing to do with him and his 9/11 attack on us was frosting on the cake. A standing army in somebody else's country generally pi$$es of the people of that country (not to mention all of their friends). The invasion of Iraq a.) divided all those who supported us in our actions in Afghanistan to that point; b.) united our enemies in the Arab world and c.) provided an unimaginably fantastic recruiting tool for al Qaeda and their franchises throughout the world.
Now, with a war cost estimated by some to be on the order of $3T (economist Joseph Stiglitz [1],) including external war fighting, internal security and off budget, "emergency" funding .. we are finding that we are close to bankruptcy. Mission accomplished?
Bed Linen had a template and a proof of concept already in hand. The Soviet Union was tied up in Afghanistan for a decade and, as much as some of us like to think that Reagan telling Gorby to "tear down that wall" did the trick - it was Afghanistan that was the straw on the camels back that broke the Soviet Union. Their economy simply couldn't sustain an arms race with us and a never ending war in Afghanistan. One or the other, maybe ... but not both.
While we played checkers for the better part of a decade, bed Linen was playing chess. He's dead ... but we're close to bankrupt and running around like chickens with our heads cut off, trying to figure a way out of a dilemma we've created for ourselves by sending armies to do what a team of SEALS supported by good "police work" could have accomplished in the first place.
We got him! Yes!
But I don't think there's much to celebrate if, in the end, he accomplishes his mission anyway.
In his first taped statement following the 9/11 attack, bed Linen outlined his strategy. His objective, he said, was to bankrupt America. His plan was to do something very dramatic (9/11) to which we'd have to react. He succeeded. He anticipated that we would over react. We did. We put an army in the field at great cost. Bed Linen must have been rolling with laughter when we invaded Iraq and opened a second war in a place that would be significantly more expensive to field an army that Afghanistan. That it had nothing to do with him and his 9/11 attack on us was frosting on the cake. A standing army in somebody else's country generally pi$$es of the people of that country (not to mention all of their friends). The invasion of Iraq a.) divided all those who supported us in our actions in Afghanistan to that point; b.) united our enemies in the Arab world and c.) provided an unimaginably fantastic recruiting tool for al Qaeda and their franchises throughout the world.
Now, with a war cost estimated by some to be on the order of $3T (economist Joseph Stiglitz [1],) including external war fighting, internal security and off budget, "emergency" funding .. we are finding that we are close to bankruptcy. Mission accomplished?
Bed Linen had a template and a proof of concept already in hand. The Soviet Union was tied up in Afghanistan for a decade and, as much as some of us like to think that Reagan telling Gorby to "tear down that wall" did the trick - it was Afghanistan that was the straw on the camels back that broke the Soviet Union. Their economy simply couldn't sustain an arms race with us and a never ending war in Afghanistan. One or the other, maybe ... but not both.
While we played checkers for the better part of a decade, bed Linen was playing chess. He's dead ... but we're close to bankrupt and running around like chickens with our heads cut off, trying to figure a way out of a dilemma we've created for ourselves by sending armies to do what a team of SEALS supported by good "police work" could have accomplished in the first place.
We got him! Yes!
But I don't think there's much to celebrate if, in the end, he accomplishes his mission anyway.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Random thoughts on bin Laden
"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."
— Mark Twain
OBAMA: "I made killing or capturing Bin Laden our top priority"
GOP: "NO Gay Marriage" (because their so tough on terrorism)
Some are suggesting that Bush get substantial credit for tracking down bin Laden. Perhaps they have a point. After all, Bush made thorough search of all the places that Osama bin Laden probably wouldn't be... like Iraq, for example. Then, Bush having ruled out all the places bin Laden wasn't, Barack Obama only had to focus on the places in which bin Laden probably was. The process of elimination is a well regarded forensic tool and, seeing that there were more places in which bin Laden wasn't, the argument could be made that Bush did the lion's share of the work.
— Mark Twain
OBAMA: "I made killing or capturing Bin Laden our top priority"
GOP: "NO Gay Marriage" (because their so tough on terrorism)
Some are suggesting that Bush get substantial credit for tracking down bin Laden. Perhaps they have a point. After all, Bush made thorough search of all the places that Osama bin Laden probably wouldn't be... like Iraq, for example. Then, Bush having ruled out all the places bin Laden wasn't, Barack Obama only had to focus on the places in which bin Laden probably was. The process of elimination is a well regarded forensic tool and, seeing that there were more places in which bin Laden wasn't, the argument could be made that Bush did the lion's share of the work.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Facing the Unknowable
A fundamentalist, Christian acquaintance of mine sent me a note with a link to an article describing the worship services of the Pentecostal Church in rather derogatory terms. The subject line on his note was, "There's certainly whackos in my world too...lol".
