Attempted Polymathematica

Lawrence O' Donnell, and real liberalism

2012-01-26T16:27:00.000-08:00

I saw this picture in a few different places on the web, and everywhere I saw it, I saw an accompanying argument about the party affiliations of the people who did those things. To be honest, I don't think that matters. The relationship between ideology and party affiliation is sufficiently fluid over the length of time they're talking about that you just can't tell much. More importantly, people should answer for (and celebrate) their own actions and beliefs, not those of others.

I happened to see this picture for the first time on the same day that I saw this Walter Russell Mead piece in the American Interest. Among its contentions is that many of those who claim the label "liberal" are engaged in a conservative, or even reactionary, project designed to preserve unsustainable levels of public spending against the increasingly obvious signs that doing such would demand a substantial diminution of human liberty. This sentiment goes back a long way and might be best identified with Friedrich von Hayek's essay (PDF, sorry) "Why I am Not a Conservative." I would suggest that the true heirs of those who brought us equal rights under the law (and remember, segregation was by no means a creature of free society) are those who are fighting for free speech against those who would muzzle it for those they disagree with. The true heirs of those who designed welfare programs to lift people out of poverty are those who are trying to put those programs on a sustainable footing and match them with a tax policy that will allow for the economic growth necessary to pay for them, not those whose strategy is to combine tax breaks for politically favored activities with big increases for others. The friends of liberty are those who realize that capitalism means profit and loss, not those who paid off the politically favored with taxpayer money, in defiance of the rule of law.

I wear the label of "liberal" with pride. You, Lawrence O'Donnell, are unworthy of it.

Liveblog!

2011-08-09T18:12:00.001-07:00

Rain Falls in Cleveland, do incumbents fall in Wisconsin?

Health care is now political

2009-11-10T06:10:00.000-08:00

I am amused by the waaaaaaaaambulance (NSFW) needed by the lefty blogosphere over the Stupak amendment.

Guess what, people. If health care is a government function, now every benefit is subject to the political process you love so much, including some you don't want to talk about. This is the way the government works. I do support the Stupak amendment, obviously, but this issue points nicely to one of the major reasons why the approach we're going to get with health care is not the best way. Market solutions don't work perfectly, but they do save our system from being thrown up for grabs into a public choice nightmare.

In which I respectfully disagree with my friend

2009-09-15T14:11:00.001-07:00

My good friend Buckeyenewshawk is a Democrat, but he is a reasonably sensible guy and we agree on most things. Far worse than his creeping socialism, however, is his blindness to the virtues of Gus Johnson. Listen to this and tell me that Gus is not one of the most excellent announcers in the business. A great moment calls for a great call, and Gus delivered. I can only imagine what Joe Buck would have come up with: "Hmmm, Brandon Stokely seems to have the ball. How about that, Troy?"

Detroit Labor Day Parade

2009-09-09T09:28:00.001-07:00

No word in this story about whether or not anybody looked around and saw what the crown jewel of American industrial unionism was like today.

In which I try not to show off my ignorance too violently

2009-07-06T19:01:00.000-07:00

At the request of my boy Buckeyenewshawk (who you should be reading, despite his being a few big steps to the left of this blog), here are some thoughts on US/Russia relations. I don't often agree with Matt Yglesias, but focusing on the things we can do, like nuclear disarmament, is probably a good goal for this meeting. Christian Brose at the indispensible Shadow Government agrees, but strikes a more thoughtful note:

That said, let’s be honest about what that means for our interests: It means that Obama has just invested a lot of time and effort to secure an agreement to reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles to a level that could still annihilate the world several times over. This may be an achievable goal, but it is hardly a pressing one -- not when Iran is speeding toward a weapon of its own, and the United States and Russia cannot seem to find much agreement on how to proceed on that.

The post continues to talk about the reasons why agreement on Iran is going to be difficult to reach, and it comes down to gas:

Right now, Moscow benefits from Iran’s isolation from the West. Not only are Iran’s formidable gas reserves not accessible to European users, preserving Russia as the Continent’s major supplier, but alternate routes for Central Asian energy that could traverse Iran are also not possible.

