Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

« Older Entries

The plot(?) to destroy Toyota

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

I know we have had to take the church bus to the local dealer because of a recall. But do not recall that it was national news.

Toyota has a problem that we are hearing about. Something about the gas pedal becoming stuck. Something like 17 fatalities because of this problem – obviously these persons put on the brake but the accelerator was stuck and the car kept right on going into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

(This almost happened to me and my brother years ago in Massachusetts but for different reasons. We had three cars – the third a Cheverolet Malibu Classic which my brother and I shared after we both started driving. Snow and ice can sometimes build up around the gas pedal and cause it to get stuck. I remember once having this problem and fighting – pushing down as hard as possible on the brake – to keep the car from pushing forward into intersections. My father was furious – very unusual – and angrily insisted the dealer fix the problem. Please note this is not necessarily a Cheverolet problem. I distinctly recall “how to fix a gas pedal stuck because of snow and ice” being a pretty standard problem that drivers in the North learn to deal with. Sort of like “what to do when your car skids while trying to brake on a snow covered road”. But the point is I have some understanding of what it is like when your gas pedal is stuck and the car wants to keep moving forward even with your foot on the brake.)

But there are a few things about this situation that has me wondering. Is this a plot to damage Toyota? Partly so that Americans will start buying cars from General Motors aka Government Motors?

Why would such a right wing paranoid thought cross my mind?

1) Transportation Secretary Roy LaHood. At one point he told Toyota drivers to stop driving their cars. The reaction was so strong – inciting panic! – he had to backtrack. “What I really meant was”.

2) The amazing amount of attention this problem is getting in the press. Last week was listening to National Public Radio – and they were speaking to a Toyota spokesperson. And the reporter was pressing the guy pretty hard. Tough questions. Response. Followed by “okay but what do you say?” pushing back. Which is not necessarily evidence for “liberal bias intended to support a plot to hurt Toyota”. Could be Standard Operating Procedure for good journalists. But the questions seemed pretty strong to me – especially compared to other interviews I have heard.

3) The hard cold fact that General Motors is now pretty much owned by the United State government. It is “our” automobile manufacturing company. Which means other car companies – such as Toyota or even Ford which is American – are the competition.

I note an article that I can across just now while typing this post by Mira Olberman: “Is United States bullying Toyota on recall?”

Good article that seems to show both sides. On the one hand you have a professor who says “this does not look good… But their behavior is consistent with the general behavior of the United States government”. On the other hand someone from Consumer Reports who says the reaction to the recall is overblown – really only a small percentage of Toyota vehicles have had this problem.

Weston Konishi (not with Toyota but with an American think tank) said:

Toyota is now a real stakeholder in the US economy — think of its auto plants and jobs — so trying to score points against it would be somewhat self-defeating.

He suggested only if Toyota cuts off contracts with American manufacturers of pedal assemblies (which itself is interesting) would the government have reason to make a big deal out of this problem.

I disagree with Konishi whose remarks appear (to this layperson) rather naive. The United States government does not see hurting Toyota as self-defeating. Sure we have Toyota plants and we have a couple hundred thousand Americans working for Toyota. But (a) those plants are mostly (entirely?) in predominantly Republican (less important) and (b) right-to-work states – in other words non-union jobs (much more important). The current administration has more than amply demonstrated that the interests of American labor unions trump other economic concerns. Hello? Why bail out General Motors and Chrysler? Why give the unions disproportionate ownership? Why in the course of crafting health care reform legislation give union health insurance plans special exemption from new taxes?

But what if?

What if Toyota for all its famed commitment to quality really has gotten sloppy?

We are a Toyota family. A committed Toyota family. First car we bought (not had) was a Toyota. When it died – we got another Toyota. We also have a Kia minivan and frankly we would trade it in for a Toyota in a heartbeat. (In fairness our frustration is more with the local Kia dealership. If we got better service we would probably be much happier with our Kia vehicle.)

But having said all that – we are aware that Toyota vehicles are not perfect.

The interiors are the worst. I think I have spent more money fixing the interior than anything else. Door handles and window buttons and door moldings snapping and breaking and peeling away. The car runs great and almost never needs repairs but the inside of the car is a disaster. Everything seems cheap and flimsy. True for both my current 1998 and our old 1992 Corolla.

And then there is the infamous “dude – where’s my engine oil?” problem that Toyota stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. That is how our 1992 Corolla died. The oil just… disappeared… and sure enough the engine seized up and died a horrible death. Toyota insists this commonly reported problem is the fault of owners who do not change the oil properly. When working in a soup kitchen in Houston I cut vegetables next to a Toyota executive who told me to my face that sorry bud it must be my fault. I got pretty angry with him and had to change the topic of conversation.

Okay maybe I do not change the oil as often as I should. But why do so many report the same problem? And why do my other cars not have the same problem?!? The oil in the Kia or the Chevy might get old and dirty – but it does not just disappear. I have had the oil just disappear from my 1998 Corolla within a few weeks – only about 700 miles – of changing it. Something ain’t right.

So here is what I think so far:

1) I do not think this is a problem manufactured by the United States government just to make Toyota look bad.

2) I do not think the current administration is out to get Toyota. I mean – they are not out to get other Japanese or Korean or German car manufacturers are they?

