I always get a kick out of the commentators and pundits who tell us how simple the economic solution is and how idiotic the rest of the world who doesn’t agree must be. Then they produce a tally of 8 Nobel-prize-winning economists who support their argument; proving that the opposing argument which only has 5 supporting Nobel laureates must be sheer folly.
I don’t doubt that the answer seems obvious to these people. Neither do I doubt that they have failed to grasp all the subtleties of the US and global economies. I won’t pretend to have the ultimate answer. The more I learn about economic policy, the more convinced I am that it is far more complex than we understand. Sure enough, if someone models a fixed set of variables long enough a pattern emerges. But rarely do we consider all of the variables that affect the decisions of consumers, investors, employers, and producers. It’s like putting your foot in a stream in the same place twice: It may look the same, but it really isn’t.
Obama wants us to believe that the current economic trough was created by the policies of cutting taxes and limiting government control. I read today a letter to the WSJ that claimed the prosperity of the Clinton presidency was due to his raising of the upper income tax bracket. I could find even more letters claiming the prosperity of the Reagan years was due to the exact opposite: lowering of the upper income tax bracket. Clearly the answer has to be in some other variables.
One thing I am convinced of as fact: The US economy will only recover when investors, consumers and employers truly believe that the future will bring a better business/financial environment than they see today. As long as people are pessimistic or even uncertain about the next 12 months; they won’t want to invest their money, finance more purchases, or hire more people. The real question is how to create this optimism.
The November elections bring us a rare opportunity to choose between two diametrically opposite approaches to economic policy. Obama believes that extending tax cuts and reducing government spending is exactly the recipe that got us into this economic crisis. The republicans believe that whatever situation we are in has not been helped by the first 2 years of Obama policies, and we cannot afford 2 more years of the same. The tea party is unabashedly opposed to any new taxes or even allowing the existing tax cuts to expire. Although most tea party candidates are historically conservative, they have no qualms about ousting republicans who have not exercised their version of fiscal responsibility.
No doubt - we have idiots on both sides. Likewise, both sides also have some pretty smart people who are convinced they are right and have some arguments to support them. The only foolish decision is to presume that the answer is obvious.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
The Koran Bonfire
Rev. Terry Jones plan to burn copies of the Koran in Gainesville, Florida to commemorate 9/11 may merit a second – or even third – consideration.. My first thought when I heard about this was that it was another silly stunt by an overzealous religious group, trying to stir up controversy so they could claim religious persecution. Then I realized the parallel between what Rev. Jones was doing and what the Imam Muhammad Musri was doing by establishing a mosque at ground zero.
As stated in an earlier post, nobody argues about the constitutional right to build the mosque. Likewise, nobody argues about Rev Jones’ constitutional right to burn a book. But how can the Obama administration consider plans to intervene in one case but not the other?
We can burn the flag, burn the Bible, burn your most hated politician in effigy, smear feces on a picture of Jesus and put a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it art… why draw the line on freedom of expression at burning the Koran?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not endorsing Rev. Jones plan. But I do have some respect for the stones it takes to make his point. The only reason we discourage his form of expression is fear: Fear of an international Al Qaeda recruiting spree, fear of radical Islam, fear of terrorism. Nobody worries about Christians blowing up car bombs or hijacking planes to use as WMDs. And despite heated debates between Republicans and Democrats nobody worries about one side trying to mass-murder the other. But we have, apparently, allowed radical Islamists to rob us of our constitutional freedom of expression when it comes to their beliefs. Jones has poignantly shown how the whole “constitutional rights” shtick about the Mosque is a double standard for Muslims.
Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce esp. for political purposes”. Looks like the Muslim extremists have succeeded in using terrorism to get us to treat their holy book differently than any other.
So should we grab our marshmallows and have some Koran smores this weekend? Not necessary. Terrorism only succeeds if it gets people to change their habits or lifestyle. Most of us weren’t planning on a Koran barbeque this weekend, so we don’t have to worry about canceling one to avoid Islamic violence. If the international community told us we cannot hold commemoration ceremonies on 9/11 or that we couldn’t build 9./11 memorials because they find them offensive, I doubt we would be as quick to appease them. But it can’t help but embolden Muslim extremists to know their threats can mobilize the US government to intervene in the freedoms of their own citizens. It’s something worth monitoring.