Perhaps I was incorrect in assuming that he was trying to point out that we were both somehow on the same side or maybe that he was more rational than some other people (and therefore somehow superior).
I was a little taken aback. We've known each other for more than a decade. I'm familiar with his fundamentalism and he knows I have a rather dim view of organized religions in general. It took me two days to collect my thoughts and respond. The following is my response:
Perhaps I was incorrect in assuming that he was trying to point out that we were both somehow on the same side or maybe that he was more rational than some other people (and therefore somehow superior).
I was a little taken aback. We've known each other for more than a decade. I'm familiar with his fundamentalism and he knows I have a rather dim view of organized religions in general. It took me two days to collect my thoughts and respond. The following is my response:
In the war over who's imaginary friend is more real, the actions of the Pentecostals look no more strange to me than the dresses the Popes wear or Aztecs imagining that ripping the living hearts out of their virgin daughters in the hope it would bring rain or 21st century people looking to the pronouncements of desert dwellers from 2,000 years ago, who herded sheep and goats for a living and thought the earth was flat, for predictions about our near future.
The holders of each of those belief sets embraces his beliefs equally seriously and equally sincerely. Each believes with equal conviction that they have a handle on the absolute truth. For any of them to imagine that their beliefs are somehow superior to another's is an act of simple hubris, allowing one believer to feel the smugness of holding themselves apart a from their brothers and looking looking down on them.
They all get an equal level of respect from me, and frankly, less respect than it might be for the reason stated above.
It seems to me that, when facing the humanly unknowable, one should be more humble and consider: "What if I'm wrong?"
Monday, April 18, 2011
Ayn Rand set the standard
I've been doing some research, looking for the one place on the planet where those who live their lives by the values expressed by Ayn Rand would feel most at home. Given that the United States with all its taxes and regulations and it's nanny-welfare state is obviously a highly uncomfortable environment for them, I've had to broaden my horizons and look elsewhere. But first, the criteria for the ideal state:
1.) Government so small that it can be drown in a bathtub.
2.) An environment that is "business friendly", that is to say one that is unencumbered by regulations or restrictions on business.
3.) Possessing a society that encourages "free enterprise", allowing for the minimum investment of capital to provide opportunities for maximum profit.
4.) Minimized or absence of income, corporate, capital gains or death taxation which would allow those who earn the opportunity to keep what they earn without suffering the forced redistribution of wealth by government bureaucracies.
As uncomfortable as it is to live in the taxed, restricted and regulated conditions found in the USA, I had to rule out a list of countries that were significantly more taxed, regulated and restricted. This list included virtually all of the countries of Europe (as well as Canada). Though the countries of Europe are said to enjoy a high standard of living and rank high on virtually every index measuring quality of life, they are virtually all "socialist" countries that tax their citizens without mercy to support their nanny-welfare state programs of universal health care and/or universal education. It is obvious, even with the most cursory examinations that the people of these countries have been deluded by a liberal press into believing that life is good - not realizing that life could be so much better if they would only adopt the principals outlined by Ann Rand in her novels, "Atlas Shrugged" and "Fountainhead".
Most of the countries of South and Central America are burdened with "socialized medicine". Besides, Banana Republics have a bad habit of nationalizing things.
China must be ruled out as well. Though China offers a "business friendly" atmosphere, with few restrictions or regulations and minimal concerns about business impacts on the overall environment, their centralized government can change policy on a dime and nationalize the fruits of an entrepreneur's labors over night. China also mandates through it's laws that their government be part owner in any business franchise originating outside the country. This usurpation of ownership by the government and the uncertainty of tomorrow's business policy is an anathema to honest free enterprise.
Many of the other countries of Southeast and South Asia fall in the category of totalitarian dictatorships. These must be ruled out as possibilities, too. Tax policy and other restrictions and regulations imposed on business span the spectrum from capricious and unpredictable to draconian and rapacious.
This applies equally to the countries of the Middle East, where successful businesses are family business and, in many cases, only one family (the ruling family) is allowed to have a successful business larger than a push cart.