3) But I do think the current administration is exploiting this situation to hurt an automobile company that uses non-union labor and is a de facto competitor to General Motors and Chrysler.

4) So that it can encourage people to start buying from General Motors and Chrysler who are clearly and explicitly taking advantage of the situation with special “trade in your Toyota!” deals.

Call me paranoid. But that is my theory.

Posted in Economics, News, Politics, Travel | No Comments »

An Obama cabinet that does not reflect America (or) How can they fix what they do not know?

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

Yeah yeah – should be posting more about theology and the Christian life.

But this sure got my attention.

How often do we hear that our leaders should reflect the American population? Why do we need an Hispanic Supreme Court justice? So that Hispanic Americans feel represented. We need more women in Congress. We would like to see an African-American mayor for a city that is predominantly African-American.

One can debate whether this argument makes sense or not – in some ways it does in some ways it is characteristically anti-intellectualist – but for the moment let us say fair enough. Let us for the sake of argument accept at least to some degree the idea(l) of proportionate representation.

With me so far? Good.

Those who work in the public sector – government and other state agencies and services and so on – have since the 1950’s made up 15 to 19 percent of the American population. Which is to say since the 1950’s 81 to 85 percent of the American population works in the private sector. So what kind of proportionate representation do we see in various presidential administrations?

Breathtaking is it not? Less than 10% of cabinet appointments in the Obama administration have any private sector experience. Know what it is like to work for a business. Know what it is like to run a business. Understand from personal experience how government taxes and regulations can encourage or hinder economic growth. Do notice how relatively low the percentage is also for the Kennedy Carter and Clinton administrations. I will not suggest a correlation between private sector experience and a healthy economy because – and we need to be honest – we had economic growth and balanced budgets during the Clinton years. So government wonks are not always inimical to economic prosperity.

But less than ten percent? You gotta be kidding me. A bunch of college kids who never ran a business think they can fix the American economy?

H/T Red Stick Rant -> The (American) Enterprise Blog.

Posted in Economics, Politics | No Comments »

The anti-poverty forum – spoken insights and the unspoken question

Friday, November 13th, 2009

Back in March of this year several members of University Baptist Church attended a Poverty Forum held at Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church and sponsored by the Interfaith Federation of Baton Rouge. I was not planning to attend until someone pressured me into going. One key argument is that people wanted to find out about our ministry efforts with the homeless along with several other “social and community justice” ministries such as To Highland With Love. The organizers explained that the gathering would be divided into smaller groups in which we could talk about and share what our various faith and community organizations were doing.

And there sort of is a reason why I am bringing this up months after the event.

Overall it was very good. When we entered the building we were given colored dots which indicated which table we would sit at. Each table constituted a small group that would discuss together questions provided on sheets of paper. There would be several presentations on different topics and after two or three presentations we would discuss. Each table was asked to select a “moderator” to guide discussion and a “secretary” to take notes. I write by hand much faster than most people and offered to take notes.

The presentations were generally excellent. Although it has been a while they were by professors of social work, heads of community service organizations, even a member of the board of directors for Capital Area Transit – our public bus transportation system. They addressed the causes of poverty. The effects of poverty. The importance of public transportation systems – what I thought was especially valuable. And finally how to engage in political advocacy relating to poverty.

The last presentation was the only one I had any real trouble with. It was highly critical of Governor Jindal particularly for taking stands with which I happened to agree strongly. It is one of the chief reasons I became less involved in the Interfaith Federation over the last five years – got tired of the casual assumption that we are all good liberal Democrats who think all religions are basically the same.

Overall the discussion at my table was good. Two members of our discussion group were social workers. One is the regional director for Teach for American whom I have known since first coming to this church in 1999 – one presenter did not show and he was asked to give an impromptu presentation about education which was excellent. And we had pretty good ethnic and religious diversity.

One mild frustration was that the reason I was pressured into going – so that I could “represent University Baptist and tell other people about our ministries among the poor and the homeless – turned out to be a bust. We never had a chance to share what our various churches and organizations were doing. The focus and format of the forum did not allow for it.

There was much that “conservatives” need to hear and appreciate about the causes dynamics and effects of poverty. The one that grabbed my attention the most is the importance of public transportation. We want people to work right? People cannot work if they do not have regular reliable transportation. And when people are already poor and have a low paying job – frankly it is mighty difficult to own and maintain a car.

(My third year of graduate school my car had so many problems that basically every dollar I earned that summer went for car repairs. In other words my net income became zero. While I was working.)

But this is what I wanted to bring up.

There was a great deal of discussion about what the government can and should do to address poverty. Fair enough. And for the most part when talking about the “causes dynamimcs and effects” of poverty there was a great deal of agreement and consensus at our table. Anyone care to guess what the number one factor was? Education.

But there was one question no one asked. Not in any presentation. Not at our table during the entire two to three hours. Not even hinted on the discussion sheets.

To what extent does government policy create encourage and exacerbate poverty and its effects?

One would think that after spending hundreds of billions of dollars since the 1960’s we would have made significant inroads in eliminating poverty. Tell me – which cities are the most ruined with the highest rates of poverty? And is there a correlation between poverty and style of government?

No one at the forum seemed to ask these sorts of questions.