As stated in an earlier post, nobody argues about the constitutional right to build the mosque. Likewise, nobody argues about Rev Jones’ constitutional right to burn a book. But how can the Obama administration consider plans to intervene in one case but not the other?
We can burn the flag, burn the Bible, burn your most hated politician in effigy, smear feces on a picture of Jesus and put a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it art… why draw the line on freedom of expression at burning the Koran?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not endorsing Rev. Jones plan. But I do have some respect for the stones it takes to make his point. The only reason we discourage his form of expression is fear: Fear of an international Al Qaeda recruiting spree, fear of radical Islam, fear of terrorism. Nobody worries about Christians blowing up car bombs or hijacking planes to use as WMDs. And despite heated debates between Republicans and Democrats nobody worries about one side trying to mass-murder the other. But we have, apparently, allowed radical Islamists to rob us of our constitutional freedom of expression when it comes to their beliefs. Jones has poignantly shown how the whole “constitutional rights” shtick about the Mosque is a double standard for Muslims.
Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce esp. for political purposes”. Looks like the Muslim extremists have succeeded in using terrorism to get us to treat their holy book differently than any other.
So should we grab our marshmallows and have some Koran smores this weekend? Not necessary. Terrorism only succeeds if it gets people to change their habits or lifestyle. Most of us weren’t planning on a Koran barbeque this weekend, so we don’t have to worry about canceling one to avoid Islamic violence. If the international community told us we cannot hold commemoration ceremonies on 9/11 or that we couldn’t build 9./11 memorials because they find them offensive, I doubt we would be as quick to appease them. But it can’t help but embolden Muslim extremists to know their threats can mobilize the US government to intervene in the freedoms of their own citizens. It’s something worth monitoring.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Butterflies, Bill Clinton, and Bombs.
Most of us have heard about the butterfly effect in one form or another. The basic premise is that a butterfly in some remote jungle flaps its wings which sets off a chain of events that changes weather patterns and causes a hurricane that destroys Florida. While we admit we are more likely to get struck by lightening and mauled by a 3 legged zebra in the same day, the butterfly effect does give us pause to think about the way individual events can ripple through the world around us. Some can even be as profound as the metaphor illustrates.
Take, for example, President Bill Clinton. Ask a few people around you why Bill Clinton was impeached. Assuming they understand that impeached does not equal removal from office, they will probably say it was because he had an affair with an intern. Wrong. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury. Regardless of how you feel about it, these are the facts. I don’t wish to debate the Clinton case, impeachment or Lewinsky. I do, however want to pose a ‘what if’ scenario. What if, when Clinton was asked about his relationship with Lewinsky, he simply told the truth. It could have been in a statement something like this:
“I have had some indiscretions with a White House employee. I am not proud of my actions and indeed am profoundly sorry for the pain and embarrassment I have caused my family, my staff, and the American people. I ask for your forgiveness; and I ask that instead of dwelling on the past that we return our attention to the critical issues we face as a nation. I am optimistic about America and will do everything in my power to earn the trust you have shown by electing me President.”
In more simple terms, this reduces so “Yeah, I fooled around. Busted. What does this have to do with Whitewater or running America?”
Republicans would have been shocked and outraged about the moral degradation, but they would be throwing stones from their glass houses. And Americans would have thought, ‘hmm. What does this have to do with running America?” By confessing his guilt, he would have portrayed a sympathetic character and simultaneously demonized the republicans who were ‘unforgiving’. Does anyone not believe that Clinton’s impeachment and the accompanying media circus influenced the way people voted in the 2000 election? Follow me on this ripple effect:
If Bill Clinton would have told the truth:
* Al Gore would have certainly collected another 200 votes in Florida and been elected president in 2000.
* Dick Cheney would be enjoying retirement from Halliburton.
* George W. Bush would be remembered only as a good governor of Texas.
* We would have at least 2 different Supreme Court justices that would likely not be conservative constructionists like Alito and Roberts. We have yet to see how this dynamic will shape the country.
* Al Gore would have been in the white house on 9/11/2001.
* The US would not have invaded Iraq; 4,400 US soldiers would not have died in Iraq; and the US would have $700B that was not spent on operation Iraqi Freedom (but we would have probably spent on reducing carbon emissions).
* In a few years, Saddam’s UN sanctions would have expired and he could resume oil production, providing a new stream of revenue to the Iraqi government to funnel to Sadaam’s favorite projects.
* Iraq would be a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations who shared Iraq’s hatred for the US and democracy.