There are a lot of wheels turning here, but it's important not to get too excited about nuclear disarmament. There's a lot of other stuff to worry about.

An American Classic Turns 50

2009-07-05T18:09:00.000-07:00

This year is the 50th anniversary of a Pulitzer Prize winner, and one of my favorite novels, Advise and Consent by Allen Drury. It is the tale of Bob Leffingwell's nomination to be Secretary of State and the convulsion it causes. It's not exactly great literature, but it is tightly plotted and exciting. It leads off a 6-book series featuring one of the great men of American literature, Orrin Knox. Even I, who broadly agrees with Mr. Drury's political leanings, find his later work (like, say, Come Nineveh, Come Tyre, in which a liberal President falls flat on his face) a bit much. Advise and Consent, however, represents the work of a Washington insider at the height of his powers.

Happy 233rd, USA

2009-07-04T08:05:00.000-07:00

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Palin 2012!

2009-07-04T08:02:00.000-07:00

Because why waste a good candidate on Barack Obama?

Seriously, what a maroon.

On Wal-Mart and Big Business

2009-07-02T14:34:00.000-07:00

Wal-Mart's decision to join up with Democratic health care reform efforts seems pretty unusual. We even saw Matthew Yglesias writing that it was a blow to the solidarity of the business class. It shouldn't be all that surprising, though, if you think about it in terms of this 1979 WSJ editorial.

Centralizing power over anything, including health care, is likely to lead to special pleading, and even more power in the hands of big institutions that can plead best. Is that really what we want?

Happy Canada Day, and the public option

2009-07-01T09:01:00.000-07:00

A happy Canada Day to all of you, particularly the Canadian with whom I'm privileged to share my joys and sorrows every day.

I suppose Canada Day is a good day to talk about health care. The debate about the merits and demerits of the public option, to me, leaves out something important. I'm a little fuzzy about how the public plan is supposed to generate competition and put pressure on private insurers to cut costs. If that's going to work, then why are we in the position we're in? Private insurers are already competing for business, aren't they? If competition isn't working now for some reason, why would it work when you introduce a public option? It seems like whatever mechanism is preventing market forces from working the way they do in other markets will still be working with the public option in place.

By the way, "All the private insurers are just EEEEEVIL people who would deny their grandmother care to save 50 cents" is not an answer to this question. Presumably, if the market worked properly, people would shun health insurance companies that unfairly denied them coverage in favor of ones that paid promptly when they were supposed to. The fact that this doesn't seem to happen suggests that we need to make the individual health insurance market more competitive and give consumers data they need to make good choices, not that we need to hand over the keys to big government. We'll see what form the Health Insurance Exchange ends up taking; that may do more to help than the public plan.

While I disagree with pretty much everything he says about the subject, Ezra Klein at the WaPo is a good source of information on these issues. I particularly recommend this post from today.

Update: Maybe George Newman's op-ed today will spark some more discussion around these issues. I couldn't agree with it more.

AP book club: Coming of Age in New Jersey

2009-06-30T09:12:00.001-07:00

Today will be the first entry in what might be an occasional series, if I don't get bored with it. Welcome to the Attempted Polymathematica Book Club! When I read a book, I might share with you what I think about it.

I just finished Coming of Age in New Jersey by Michael Moffatt, an anthropological study of Rutgers students in the 1980's. There are two chapters on the sex lives of his students, and of course the prurient parts got the most attention after the book was released. If you're interested in that stuff there's lots of detail here. The most interesting part to me, though, was the last chapter on the school lives of the students. He noted that a substantial minority of his sample was vigorously involved in their education and were proactively choosing good classes with an aim to expanding their horizon. It was certainly possible to skate by, but those who wanted to could benefit from a fabulous education.