(And no it is not that simple. In Baton Rouge there is a painfully obvious gulf between the average socio-economic status of blacks versus whites. And it cannot all be blamed on misguided government policies. Much of it has to do with education – and education in this city for decades had much to do with race/ethnicity. Fortunately that is starting to improve dramatically.)

Let us be more specific. Greg Mankiw who is an economist at Harvard University directs our attention to the “dead zone”:

Notice that as earned income rises from about $15,000 to $30,000, income after taxes and transfers is roughly flat. Indeed, it could even fall. The bottom line: If you are poor, the government is inadvertently ensuring that you have little incentive to try to improve your condition.

With a chart that illustrates earned income versus(?) net income after taxes and transfers.

We can give presentations and have discussions and engage in all sort of ministries to “help the poor”. Frankly we should. But too often in public social and political discourse we confuse good intentions with good results.

“We want to help the poor. Therefore we want the government to do x y and z. You do not want the government to do those things. Therefore you do not care about the poor”.

And yet where we have implemented x y and z we sometimes get more poverty and poverty more permanent.

Posted in Economics, Education, Ethnicity and race, Personal, Religion | No Comments »

NPR's Jim Engster Show – Healthcare reform, communism, and crazy talk

Thursday, July 23rd, 2009

The title is excessively provactive – just trying to get your attention.

Gil Dupre - Louisiana Assoc of Health Plans

Yesterday a guest host Jim Nichols was in charge of the “Jim Engster Show” on our local National Public Radio station. (I do not enjoy the show very much. But I often listen to NPR and this show happens to come on about the time I am driving in morning.) The host was talking about the current healthcare reform debate with Gil Dupre(sp?) head of the Louisiana Association of Health Plans. I appreciated both what Gil Dupre and Jim Nichols had to say. Jim Nichols began his interview by commenting that “I think everyone supports the idea of health coverage for everyone. But there are still questions about cost and accessibility“. And Gil Dupre did a fine job I thought of commenting on the healthcare reform bill currently up in Congress. In a nutshell he said it contains several good and worthy changes. But much of it is not good. I appreciated the “Jim Engster Show” giving someone who actually works in the heathcare industry a chance to comment.

Listen to the show by following this link.

Where the show got seriously weird was when Jim Nichols  started taking calls. I may or may not have voiced loud and inappropriate things at my radio. I have seldom heard such breathtaking idiocy.

The first caller said there are two main questions. First – whether healthcare is a privilege or a right. Second – his expressed concern that in the relationship between healthcare and insurance industries the patient does not have a voice. Dupre and Nichols handled the first question well. Dupre declined to answer what he defined as a “philosophical” question and said it does not matter whether one regards it as a privilege or a right – either way we still have the problems of cost and how to get coverage for the un- or underinsured.

For the record I would argue it is not a right. Although it is a good and worthy goal. (Keep in mind that I still agree with Gil Dupre – whether healthcare is a right or not matters less than some think.)

What does it mean to say something is a “right”? I have a right to free speech – does that mean American taxpayers should pay for my ability to say what I want? So if I want to say “I disagree with politician so-and-so” and want to say this on national television at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars – everyone must pay for me to do that?

In general (and I will come back to this) “rights” are things that I can do without restriction but also impose no obligation on others. On the Baptistlife discussion board in which I used to participate one person expressed this point exceptionally well:

First, health care is not a human right. A human right is something that can exist simultaneously among all people without imposing an obligation on someone else. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are such rights. Free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right of self-defense (2nd Amend.) and the right to file grievances against your government are all rights that we Americans have that impose no obligation on others.

Health care, on the other hand, cannot be classified as a human right under that definition. Health care may be needed as much as food, clothing and shelter, but it is not a right. One cannot have health care as a human right without imposing an obligation on others. A “right” to health care means that if I cannot afford medical services, then you are to be coerced through government force into providing it for me. What moral principle says that I have the “right” to insist you pay for something I cannot afford? Why should you have to sacrifice you right to enjoy the fruits of your labor in order to provide something for me? You may do so out of the goodness of your own heart, but should you be forced to do so?

However, like a basic education, we may define a societal right to health care and may set up a government program to administer it, but health care is not a human right. [emphasis added]

There is at least one important counterexample which is the “right to an attorney”. “If you cannot afford one an attorney will be provided for you” (at public expense). Perhaps our excellent friend above would classify that as a societal right (or a societal obligation under the United State Constitution).

Dupre also pointed out that huge steps have been taken to make sure the concerns of patients are addressed. Well answered sir!

Before I get to the truly annoying and chilling phone call let me address directly what Jim Nichols said about healthcare reform and economic competitiveness.

A lot of countries have gone to a more socialized or government-run health care. They seem to have contained costs. And have gotten something of an economic advantage over us. Some would say part of our problem competing in the global economy is our cost of health care in America.

I was sorely tempted to call in at that point – because it is not (necessarily or clearly) true that the cost of healthcare in America is a factor in how we compete effectively in the global economy. But I am not an economist – I merely read what economists of stature have to say.