After ruling out most of the countries on the planet as being hostile to the Ian Rand approach - either for their tax policy, the size and strength of their government or their nanny-welfare approach to their people - I believe I have isolated one country that provides an ideal Randian environment. Well, perhaps not ideal, but certainly more idea than all the others and it meets all of the criteria that I've listed above.
In this singular country one may, with a minimal investment, band together with several other investors and launch a free enterprise venture which, if successful, holds the potential for an extremely high ROI (Return On Investment). The successful venture will not be limited by government interference through either regulation or taxation - the government is, in fact, small enough to drown in a bathtub! The government of this country provides no burdening, tax supported public services, providing an atmosphere where real individual responsibility can flourish.
This Randian paradise offers a mild climate and uncounted miles of un-zoned beach front property just waiting to be developed without pesky environmental restriction - a perfect place for Atlas to Shrug to his heart's content, away from the pesky proletariat that is always threatening to unionize and agitate for handouts they've not worked for. Here, the entrepreneur is not burdened by demands for five day work weeks or overtime pay by those he employs. No more paid vacations for the worker bees! Here, true to the Randian Ideal, success provides its rewards in full measure and, as they should, those who fail fall by the wayside.
In an act of good faith and brotherhood, I herewith offer to coordinate the relocation - of ANY who long for this level of freedom, who want their personal responsibility to shine in this Fountainhead Paradise - to this Randian Nervanah - Somalia.
1.) Government so small that it can be drown in a bathtub.
2.) An environment that is "business friendly", that is to say one that is unencumbered by regulations or restrictions on business.
3.) Possessing a society that encourages "free enterprise", allowing for the minimum investment of capital to provide opportunities for maximum profit.
4.) Minimized or absence of income, corporate, capital gains or death taxation which would allow those who earn the opportunity to keep what they earn without suffering the forced redistribution of wealth by government bureaucracies.
As uncomfortable as it is to live in the taxed, restricted and regulated conditions found in the USA, I had to rule out a list of countries that were significantly more taxed, regulated and restricted. This list included virtually all of the countries of Europe (as well as Canada). Though the countries of Europe are said to enjoy a high standard of living and rank high on virtually every index measuring quality of life, they are virtually all "socialist" countries that tax their citizens without mercy to support their nanny-welfare state programs of universal health care and/or universal education. It is obvious, even with the most cursory examinations that the people of these countries have been deluded by a liberal press into believing that life is good - not realizing that life could be so much better if they would only adopt the principals outlined by Ann Rand in her novels, "Atlas Shrugged" and "Fountainhead".
Most of the countries of South and Central America are burdened with "socialized medicine". Besides, Banana Republics have a bad habit of nationalizing things.
China must be ruled out as well. Though China offers a "business friendly" atmosphere, with few restrictions or regulations and minimal concerns about business impacts on the overall environment, their centralized government can change policy on a dime and nationalize the fruits of an entrepreneur's labors over night. China also mandates through it's laws that their government be part owner in any business franchise originating outside the country. This usurpation of ownership by the government and the uncertainty of tomorrow's business policy is an anathema to honest free enterprise.
Many of the other countries of Southeast and South Asia fall in the category of totalitarian dictatorships. These must be ruled out as possibilities, too. Tax policy and other restrictions and regulations imposed on business span the spectrum from capricious and unpredictable to draconian and rapacious.
This applies equally to the countries of the Middle East, where successful businesses are family business and, in many cases, only one family (the ruling family) is allowed to have a successful business larger than a push cart.
After ruling out most of the countries on the planet as being hostile to the Ian Rand approach - either for their tax policy, the size and strength of their government or their nanny-welfare approach to their people - I believe I have isolated one country that provides an ideal Randian environment. Well, perhaps not ideal, but certainly more idea than all the others and it meets all of the criteria that I've listed above.
In this singular country one may, with a minimal investment, band together with several other investors and launch a free enterprise venture which, if successful, holds the potential for an extremely high ROI (Return On Investment). The successful venture will not be limited by government interference through either regulation or taxation - the government is, in fact, small enough to drown in a bathtub! The government of this country provides no burdening, tax supported public services, providing an atmosphere where real individual responsibility can flourish.
This Randian paradise offers a mild climate and uncounted miles of un-zoned beach front property just waiting to be developed without pesky environmental restriction - a perfect place for Atlas to Shrug to his heart's content, away from the pesky proletariat that is always threatening to unionize and agitate for handouts they've not worked for. Here, the entrepreneur is not burdened by demands for five day work weeks or overtime pay by those he employs. No more paid vacations for the worker bees! Here, true to the Randian Ideal, success provides its rewards in full measure and, as they should, those who fail fall by the wayside.