Another interesting point was his observation that before the 1960's, collegiate culture was distinctive from adolescent culture as a whole, whereas by his time (and certainly now) it is not. The increasing number of people seeking college educations is probably one cause of this -- I wonder what the broader implications of this change are for higher education as a whole.

By the way, if you want to see what I'm reading, there's a Goodreads gadget on the right side of the page that shows the books I'm in the midst of. Take a look, and if you have suggestions for things you think I'd be interested in, let me know.

Economics slapfight

2009-06-29T09:53:00.000-07:00

I guess when you win a Nobel you don't have to argue, you just get to call your opponents stupid. Check out this takedown of Krugman by Bryan Caplan. I'm not qualified exactly to judge the economics here but name-calling is a poor substitute for argument.

Remember Nothing, Forget Nothing

2009-01-12T11:25:00.001-08:00

From the brilliant political mind of K-Lo, on George Voinovich's retirement. . .

An alternative to the RNC chairmanship for Ken Blackwell? Senator Blackwell?

Seriously? Is the goal here to become a 20% (excuse me, 36%) rump?

I think Sarah Palin has hit a nerve

2008-09-10T22:00:00.001-07:00

Check this out. Choice quote:

As a woman who does not believe what Palin believes, the thought of such an opportunistic anti-female in the White House -- in the Cheney chair, no less -- is akin to ideological brain rape. What this Republican blowup doll does with her own insides in accord with her own faith is her business.

The internets have seen some nasty things written on both sides in this election. This might be the nastiest.

We might actually win this thing after all, if this is the best our erstwhile opponents can do.

Uh, Josh

2008-09-03T10:44:00.000-07:00

From TPM:

Why did Fred Thompson accuse Barack Obama of not opposing infanticide?

Think I'm exaggerating? Look at his words ...

And we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade.

And McCain approved it.

Hey, Josh, the reason Fred Thompson accused Barack Obama of not opposing infanticide is that he doesn't.

Back to blogging

2008-05-07T08:33:00.000-07:00

So, now that the spring semester is over, I definitely want to try this blogging thing again.

Meanwhile, I have a new link to the Visual Bookshelf app from Facebook down below on this page. Check it out; it's really cool.

I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords

2008-03-25T09:52:00.000-07:00

If you look to the right you can now see my shared RSS items from Google Reader. I recently switched to Google Reader from Outlook for my RSS needs, and you can share the benefits.

Aren't you excited?

Late Kudos

2008-03-24T08:33:00.000-07:00

This is way late, but whatever. Kudos to my man Nick for getting all 65 correct in the NCAA field last Sunday.

What Kind of Regulation?

2008-03-24T08:17:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Matthew Yglesias took on the deregulation of the financial markets with his usual combination of light substance and heavy snark.

What nobody has told me and I don't understand is this: how exactly would regulation of the financial markets have prevented the current situation. My understanding is that securitization of mortgages has never been prohibited, under Glass-Stegall or any other regulatory regime. I could be wrong about this; I am hoping my vast readership will fill me in if so.

Anyhow, now the Krugmans and Yglesiases of the world are calling for regulation. I don't have anything against regulation per se, but it would sure be nice to debate something concrete.

I think there is an opening for the Republicans here; while "stick it to those bastards!" is nice rhetoric, it's not good policy. If the McCain campaign can actually come up with something that might ameliorate the specific problems without strangling innovation, it could be helpful in the election.

Win Ben Stein's Vote

2008-03-18T06:44:00.000-07:00

This is actually from a week ago or so, but I missed it when it happened. Apologies if you've already seen it.

We all know that the New York Times's idea of a ideal conservative is one that disagrees with conservative ideas. Fine, but not all ideas identified as conservative are good ones, and this Ben Stein column is making some points that need to be made:

In other words, tax cuts do not pay for themselves, at least not on any basis I can see. Certainly, they are not worthless. They make taxpayers feel good and they generate growth. But basically, they shift the tax burden from us to our progeny and add immense amounts of interest expense to the federal budget. At this point, taxpayers shell out about $1 billion a day just for that item.