Greg Mankiw who is an economist at Harvard University – and is an insufferably rational and reasonable thinker who handles dyspeptic hacks like Paul Krugman with uncommon civility and grace – has addressed this on a few occasions:

A common argument, often made by ostensibly sophisticated commentators, is that the United States needs to reform its health care system to maintain its international competitiveness. Regardless of your views of health care reform, this particular argument is, to put it bluntly, nonsense. Long ago, Paul Krugman wrote a nice piece demolishing the whole concept of international competitiveness as a motive for national economic policy. More recently, the Congressional Budget Office has done a nice job explaining why the idea of international competitiveness as a reason for health care reform is fallacious.

Read the whole thing here. And I will stop writing “you do not have to register” after every quote.

Do note that even Paul Krugman argues against the “healthcare-competitiveness fallacy”. Note that we are not even addressing the questions of:

  • whether socialized or government-run healthcare really contains costs 
  • whether socialized or government-run healthcare reduces quality and accessibility 
  • whether nations with socialized or government-run healthcare are truly economically competitive vis-a-vis the United States 
  • whether anyone really would prefer socialized or government-run healthcare 
  • whether anyone would want to work in the healthcare profession within a socialized or government-run system 

Do not misunderstand me. I strongly support the idea of healthcare reform. Not just in terms of “containing costs”. But also in terms of helping all or most Americans receive adequate insurance coverage.

(Quick important point. People talk about “universal health care”. That is not really the issue. The issue is “universal health insurance” or “universal health coverage” yes? What we are debating is the extent to which you receive healthcare and do not have to pay for it out-of-pocket.* I am pretty sure that is what we really are talking about. I also think the current situation – where we depend upon our employers for health insurance coverage – is not a healthy one. It means too often Americans will not look for new/better jobs because they are afraid about losing/changing their health insurance coverage. I would like to think this is of concern to all or most political conservatives.)

Back to the “Jim Engster Show” yesterday morning.

The next caller was something else. Something about how we “couch our Christianity in America in terms of concern and compassion… not knocking [or did he say not for - hard to hear him at this point] free markets… should we lower the salaries commanded by people in this arena [healthcare and insurance industries]… compared to individuals who work and struggle to pay the bills. They live a comfortable lifestyle. How much more money do you need? If you can live comfortable in a nice home drive an automobile feed you family – how much more rich do you need to be? To me sir it all boils down to greed…”

Or envy. And the desire to control others. And make them do for us what we will not do for ourselves. But let us pass over that for the nonce.

It is difficult not to hear good old fashioned Communism in that call. Yeah I know it is unfashionable to throw out that word and others will dismiss you as a reactionary wingnut – but do think about it.

“I think you guys make enough money. I do not think you should make any more money past a certain point. I think I and/or the government should dictate what those salaries and reimbursements and so on should be”.

It is tempting to take that stance. And there are legitimate questions about how much profit is enough and at what point does the legitimate desire for profit turn into exploitation? But one has to wonder who this fellow is to determine what is enough – for people who do work thank you very much and often work harder than the working people who struggle to pay the bills. Did my dad make a high salary? Yup. And he worked at least 60-80 hours each week and traveled all the time.

How would you like to be a doctor and have the government say “you know – after all those years of med school and being up all night studying and working 100+ hours each week as a resident and all the rest… we do not think you should be well compensated for what you know and what you do”? My last primary care doctor transferred to working at the hospital because it meant for the first time in two years he might get some holiday time off with his family. He worked and sacrificed to get where he is. He works harder than I do. Darn right doctors should be well paid.

And let me note in passing that during his address to the American Medical Association the president rather strongly hinted that one way to contain costs is… that everybody gets paid less. And who will make that decision? And how will it be enforced? (Some offhand comment about “spreading the wealth around a little” comes to mind.)

I am not sure how much I should thank the “Jim Engster Show” for letting us know that Communism and craziness are alive and well in Baton Rouge. But my genuine appreciation to Jim Nichols for an intelligent discussion. And especially to Gil Dupre for how well he addressed the issues.

Posted in Economics, Local, Media, Politics, Propaganda, Uncategorized | No Comments »

NPR celebrates $20 gas and the forced hyper-urbanization of America

Monday, July 20th, 2009

Somebody please explain to me why I listen to NPR.

Friday afternoon listening to “Talk of the Nation: Science Friday” hosted by Ira Flatow. Talking with writer Chris Steiner author of $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Price of Gasoline Will Change our Lives for the Better. The title is more or less self-explanatory.

Steiner laments the comparatively low gasoline taxes – which if higher would help fund our transportation infrastructure. Fair enough I suppose. But he has much more to say. How super expensive gasoline would force Americans (who live in the suburbs or the country and commute to jobs in the cities) to start moving and living closer to where they work. In other words force them to move into the cities. It would also force many airlines out of business and make air travel an expensive luxury. America would be forced to significantly expand and develop public transportation.

Hoorah For $20 Gas!

If you’re anything like me, you consider distance before getting in your car for a joyride, and hold your breath when it’s time to fill up. For many, there is a brace yourself moment of fear that the price of gas will mirror the four dollars a gallon horror we had to live through last summer. But according to author Chris Steiner, our lives would be a lot happier if gas rose to even the double digits. Seriously. We’ll give Steiner room to explain himself, and the title of his book: “$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better”.

Listen to Talk of the Nation: Science Friday July 16 2009.