In an act of good faith and brotherhood, I herewith offer to coordinate the relocation - of ANY who long for this level of freedom, who want their personal responsibility to shine in this Fountainhead Paradise - to this Randian Nervanah - Somalia.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
The Ducabores Explain Economics
My father once told me a story about the Ducabores, a tribe in the wilds of Siberia. It seems that a rare species of potent psychotropic mushroom grew in their region and, when ever some of the mushrooms were found, it was cause for great celebration. On the evening of the find, the women brewed a strong tea from the mushrooms. However, because the mushrooms were very rare, only the headmen of the tribe (the leaders and wealthiest) could have the tea. The good news was that the tea lost only a little of it's potency as it passed through the body so, the lesser of the tribe waited for the inevitable, cups in hand near the tribal latrine. When the headmen came to relieve themselves, the precious, golden liquid was captured in the waiting cups so that all in the tribe could share in the good times.
When ever I hear someone use the term "trickle down economics", this image leaps to mind.
When ever I hear someone use the term "trickle down economics", this image leaps to mind.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Governing with Republicans - Bill Maher
MAHER: New Rule – Fantasies are for sex, not public policy. When you go down the list of useless distractions that make up the Republican Party agenda; public unions and Sharia law, anchor babies and a mosque at ground zero, ACORN and National Public Radio, the war on Christmas, the New Black Panthers, Planned Parenthood, Michelle Obama’s war on desserts…
…you realize that one reason nothing gets done in America is that one of the political parties puts so much more into fantasy problems. Governing this country with Republicans is like rooming with a meth addict.
You want to address real life problems like when the rent is due and they’re saying “How can you even think of that stuff when there’s police scanner voices coming out of the air conditioning unit?”
(source)
…you realize that one reason nothing gets done in America is that one of the political parties puts so much more into fantasy problems. Governing this country with Republicans is like rooming with a meth addict.
You want to address real life problems like when the rent is due and they’re saying “How can you even think of that stuff when there’s police scanner voices coming out of the air conditioning unit?”
(source)
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Tax Incentives Might Not Work the Way You Think They Do
Ya know ... I've been wondering. Why do these "business friendly" folks think for a minute that low taxes are particularly good for business. They aren't.
As an investor (I've got a couple bucks on the table), if taxes are low, I'm encouraged to speculate ... follow a run up, then take profits at the high point because low taxes means there's no significant tax penalty for taking my profits out of the company.
On the other hand, if taxes are high, the incentive is to leave my profits on the table, invested in the company because, if I take the profits I get hit with high taxes on the income (increase in stock price). As long as I leave my money invested in the company it can grow with the company and suffer no tax penalty ... and it can grow infinitely as long as I don't trade, taking the money out of the company I invested in.
There are implications that go further. Companies can't count on my investment for expansion, which in turn would mean jobs. If they maximize profits on a quarterly basis, they can be assured I'll be there .... for the short term ... but not for the long haul. Higher taxes gives me incentive to keep my money in place ... giving them a resource they can count on ... which allows them to grow the business (rather than playing games with the books to satisfy short term speculation). Lower taxes give me incentive to keep my money on the move.
One of the most productive times in history was the period following the Second World War (1945 to Reagan) ... businesses expanded, we had a steel industry, we had a textile industry and we exported more than we imported. We made money hand over fist ... and taxes on income at the high end were between 70% and 90%. An investment was an investment in the classical sense of the term. It stayed put. Now, with lower taxes, so-called investment moves in and out of companies like the tides. At high tide a company cannot imagine expansion or hiring because they know that low tide is coming.
I'm sure I'm not the only person on the planet who's aware of this. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether the taxes are higher or lower - you play the game by the rules and, be assured, all rules have good sides and bad sides ... changing the tax rules only shifts the strategy, not necessarily the outcome.
As an investor (I've got a couple bucks on the table), if taxes are low, I'm encouraged to speculate ... follow a run up, then take profits at the high point because low taxes means there's no significant tax penalty for taking my profits out of the company.
On the other hand, if taxes are high, the incentive is to leave my profits on the table, invested in the company because, if I take the profits I get hit with high taxes on the income (increase in stock price). As long as I leave my money invested in the company it can grow with the company and suffer no tax penalty ... and it can grow infinitely as long as I don't trade, taking the money out of the company I invested in.