I would say that tax cuts shift the burden to our progeny only if they aren't counterbalanced by spending cuts, but we all know that's not going to happen. Spending control is all we can hope for.

It is my belief that the government gets enough money to meet needed infrastructure priorities if it focused on the right things, but in time of war it may be necessary to raise taxes. As our Democratic friends constantly remind us, keeping our nation safe is expensive. While I cannot agree with their solution (failing to keep our nation safe), some accounting for the costs may need to be done. I'm all for circumspection in raising taxes, but John McCain (or any other politician), shouldn't take any cards off the table.

For your daily quota of disgustingness

2008-03-17T08:01:00.001-07:00

Read the wonderful self-loathing on this AlterNet comment thread. A sample:

There's a potential silver lining here. As he condones and authorizes assassinations, a principle of International Law will kick in...the notion of reciprocity...and Young George himself might be targeted and taken out. Fine with me, so long as Cheney, Condi, and Rummy are with him at the time. :o)

At the risk of sounding like a member of the lizard army at LGF, just go to Canada or Amsterdam or Baghdad. We won't miss you.

You can have a legitimate debate about what sort of measures against terrorism are morally and legally justified. Insisting that President Bush be executed for crimes against humanity is not Step 1 of that debate.

Cost/Benefit

2008-03-13T13:43:00.000-07:00

This article in The Nation should be supported by any conservative:

Can we out-trump the conservatives on economics and demand a policy payback analysis to all federal or state investments? How would pet Republican programs do if their corporate welfare programs had to be benchmarked against, say, proven pre-kindergarten education investments for kids? Let's get the substantive cost-benefit analysis done to make that case on everything we are in favor of achieving in the next thirty years.

It's easy to rag on corporate welfare and certainly there's a bunch of it in the budget, much of it perpetrated by Republicans. It's this sort of anti-conservatism that has us in danger of being left as a 20% rump for a generation. Embracing this sort of rigorous analysis would lead us to a better understanding of what the proper role of government would be.

I also want to take up this:

Conservatives would be forced to take a public stance against doing the math on what government buys, and abandon their argument that government spending is useless.

Nobody in American government believes that government spending is useless. As this article so ably points out, history is replete with examples of government programs with lots of upside benefit that exceeded their cost. It's even more replete with programs that didn't work worth a damn or whose benefits were overwhelmed by unintended consequences. A really rigorous cost/benefit, that took into account all the costs and benefits of a program, monetary or not, would really help us to identify those expenditures that will be helpful, and those that won't. I don't think that sort of work would favor much of the current Democratic agenda, but if it did, let's do it. Republicans (especially the current crew) don't have a monopoly on good ideas, after all.

David Mamet sees the light

2008-03-12T09:08:00.000-07:00

Check it out.

Who pays for health care?

2008-03-12T08:25:00.000-07:00

While you may not be able to tell from reading this blog, health care is an interest of mine. This article (which is based on a paper in this week's JAMA) takes on the intersection of health care and employer relations.

What does this mean, exactly? Simple: “the common claim that employers, government, and households all pay for health care is false. Employers do not share fiscal responsibility and employers do not pay for health care.” In fact, the “money [for health care] comes from [our] own pockets.”

Well, no kidding. No rational employer gives a rat's behind whether they're spending their compensation dollars on cash, health care, or free donuts in the break room; they do what enables them to keep their employers happy. In today's tax environment, often that's health care. With that said, dollars spent on health care are dollars that come out of somewhere else; they have to. The customers will only pay so much for whatever good or service is being produced; there's only so many dollars to go around. What comes out of one pot necessarily comes out of another.

With that said, the statistics you so often see about the stagnation of middle class wages leave out the dramatically increasing health-care part of the compensation package. The fact that people have chosen to take more health care benefits instead of wages represents the people's choice, not a decline in living standards. I may do a post on that in the future once I dig up some of the stats.