My reactions to this are not entirely negative. Of course the United States needs to develop a better public transportation system. In fact conservatives should support this because conservatives want to see people get out and work and support themselves right? But for the working poor transportation is a major problem. They may not be able to afford new cars that are reliable. And if they (a) do not have a car or (b) have an old car in poor condition that is not reliable it becomes difficult to find and keep a job. The working poor need a public transportation system that is (1) fast (2) not expensive and (3) reliable. In fact not just the poor could use such a system and the result is less traffic less time wasted in traffic and less use of fuel. I would like to think political conservatives resonate with such goals.

It would also help foster the creation of community. People who live near each other and know each other. And give new life to downtown commerce – small businesses and shops which would provide goods and services to this growing urban population. When I talk with my Chinese friends most of whom are from cities they explain how cities are organized much differently in China. To a large extent people in China live near their places of work. And often within walking distance of the shops and businesses they use.

And Steiner also notes this will encourage Americans to use their bodies more to get from place to place. Walking and bicycling. He cites one researcher who argues there is a correlation between low gasoline prices and increased obesity. Again – fair enough.

What troubled me about Chris Steiner was how glad he seemed about the prospect of $20 gasoline and the changes it would force upon many Americans.

Let me share an obvious secret about expensive gasoline. It hurts poor people the most.

If you make $100k per year drive a large car and gas goes up to $5 per gallon – that is a nuisance. It probably means less money you are able to save for retirement or travel or college for your kids.

If you make minimum wage drive an old car and gas goes up to $5 per gallon – that is a disaster.

There is a reason – a good reason – why there are such things as income tax deductions. There are certain minimum unavoidable expenses involved in living in America. If it costs a minimum of $15k to live (housing food clothing and transportation to work) and you make $15k per year – then any increase in any necessary expense (gasoline) is a disaster you cannot absorb. Persons with higher incomes are in a better position to absorb increases in certain expenses.

So I do not quite understand why political liberals who supposedly care so much about the poor can without apparent hesitation advocate higher taxes for certain things like gasoline. “It will force Americans to buy more fuel efficient cars and drive less”. Well that is fine – if you are a middle or high income earner. You are in a better position to make those changes. It would hurt my family to buy a new car right now – but we could do it.

But the poor are much less able to make those adjustments. More expensive gasoline could mean not being able to make ends meet. They cannot afford to run out and buy a Toyota Prius.

Also – there are at least two huge reasons why many Americans live in the country and work in the city.

First – the cost of housing. There is a reason my family did not purchase a home closer to Louisiana State University. We cannot afford it. We can afford a home around $150k. Most small homes around the university or around the church campus run $250k and up. I cannot afford to live within walking distance of my work. Period. That simple.

(Now granted I would like to ride my bike – but Baton Rouge is one of the most bicycle-hostile cities I have ever lived in. Most roads and streets have no shoulders let alone no sidewalks. There is an ongoing campaign to push the city to make it more bicycle friendly and apparently they are getting results.)

People often live in the boonies or the suburbs because it is the only way they can raise a family in something other than a cramped one or two bedroom studio apartment.

In a bad neighborhood.

Which is another reason why people often live away from cities. To get away from the crime and violence. No not every part of every city is riddled with violent crime and other social pathologies. There is a reason why my family moved from Richmond to nearby Mechanicsville when I was in seminary. We did not enjoy beer bottles smashing through our bedroom window at night. Or being afraid to go for a walk in the evening.

So I am troubled by the apparent enthusiasm Chris Stein exhibits for watching millions of Americans being forced to move into cities. Ira Flatow read one email from a listener who said “I live in the country and commute 45 miles to work – what am I supposed to do?” Stein said (paraphrasing slightly) that “Americans have had the luxury of being able to choose to live in the country and work in the city – then you will not be able to make that choice and will have to live in the city”. It is easier for the relatively affluent – like the researcher that Steiner quotes – to move into decent homes in decent neighborhoods in the city. But not everyone can afford even an “attached townhome in central Greensboro”.

And while we are at it what about schools.

The forced hyper-urbanization of America.

In one sense I welcome this. One could argue that is how it should be – people live close to work. Cities should be beautiful dynamic places of culture and community.

But until we have a better handle on urban planning and urban life – and education and crime and housing and all the rest – do we really want to force Americans to live in tiny apartments in dangerous neighborhoods?

And elsewhere I have addressed that America is becoming increasingly divided along rural-urban lines. I take it NPR thinks it would be just grand to watch the further destruction of rural America and the growth of urban America – along with the growth of urban culture and urban sensibilities.

The more expensive it becomes to travel – the less free we become as a people. Deeply troubling.

Addendum: I searched the internet for any conservative critiques of Chris Steiner and his book. Most hits were at public radio websites – and most of those were pretty much the same text reproduced. I was not able to find much at all about Steiner and his book outside public radio websites. Very strange.

Posted in Culture, Economics, Media, Politics, Propaganda, Science | No Comments »

Hoisted on their own petard (or) Democrats *prove* why they are irrelevant

Monday, May 18th, 2009

Here is one I have never shared. Wright’s Third Generalization:

Whenever someone is in error, he/she will not merely contradict himself/herself, but will refute himself/herself. This does not logically have to happen, but it is what happens consistently.