There are implications that go further. Companies can't count on my investment for expansion, which in turn would mean jobs. If they maximize profits on a quarterly basis, they can be assured I'll be there .... for the short term ... but not for the long haul. Higher taxes gives me incentive to keep my money in place ... giving them a resource they can count on ... which allows them to grow the business (rather than playing games with the books to satisfy short term speculation). Lower taxes give me incentive to keep my money on the move.
One of the most productive times in history was the period following the Second World War (1945 to Reagan) ... businesses expanded, we had a steel industry, we had a textile industry and we exported more than we imported. We made money hand over fist ... and taxes on income at the high end were between 70% and 90%. An investment was an investment in the classical sense of the term. It stayed put. Now, with lower taxes, so-called investment moves in and out of companies like the tides. At high tide a company cannot imagine expansion or hiring because they know that low tide is coming.
I'm sure I'm not the only person on the planet who's aware of this. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether the taxes are higher or lower - you play the game by the rules and, be assured, all rules have good sides and bad sides ... changing the tax rules only shifts the strategy, not necessarily the outcome.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
The absurdity of contemporary “free thinking” -or- things aren’t always what we say they are
I have recently encountered several people in the media, in discussions on the web and in person who label themselves as “free thinkers”.
Traditionally “freethought” or “free thinking” had a meaning. Wikipedia tells us that “Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.
It’s ironic that the term “traditionally” might be appropriate when refering to a definition of “freethought”. Perhaps “historically” would rest more easily on the ears? But I think there’s a case for it’s use. In western thought the idea of “freethought” has its origins in the period of The Enlightenment with thinkers like Voltaire in Europe and in the new world, Jefferson and Adams, who rejected the ideas of the past, specifically ideas like the divine right of kings and formulated the ideas of self determination to replace them. In a conservative society predicated on a hierarchy of aristocrats, clergy and commoners with traditions that had a place for everyone and kept everyone in their place, they imagined a world in which “all men are created equal” and where ideas survived on the basis of their merit rather than the presumed pedigree or inherited power of their proponent. They were the liberals of their time, embracing change to the extent that they actively mapped out how it could happen. They placed themselves in direct opposition to those who fought to maintain the status quo.
There are those among us now who consider themselves “free thinkers.” I don’t claim that status for myself. I only claim to be a thinker at best. It seems to me that to add a modifier to anything generally limits it. For example, if I use the word “apple”, one could anticipate that the picture balloons that appear in the heads of our readers could range from “red apple” to “yellow apple” to “candied apple” and “caramel apple”. If I modify the word “apple” to read “Granny Smith apple”, how many of those picture balloons instantly pop, replaced by a totally different image of a “green apple”? The word “apple” has been modified (and limited) by the words “Granny Smith”. I believe now the same principle functions when we modify “thought” to “freethought”.
We are told that things evolve over time. Is it possible that historical free thinking has evolved into something we might not recognize by reading the “traditional” definition of the term?
So, lets ask ourselves (if we are capable of questioning ourselves and our assumptions), just what is the meaning of “free thinking” these days? Is it freedom from something? Or is it the freedom to do something?
Perhaps it is the freedom from something. Is it the freedom from the culture in which we were raised? I don’t think that’s possible. The background of our culture, brought to us by our parents and by our religion (or lack of religious belief) or by our education all provide our tools for thought and the measures by which we judge our thoughts and the ideas of others.
As an example of how one can go terribly wrong by ignoring their cultural background, I offer a statement made by Kathleen Parker, a Caucasian, conservative, newspaper columnist and TV opinion show host, retained presumably for her ability to “think freely”; to analyze how things are in reality and to comment accordingly in order to provide perspective to her readers.
In a recent column dealing with racial issues Parker said, “I don’ t see things through a racial filter.” This blithely ignores the fact that we are all of one race or another. Her presumption here is that only people of races other than hers see things through a racial filter and that somehow, presumably because she’s white, she does not. I’m sure that, without realizing it, Ms. Parker called into question the validity of any opinion she had on the topic of race with such a statement. The fact of the matter is that Ms. Parker most certainly sees things through a racial filter … the filter that is part and parcel of being a Caucasian and, more specifically, a Caucasian in America. As much as Ms. Parker imagines her thinking is “free”, in this case free of prejudice … the reality does not pass even the most casual examination.