More Future of the Union

2008-03-11T13:50:00.000-07:00

I told you; there's all kind of good stuff on there.

This is from the Lansing State Journal, from a story about how the Detroit Three might start hiring pretty soon:

There might be a disconnect between what the automakers are willing to pay and the skills they want from new workers.

Wait, what's this? You mean that employers might have to pay more than they'd like to attract good employees? I thought that more money was only obtained by unions or government or a gun?

This must be a mainstream media trick or something.

Who deserves to get paid for labor?

2008-03-11T07:03:00.000-07:00

I am a regular reader of the Soldiers of Solidarity site Future of the Union. It's a rank and file publication that had its genesis out of the Delphi issues a few years ago. They reprint a lot of stories that are of interest if you follow organized labor news as I do.

This popped up there yesterday:

Who owns the jobs? Who created the wealth that American Axle invested around the globe?

The answer to that one is pretty obvious: the customers paid for everything. In American Axle's case, that's the Big Three directly, but ultimately American car buyers who have decided not to pay the bill anymore. Whether you're a CEO or a line worker, if you're busier trying to grab a piece for yourself than satisfy the customer, pretty soon there won't be any pieces to grab.

Just to review

2008-03-10T12:55:00.001-07:00

Your wife: OK

Chicks that do it for free: unsavory, but not illegal

Paying $4300: Not cool.

Some inequality numbers to think about

2008-03-10T11:37:00.000-07:00

I don't like inequality, I just think the alternatives are worse. I'm not here to defend it but I think the statistics used to justify big government interventions to reduce it are overstated. Apparently, Brad Schiller agrees with me.

From today's WSJ (if you can't read this and are interested in seeing it, email me):

The "typical" household, however, keeps changing. Since 1970 there has been a dramatic rise in divorced, never-married and single-person households. Back in 1970, the married Ozzie and Harriet family was the norm: 71% of all U.S. households were two-parent families. Now the ratio is only 51%. In the process of this social revolution, the average household size has shrunk to 2.57 persons from 3.14 -- a drop of 18%. The meaning? Even a "stagnant" average household income implies a higher standard of living for the average household member.

And from later in the article. . .

The increase in nominal GDP since 2000 amounts to over $4 trillion annually. If you assume that all that money went to the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households, that bonanza would come to a whopping $350,000 per household. Yet according to the Census Bureau, the top 10% of households has an average income of $200,000 or so. The implied bonanza is so absurd that the notion that only the rich have gained from the economic growth can be dismissed out of hand. Clearly, there is a lot of economic advancement across a broad swath of population. Dramatic changes in household composition, household size and immigration tend to obscure this reality.

"They're both not ready. . ."

2008-03-06T15:26:00.000-08:00

Of course neither Senator Clinton or Obama is ready to face the challenges of the war on terror and keep our country safe. We knew this.

But, why take it from me when you can listen to Sen. Obama's foreign policy advisor Susan Rice:

If you're serious about defending our country, you have one choice.

For the counterfactual crowd. . .

2008-03-04T08:22:00.000-08:00

You might enjoy this from Volokh Conspiracy. It asks for nominations about the long-term effects of Supreme Court cases being differently decided. There's quite the interesting comment thread developing.

Union Math: Where All Children Are Above Average

2008-03-03T07:58:00.000-08:00

From the CtW blog:

The study finds that only one in four jobs in America can be described as "good jobs" -- where good jobs is defined as a job that offers health insurance, a retirement plan, and that pays at least an amount in inflation-adjusted dollars equal to the median male worker's wage in 1979 (!). (Nearly a third -- 29% -- of workers surveyed hold jobs that meet none of these three criteria.)

I wonder what the relevant figure was in 1979. I guarantee that it was below half, because _by definition_ half of the male worker's population is below the median,and women's wages are lower than men's.

If you're trying to pull up the percentage of people who are below the median income, you're going to have a tough time with that one.