* Increasing nuclear tensions from Iran would motivate Saddam to reinstate his own nuclear program rather than fall victim to his hated neighbor who he went to war with in 1980. His ambition and intent were clearly documented in the Duelfer report by his scientists and government/military officers.
* Nuclear tensions around the globe would ratchet up as 2 power-hungry dictators in the Middle East flexed their nuclear muscles. North Korea makes clear that having nukes makes people notice. Pakistan gets even more uneasy about nuclear terrorists next door in Afghanistan, which makes India more nervous about their geographic status. The former Soviet states have multiple buyers for their left over nuclear arsenals, and the bidding could get high in a part of the world where a million dollars can still make you the richest man in the country. The nuclear club would expand like never before, and everyone has a hair-trigger.
* The US has lost any initiative they might have had to attack Iraq, and can do little other than suggest more UN economic sanctions that we now know were heavily abused by Saddam.
You can decide whether this is a better scenario than the one we are living. But you can’t deny that the world would be a very, very different place if Bill Clinton had simply told the truth.
Makes you think.
Take, for example, President Bill Clinton. Ask a few people around you why Bill Clinton was impeached. Assuming they understand that impeached does not equal removal from office, they will probably say it was because he had an affair with an intern. Wrong. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury. Regardless of how you feel about it, these are the facts. I don’t wish to debate the Clinton case, impeachment or Lewinsky. I do, however want to pose a ‘what if’ scenario. What if, when Clinton was asked about his relationship with Lewinsky, he simply told the truth. It could have been in a statement something like this:
“I have had some indiscretions with a White House employee. I am not proud of my actions and indeed am profoundly sorry for the pain and embarrassment I have caused my family, my staff, and the American people. I ask for your forgiveness; and I ask that instead of dwelling on the past that we return our attention to the critical issues we face as a nation. I am optimistic about America and will do everything in my power to earn the trust you have shown by electing me President.”
In more simple terms, this reduces so “Yeah, I fooled around. Busted. What does this have to do with Whitewater or running America?”
Republicans would have been shocked and outraged about the moral degradation, but they would be throwing stones from their glass houses. And Americans would have thought, ‘hmm. What does this have to do with running America?” By confessing his guilt, he would have portrayed a sympathetic character and simultaneously demonized the republicans who were ‘unforgiving’. Does anyone not believe that Clinton’s impeachment and the accompanying media circus influenced the way people voted in the 2000 election? Follow me on this ripple effect:
If Bill Clinton would have told the truth:
* Al Gore would have certainly collected another 200 votes in Florida and been elected president in 2000.
* Dick Cheney would be enjoying retirement from Halliburton.
* George W. Bush would be remembered only as a good governor of Texas.
* We would have at least 2 different Supreme Court justices that would likely not be conservative constructionists like Alito and Roberts. We have yet to see how this dynamic will shape the country.
* Al Gore would have been in the white house on 9/11/2001.
* The US would not have invaded Iraq; 4,400 US soldiers would not have died in Iraq; and the US would have $700B that was not spent on operation Iraqi Freedom (but we would have probably spent on reducing carbon emissions).
* In a few years, Saddam’s UN sanctions would have expired and he could resume oil production, providing a new stream of revenue to the Iraqi government to funnel to Sadaam’s favorite projects.
* Iraq would be a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations who shared Iraq’s hatred for the US and democracy.
* Increasing nuclear tensions from Iran would motivate Saddam to reinstate his own nuclear program rather than fall victim to his hated neighbor who he went to war with in 1980. His ambition and intent were clearly documented in the Duelfer report by his scientists and government/military officers.
* Nuclear tensions around the globe would ratchet up as 2 power-hungry dictators in the Middle East flexed their nuclear muscles. North Korea makes clear that having nukes makes people notice. Pakistan gets even more uneasy about nuclear terrorists next door in Afghanistan, which makes India more nervous about their geographic status. The former Soviet states have multiple buyers for their left over nuclear arsenals, and the bidding could get high in a part of the world where a million dollars can still make you the richest man in the country. The nuclear club would expand like never before, and everyone has a hair-trigger.
* The US has lost any initiative they might have had to attack Iraq, and can do little other than suggest more UN economic sanctions that we now know were heavily abused by Saddam.
You can decide whether this is a better scenario than the one we are living. But you can’t deny that the world would be a very, very different place if Bill Clinton had simply told the truth.
Makes you think.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