Does being a “free thinker” mean that we have freed our imagination to think about anything in any way that we can imagine? Does it mean that we are free to imagine our own facts. Or does it mean that, because we have freed our imagination, we are free to pick our facts and ignore that facts that don’t fit with what we imagine to be true? It would be contrary to the historical definition of “freethought” but evidence suggests that selective reality is perfectly consistent with contemporary interpretations of the term
Does “free thinking” mean the freedom from preconceived notions? Perhaps it does, but that is true only if we continually question our assumptions and our sense of being right. If we do not continually question what we believe and consider the possibility that we might be wrong then we run the risk of going a long way down the proverbial garden path. If we cannot admit to ourselves that our opinions might be wrong, it becomes doubly difficult for us when someone else provides evidence that we are, in fact, wrong. If we do not continually question what we believe, we run the risk of painting ourselves into a corner.
In a 2006 interview, Chalmers Johnson, author of “Blowback”, a long time CIA consultant and historian of the post-cold war era defended himself against the assertion that he had changed his position from the time when he was considered the consummate “cold warrior”. “When I get new information, I change my position.” he said. “What do you do?”
If the primary objective of thought is to find truth, then the process must be to gather the evidence and allow the evidence available to determine our conclusions. To pursue a conclusion by seeking only evidence that supports our opinion while ignoring the evidence that does not only serves to promote an agenda but at best it can only provide a half truth. Beyond that, if the evidence we have can be demonstrated to be false, we must remove it from our consideration and recalculate all of our conclusions that depend on it. All evidence must be tested for truth.
Or perhaps the contemporary term “free thinker” is simply used by some as a self serving means to distinguish themselves from others who are merely “thinkers”, implying that somehow “free thought” is of a better quality than just plain old thought. But that begs a question. How is “free thinking” better than “thinking”? What is it about “free thinking” that provides a greater guard against logical fallacies, the dread faulty premise and preconceived notions? What quality does “free thinking” possess that is a defense against prejudice and bigotry, doctrine and dogma? What is it about modifying that idea of “thinker” that liberates thought rather than restricts it?
It's presumptuous to adopt an appellation that has historically referred to giants of liberal though while promoting conservative agendas. To label ourselves “free thinking” while cutting and pasting conservative orthodoxy, foisting it on our readers as our own thinking, is to create an oxymoron on par with a “giant shrimp”. And when we betray the title by abandoning the evidence and the rules of logic by being dogmatic and doctrinaire, we render “freethought” the punchline of a joke that we wear on our sleeves.
Or to summarize, using a quote from “The Princess Bride”; “That word you used? I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
(If anyone is interested in precedents for this particular abuse of language; using a word for a thing that is in total conflict with the reality of the thing, I would recommend Googling the Orwellian term “newspeak”.)
Traditionally “freethought” or “free thinking” had a meaning. Wikipedia tells us that “Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.
It’s ironic that the term “traditionally” might be appropriate when refering to a definition of “freethought”. Perhaps “historically” would rest more easily on the ears? But I think there’s a case for it’s use. In western thought the idea of “freethought” has its origins in the period of The Enlightenment with thinkers like Voltaire in Europe and in the new world, Jefferson and Adams, who rejected the ideas of the past, specifically ideas like the divine right of kings and formulated the ideas of self determination to replace them. In a conservative society predicated on a hierarchy of aristocrats, clergy and commoners with traditions that had a place for everyone and kept everyone in their place, they imagined a world in which “all men are created equal” and where ideas survived on the basis of their merit rather than the presumed pedigree or inherited power of their proponent. They were the liberals of their time, embracing change to the extent that they actively mapped out how it could happen. They placed themselves in direct opposition to those who fought to maintain the status quo.
There are those among us now who consider themselves “free thinkers.” I don’t claim that status for myself. I only claim to be a thinker at best. It seems to me that to add a modifier to anything generally limits it. For example, if I use the word “apple”, one could anticipate that the picture balloons that appear in the heads of our readers could range from “red apple” to “yellow apple” to “candied apple” and “caramel apple”. If I modify the word “apple” to read “Granny Smith apple”, how many of those picture balloons instantly pop, replaced by a totally different image of a “green apple”? The word “apple” has been modified (and limited) by the words “Granny Smith”. I believe now the same principle functions when we modify “thought” to “freethought”.