Ohio and NAFTA

2008-03-03T07:36:00.000-08:00

In their Ohio campaigning, the Democratic candidates have decried NAFTA as having cost a whole bunch of Ohio jobs and generally serving only the rich.

Displaying typical Democratic powers of analysis, they have ignored one tiny fact: The unemployment rate in Ohio in December of 1993, the month before NAFTA took effect, was 6.5 percent. Since that month, it has never been that high.

Free trade causes dislocations, there is no question about that. We as a society need to do better at helping people who suffer the downside of free trade obtain new skills in more productive avocations. Having a wealthier society makes that a lot easier. We can only tax what someone makes.

Today's Awards

2008-02-21T15:28:00.000-08:00

Sly Innuendo Award: The crew responsible for the ridiculous attempted hit piece on McCain in today's NYT.

Holy Crap! Award: I agree with Talking Points Memo! I do believe that this is a first.

As Glenn Reynolds would say, "heh": The Times Upholds Its Standards, by John Hinderaker at Power Line.

I can't add much to that discussion. From the Times, this sort of thing is less surprising than lamentable, but there we go.

Market vs government power

2008-02-20T06:03:00.000-08:00

My friends over at workinglife.org and some other corners of the web would do well to keep this (from John Stossel) in mind:

Notice that she equates government power and market power. That is absurd. "Power" in a free market means success at creating goods and services that your fellow human beings voluntarily choose to buy. Government power is force: the ability to fine and imprison people.

Read the whole thing. I don't necessarily agree with all of his conclusions (that the government is bad at something right now doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't do it.), but it is important to recognize that there is a cost associated with interfering with the market. Sometimes it's worth it, but a lot of times it's not.

Electoral Compass

2008-02-15T05:26:00.001-08:00

My boy Nick did this and I thought it was cool, so I did too (if the picture's too small, click it):

I suppose this is a fair place to put me in the American political context, although with a different set of questions I could come out on the other side of the libertarian/authoritarian line. In fact I do, on the Political Compass:

One of the things that my buddies on talk radio could stand to learn is that any given election will serve up issues that may be somewhat misleading as to a candidates ideological position. Looking at a candidate's outlook more generally is probably a better indication of what they'll do than their individual positions. The fact that I agree with Ron Paul on some issues that have been discussed in this particular election does not mean that I think he'd be the best candidate.

I may develop this further in another post; I want to talk about the Republicans' choice in the 2000 Presidential primary and how it relates to this point.

In Which Sherrod Brown tries to score points from my misery

2008-02-14T07:49:00.000-08:00

Well, OK, not my misery exactly; it turned out alright for me, but the legitimate misery of a lot of people I care about.

Most of my vast readership knows that my first job after college was at the American Standard plant in Tiffin, Ohio. It was bought along with the rest of American Standard's bath and kitchen business last year by Bain Capital, and they closed the plant on December 31st. It really sucked for a lot of my friends, to say nothing of my hometown.

To no one's surprise, a whole litany of Democratic politicians used this situation as an occasion for nativist demagoguery. The latest example is this conversation that Sherrod Brown recently had with The Nation, in which he seems to imply that Bain Capital closed the plant specifically because they enjoy throwing people out of work.

That plant closed because it was a poisonous environment to work in. Whether that's due to mismanagement or mis-unionism, I can't say. Personally I suspect both. The fact is, though, that it wasn't producing cost-effective ware or Bain Capital would not have closed it. No organization will stay in business very long if it's bleeding money, whether it's GM or American Standard or whatever, and no one, workers, financiers, or government, can take profits that aren't being produced.

Down With Math

2008-02-08T08:41:00.000-08:00

Now here's a viewpoint I can stand behind.

I think there is a broader point to be here for business curriculums. A very large portion of the typical university business curriculum is devoted to functional skills. Almost the entire last two years is taken up with classes taught from the business college.

I'm not at all sure that this is the best way to educate someone who is headed for a business career. The narrow focus on what we can do, leaves little time to consider what we should do.