(Once during a rather nice lunch at a Japanese restaurant with Cornell professor Jeremy Rabkin I shared this. Professor Rabkin replied, “In other words, the truth will always come out”. I rather liked that and have since labelled this “Rabkin’s Corollary to Wright’s Third Generalization”.)

The Anglican Curmudgeon is – and I say this will all admiration – ruthlessly logical. In a recent piece he follows a liberal/Democratic mantra to its logical conclusion. Are you ready? Here goes:

Now just ponder the logical implications of this position [RW - citing an argument in a recent piece by Maureen Dowd]  for a moment. Do you see what it implies? Let me spell out the hidden syllogism for you:

A. When the Democrats are not in power, what happens is all the Republicans’ fault.
B. When the Democrats are in power, it is still all the Republicans’ fault.

Now, from this beginning, those on the left would like to draw this conclusion:

C. Therefore, whatever happens, and whenever it happens, it is all the Republicans’ fault.

What their petty little minds fail to realize, however, is that this is the only really logical conclusion to follow from the given premises:

C. Why would anyone ever put the Democrats in power, since they can never affect anything for the better, and cannot prevent anything from getting worse?

In other words, all the heat and venom being spilled over former president Bush, former vice president Cheney and the so-called torture of waterboarding just goes to point up that the Democrats themselves are admitting that they are irrelevant. [emphasis in original]

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

At Baptistlife.Com – in which I no longer participate – we had an exchange about this with regard to the economy. I pointed out that the bad economy which President Obama “inherited” could indeed be blamed partly on the Republicans and the Bush Administration. I am not aware of any Republican or conservative American who does not concede that Bush 43 and the Republicans during his administration bear at least partial responsibility for the current economic downturn. (Which itself is an important point to which I shall return in a moment.)

But – I argued strongly – if the economy has gotten worse since President Obama took office one cannot blame that on Bush and the Republicans. Once President Obama takes office he effectively – so long as nothing else has changed – takes responsibility for the health of the economy (and foreign policy and so on).

My fellow Baptist friends of course disagreed.

Now granted it is dangerous to use a syllogism to override the gives-and-takes of a more detailed argument… but I would suggest that what the Anglican Curmudgeon demonstrates is applicable here. Do you really want to say no matter what happens after President Obama takes office it is still the fault of the previous administration?

Oh wait – if something bad happens blame the previous administration.

If something good happens let the current administration take credit.

What I find more offensive is this “heads you lose, tails I win” argumentation. It renders you – by definition – unaccountable. There is no evidence that could possibly call into question the effectiveness of your policies. (Harvard economist Greg Mankiw makes a similar point well in a recent post.)

Let me return to this “Conservatives and Republicans are willing to lay some blame at the feet of Bush 43 and the Republicans” point.

Those who support strongly the Democratic party and the Obama presidency – does it never strike them as odd and even problematic that Republicans/conservatives are willing to admit some mistakes and failures…

But does one ever see a liberal or Democrat concede mistakes and failures on the part of President Obama and the Democrats?

This is going to be… what… the third or fourth time I have had to make this point? Here goes:

More conservative participants on this forum have been candid and willing to lay a nice chunk of the blame at the feet of Bush 43 and Republicans in Congress. As well as specific actions and policies by Democrats. The Wall Street Journal piece (or other pieces one could quote) does not “prove that Bush is not responsible for the economic mess”. Such misrepresents both the piece and my own post.

(I will repeat my challenge to more liberal and/or Democratic participants on this forum. If conservatives/Republicans are willing to blame Bush/Republicans as well as Democrats… then are they willing to concede how Democrats share responsibility for the crisis? Bi-partisanship and all that you know.)

More than once I issued this challenge – and to my knowledge never did receive a reply.

As Anglican Curmudgeon asks (in the context of a post on Speaker Pelosi):

What is it about the left’s mindset that makes them constitutionally incapable of ever accepting any responsibility for something that might make them (at least in their eyes) look bad?

Precisely.

Actually there might be an answer. It has to do with psychology and motivations. If one is motivated primarily by ego (the desire to look good and feel good about yourself) rather than by truth (which means you sometimes fall short and are willing to admit it).

Addendum (06/02/09): I later realized there is a serious flaw with the above post and its title. It sounds like I am saying “the Democratic party and/or Democrats are irrelevant – or at least they should be”. That was not my intent. Such an implication would be disrespectful narrow-minded and just all around stupid. The intent was to critique a specific argument or mantra – the one marked in red above.

Readers of this blog may know (or not) that since moving to Louisiana I have (excuse me – had) changed my voting pattern. I have voted for Democrats. Why? Because I am a firm centrist. In New York the Republicans are liberal and the Democrats are very liberal – so I vote for Republicans always because they are closer to the center. Since moving to Louisiana – some Republicans are just so outrageously far to the right that I have voted for the Democratic candidate. We need the Democratic party and Democrats – even if/when I disagree with policies and platforms. A one party state is not healthy.

I mean – imagine if there were only the Republican party and the Republicans were 100% in charge… and it went to their heads. We might get something like – oh I do not know – something like 2000-2008. (Which is not to say the Bush II Administration was all bad by no means. But vastly expanding government and budgets and deficits and frankly President Bush is the one who started all this TARP/bailout idiocy. Some of President Obama’s worst policies are simply expanded continuations from the previous.)