We are told that things evolve over time. Is it possible that historical free thinking has evolved into something we might not recognize by reading the “traditional” definition of the term?
So, lets ask ourselves (if we are capable of questioning ourselves and our assumptions), just what is the meaning of “free thinking” these days? Is it freedom from something? Or is it the freedom to do something?
Perhaps it is the freedom from something. Is it the freedom from the culture in which we were raised? I don’t think that’s possible. The background of our culture, brought to us by our parents and by our religion (or lack of religious belief) or by our education all provide our tools for thought and the measures by which we judge our thoughts and the ideas of others.
As an example of how one can go terribly wrong by ignoring their cultural background, I offer a statement made by Kathleen Parker, a Caucasian, conservative, newspaper columnist and TV opinion show host, retained presumably for her ability to “think freely”; to analyze how things are in reality and to comment accordingly in order to provide perspective to her readers.
In a recent column dealing with racial issues Parker said, “I don’ t see things through a racial filter.” This blithely ignores the fact that we are all of one race or another. Her presumption here is that only people of races other than hers see things through a racial filter and that somehow, presumably because she’s white, she does not. I’m sure that, without realizing it, Ms. Parker called into question the validity of any opinion she had on the topic of race with such a statement. The fact of the matter is that Ms. Parker most certainly sees things through a racial filter … the filter that is part and parcel of being a Caucasian and, more specifically, a Caucasian in America. As much as Ms. Parker imagines her thinking is “free”, in this case free of prejudice … the reality does not pass even the most casual examination.
Does being a “free thinker” mean that we have freed our imagination to think about anything in any way that we can imagine? Does it mean that we are free to imagine our own facts. Or does it mean that, because we have freed our imagination, we are free to pick our facts and ignore that facts that don’t fit with what we imagine to be true? It would be contrary to the historical definition of “freethought” but evidence suggests that selective reality is perfectly consistent with contemporary interpretations of the term
Does “free thinking” mean the freedom from preconceived notions? Perhaps it does, but that is true only if we continually question our assumptions and our sense of being right. If we do not continually question what we believe and consider the possibility that we might be wrong then we run the risk of going a long way down the proverbial garden path. If we cannot admit to ourselves that our opinions might be wrong, it becomes doubly difficult for us when someone else provides evidence that we are, in fact, wrong. If we do not continually question what we believe, we run the risk of painting ourselves into a corner.
In a 2006 interview, Chalmers Johnson, author of “Blowback”, a long time CIA consultant and historian of the post-cold war era defended himself against the assertion that he had changed his position from the time when he was considered the consummate “cold warrior”. “When I get new information, I change my position.” he said. “What do you do?”
If the primary objective of thought is to find truth, then the process must be to gather the evidence and allow the evidence available to determine our conclusions. To pursue a conclusion by seeking only evidence that supports our opinion while ignoring the evidence that does not only serves to promote an agenda but at best it can only provide a half truth. Beyond that, if the evidence we have can be demonstrated to be false, we must remove it from our consideration and recalculate all of our conclusions that depend on it. All evidence must be tested for truth.
Or perhaps the contemporary term “free thinker” is simply used by some as a self serving means to distinguish themselves from others who are merely “thinkers”, implying that somehow “free thought” is of a better quality than just plain old thought. But that begs a question. How is “free thinking” better than “thinking”? What is it about “free thinking” that provides a greater guard against logical fallacies, the dread faulty premise and preconceived notions? What quality does “free thinking” possess that is a defense against prejudice and bigotry, doctrine and dogma? What is it about modifying that idea of “thinker” that liberates thought rather than restricts it?
It's presumptuous to adopt an appellation that has historically referred to giants of liberal though while promoting conservative agendas. To label ourselves “free thinking” while cutting and pasting conservative orthodoxy, foisting it on our readers as our own thinking, is to create an oxymoron on par with a “giant shrimp”. And when we betray the title by abandoning the evidence and the rules of logic by being dogmatic and doctrinaire, we render “freethought” the punchline of a joke that we wear on our sleeves.
Or to summarize, using a quote from “The Princess Bride”; “That word you used? I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
(If anyone is interested in precedents for this particular abuse of language; using a word for a thing that is in total conflict with the reality of the thing, I would recommend Googling the Orwellian term “newspeak”.)
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Christopher Hitchens: "All Of Life Is A Wager"
... or catch the video on YouTube.
In my opinion, few people have a greater understanding of life than Christopher Hitchens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)