Posted in Economics, Logic and Reason, Media, Politics, Rhetoric | 2 Comments »

Political favoritism untrammelled by the rule of law (or) Tincture of Obamaism

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

George Will again nails it with his recent article on how the Obama Administration governs.

The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

He cites the Obama Administration’s efforts on behalf of unions in California and in the auto industry. Contracts shmontracts. You lose most of your investment but his friends gain control of a major manufacturing corporation. And if you complain he threatens you on national television. Sweet.

Will summarizes:

The Obama administration’s agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of “economic planning” and “social justice” that somehow produce results superior to what markets produce when freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail. The administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.

Read the whole thing at Townhall. You do not have to register.

Posted in Economics, Media, News, Politics | No Comments »

"Why do Christians hate Obama?" (or) How does one answer a broken question?

Wednesday, April 15th, 2009

Note (May 07, 2009): I marked this post as “private” after I wrote it. Was not comfortable with the idea of writing a post responding rather publicly (the Internet is very public) to something a congregant wrote on facebook (which is semi-public). But after a few weeks – sure.

********

A member of the congregation I serve posted on facebook:

“Why do christians hate obama?”

It has generated a few replies – some of which are more troubling than the question. “They hate everybody”. Or a peculiar testimony about discussing Obama with someone who “called the Holocaust punishment for the Jews”. (I would not know where to find someone who holds that opinion.) A good friend who was an invaluable part of our ministry with internationals and whom I respect highly commented that “some are easily conned by others and don’t think for themselves. These poor manipulated souls believe that being a Christian is to follow a Republican Political agenda”.

Frankly I am not sure I should reply at all. Or at least publicly.

One could respond with a simple test. “Does your question – and do the answers – apply to any other situation?” Imagine if I asked:

“Why do democrats hate bush?”

And the replies were along these lines. “They hate everybody”. Or discussing Bush with someone who “called 9/11 punishment for Americans”. Or “some are easily conned”. And so on.

Wright’s Second Principle of Epistemology states:

A well asked question almost answers itself.

And by extension:

A broken question is almost impossible to answer.

The original question – “why do christians hate obama?” – is broken in at least two ways.

  1. It does not qualify “christians” in any way. A few? Some? Most? The question implies the sweeping generalization that all Christians hate the president.
  2. It assumes that (said group) “hates” the president. What do you mean by “hate”? Harbor malice toward him? Wish him harm? (And you cannot equate strong principled opposition with hate. Unless Democrats hate Republicans.)

The question contains (1) a sweeping generalization and (2) a problematic assumption. It is a (twice-)broken question. And therefore almost impossible to answer.

(There may be another problem with the question. Do these people “hate” the president because they are “Christians”? Or are they American citizens who “hate” the president for reasons that have less or nothing to do with their religion?)

I do not dispute that some “Christians” may genuinely “hate” the president. (Although I assume and have no evidence for this.) That is more than unfortunate. It is against what the New Testament teaches explicitly. Would Jesus hate the Roman emperor?

If you wish sincerely to have a useful discussion then I offer the following:

Why do some? many? most? Christians oppose and/or disagree with some? most? all? of what President Obama says does and wants?

Then – and only then – will you begin to have a productive conversation.

Posted in Christianity, Economics, Issues, Politics, Rhetoric, Society and Culture | No Comments »

Martin Sheen and the all-too-common fallacy of rhetorical solipsism

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

Was watching Fox News Channel last night. (I never paid much attention to Fox until just this year. Thank the presidential election of 2008. I will never trust the mainstream media again.) Turns out three actors from “The Left Wing” television series – including Martin Sheen who played the president – came to Washington DC to support the grossly misnamed Employee Free Choice Act.

Fair enough.

But this is what caught my attention. A bunch of liberal actors wants to support a bill that allows a place of work to be represented by a union if a majority of people sign a card supporting that – publicly. So if you do not sign that card it will be known. And theoretically you can be pressured to sign. And/or face consequences for having failed to sign after the fact.

Again – fair enough. I think the bill is dreadful. The highest court in Mexico ruled that workers in that nation have the right to a secret ballot – a right that Congress is trying to take away from American workers. Of course how people vote for anything should be secret. And although unions are not always a bad thing it is true that generally increased unionization threatens the health of the economy. (Just visit New York State if you do not believe me.) But that is not the point here.

The point here is that Sheen complained that “people against this are not members of unions and have never been members of unions”.

That seemingly innocuous statement is one of the most pernicious fallacies to poison public discourse. I call it rhetorical (or moral or ethical or political) solipsism.

It goes something like this. “You are not allowed to have an opinion about issue x unless you are a member of a group that is most directly connected to issue x”.

You cannot have an opinion about same-sex marriage unless. You cannot have an opinion about abortion unless. You cannot have an opinion about affirmative action unless. About human embryonic stem cell research unless. And so on.

It is a despicable line of anti-reasoning. Its purpose is not to engage the issue or to argue the issue on its merits. In fact it asserts unilaterally that you are not allowed to engage or argue the issue on its own merits. Well – and this is the dirty little hypocrisy lurking in political solipsism – that is if you take the “wrong” position on said issue.

What Sheen and those who follow his line of anti-reasoning wish to do is neutralize and dismiss all principled opposition to this bill.

Citizen: “This bill is unfair and unjust. And this is why. Reasons x y and z”.

Sheen: “Sorry – irrelevant. You are not a member of a union. You never have been. What you have to say no longer matters”.

Sheen does not address or engage the specific objections to the “Employee Free Choice” Act. Rather he impugns the authority of citizens and politicians to oppose it.

And how exactly – think about this – does being a member of the directly connected group give you more insight or authority regarding issue x? Because you have a natural inclination to benefit from issue x? Well of course. I understand that. “I am a member of a union. I like unions. I think it would be great if forming unions was ten times easier that it is now – because if I know who is not signing that card I can put pressure on that person”. “I am a gay man. I would love to have the social approval and legal benefits that come with same-sex marriage”. “I am a white man. I think it would be great if 50% of spaces at the local magnet school went to white people”. Granted this is a form of selfishness – we want to change public policy in a way that benefits us - but that is understandable.

What is not to understandable is denying others the freedom to raise principled objections. Because they are not us.

About that dirty little hypocrisy.

See – here is the thing. Political solipsism seems to work in only one direction. Toward political statism and social liberalism.

So if I am a member of a union and object to the “Employee Free Choice” Act – will Martin Sheen suddenly listen to me? Will he suddenly say “oh gosh yes of course I take your opposition seriously”?

We are told only women can have opinions about abortion. Okay. Solipsism. But what happens when women object to elective abortion? Are their opinions taken seriously?

Only gay and lesbian persons can have opinions about same-sex marriage. Okay. Solipsism again. So if you have a gay man say “same-sex marriage is a dreadful idea” what happens to that person?

What happens to black conservatives. They are reviled and dismissed as “Uncle Toms”. Their views are dismissed because they are infected with “self-loathing”.

As if there is something wrong with taking the position that just because some change in public policy might benefit me does not make it wise or just.

And if I say “look I am small business owner and I oppose Obamaism strenuously because of how his policies will hurt me my business and my children” – solipsism! - does that mean my views should prevail automatically? Just asking.

We should point out recognize and confront aggressively the depicable practice of rhetorical solipism.

Martin Sheen and others – either engage the issue on its own merits or please do us the courtesy of shutting up.

Posted in Economics, Politics, Propaganda, Rhetoric | No Comments »

We are (becoming) no longer a nation of laws and due process

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

The news overwhelms me of late.

Where does one begin? One must ask because it is not clear where this will end. Bailouts of financial institutions. Bailouts of failing American car manufacturers. Trillion dollar stimulus packages. Budgets that rack of trillions of dollars in new national debt. Hundreds of billions for health care “reform”. Trillion dollar plans for solving the banking crisis. More billions for failing car manufacturers. More billions. More trillions. More billions. More trillions.

And that is just the money.

Never mind the dishonesty hypocisy and demogoguery which are becoming the new normal.

Think I am being too harsh? I think not.

We are becoming no longer a nation of laws or due process. Witness how the AIG retention bonuses were handled and compare to the resignation letter from Executive Vice President of AIG Jake Desantis. That lays out precisely and clearly the true nature of these bonuses and the breathtaking injustice of the faux outrage against AIG employees for taking them.

How would you like to work 10-14 hours per day for a year and for one dollar? And to have a nice chunk of the nation turn against you wthout any apparent understanding of the facts?

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

Read the whole thing at New York Times. You do not have to register.

I was horrified when I heard Andrew Cuomo issue his threats. “Do what we tell you or else we will name you and have manufactured mobs descend on your homes and families!”

And the political class – including those most responsible for this mess in the first place – lead the way and go scott free.

Why should foreign companies invest in the American economy if it appears that Congress can nullify contracts at will? Or impose punitive retroactive tax rates?

George Will brought it home with one of his more trenchant and prophetic pieces this week. Let me summarize his “partial list”:

  • TARP (which to be fair President Bush started that blunder)
  • foreign creditors becoming increasingly concerned we will use inflation to get out from under our growing national debt
  • attempts to do away with unionization by secret ballot – which is a right even in Mexico
  • violating the terms of NAFTA in order to placate American unions
  • violating the United States Constitution by trying to give the District of Columbia voting members of Congress (which would of course be Democrats)
  • turning the Federal Reserve into an arm of the executive branch which results in “political manipulation of the money supply”
  • imposing “vast and controversial changes on the 17 percent of the economy that is health care”

Will concludes:

This is but a partial list of recent lawlessness, situational constitutionalism and institutional derangement. Such political malfeasance is pertinent to the financial meltdown as the administration, desperately seeking confidence, tries to stabilize the economy by vastly enlarging government’s role in it.

Make sure you read the whole thing at Washington Post. You do not have to register.

What I see is the current ruling majority within the political class basically doing whatever it wants. D@mn the law. D@mn due process. And d@mn the consequences – which we already are beginning to see.

What will be left in 2012? And what steps is the ruling majority taking right now to make it as difficult as possible to reverse the radical changes they are imposing?

Posted in Economics, Media, News, Politics | No Comments »

« Older Entries