Dear Dr. Krugman:

2008-02-05T20:01:00.001-08:00

On September 11, 2001, some terrorists flew 2 planes into the World Trade Center. They destroyed the buildings and killed 3000 Americans. That started a war, where we tried to keep terrorists from doing that sort of thing again. This required an increase in defense spending.

Apparently, you are unaware of these facts so I just wanted to remind you.

Sincerely,

Brian M. Saxton

Americans Against Fair Lending

2008-02-05T11:31:00.001-08:00

There was a letter to the editor in today's NYT that I want to talk about. Go read it.

Some group called Americans for Fair Lending has taken a bold, inspiring stand:

A set of principles of fair lending, agreed to by Americans for Fairness in Lending, a coalition of national consumer groups, should be followed: responsibility, justice, equality, information, accountability, law and enforcement.

I know I'm impressed. They're for responsibility and information!

It's a good thing we have this thing called the market, that has strongly punished companies that violated those bold principles. It turns out that companies that did that stuff, they've already taken their beatings. People that signed contracts they didn't understand, or did understand and just ignored, yeah, it didn't work out too well for them either.

If the answer to every question you ever ask is government, you need to open up the playbook a little further.

Feel the McMentum!

2008-02-01T12:41:00.000-08:00

When even the TownHall crew is moving toward McCain, you can feel the fat lady warming up.

So, think about where we could be: a balanced budget, the war in Iraq won, a conservative Supreme Court, border security increased, the Republican Party's reputation much improved, and McCain leaving office in 2012. Can you really tell me that sounds so bad?

Yes, indeed.

The enemy isn't us

2008-01-24T19:44:00.000-08:00

Dear John Quiggen:

Moreover, where it was once possible to treat occasional public manifestations of Freeperism as aberrations, it’s now obvious that this is how the Republican base really thinks. So, any Republican, no matter how superficially reasonable, must be regarded as either someone who shares Freeper/LGF views or someone who is willing to exploit the holders of such views in the pursuit of a personal or class interest.

You have a point here, no doubt. But our team hardly has a monopoly on wingnuts.

"REA-GAN GOOD!"

2008-01-23T15:26:00.000-08:00

It has been highly amusing to me to watch the netroots demand ideological purity from their candidates at the expense of nominating people that can win elections, and then claiming that, "they just weren't pure enough!" (Hint: the reason that Congress's approval rating is even lower than the President's isn't that they haven't started on impeachment proceedings against the President.)

It would not be a good idea to follow their example, as Shawn Macomber so elegantly reminds us on the AmSpec blog. Support or don't support a candidate as you like, but leave room in the tent for the rest of us, please, and try to keep in mind that general elections are won by the guy or gal that appeals to the whole country.

Say's Law

2008-01-23T05:52:00.000-08:00

I hope that everyone can read this from today's WSJ:

Some Democrats still think that government stimulation of demand is an antidote to a slowing economy. Yet economics has certain iron laws that the government violates at its peril. One of them has been called Say's Law, because it was first enunciated by the late 18th-century Frenchman Jean-Baptiste Say. He said "products are paid for with products." Or to rephrase the point, "a society can't consume if it doesn't produce." Hillary's assertion that her "stimulus" package shouldn't be paid for denies reality. Somebody has to pay for it. One man's consumption must be paid for by his own or someone else's production.

Government spending is a cost to the economy, not a benefit. There are some things we want the government to do, but the answer to an economic slowdown is less government, not more.

Chinese Restaurant in Baghdad

2008-01-21T07:19:00.000-08:00

I wonder if the AlterNet crew will think about the implications of this story. It would appear that peace is coming to parts of Baghdad, and normal, free, life is coming to a country that hasn't had it in a very long time, if ever.

If Iraq can find politicians worthy of the sacrifices of its people, it'll be alright.

UPDATE: Nah, they didn't consider it much. There's no way to write "BUSH BAD! DON-KEYS GOOD! in the comments, so nobody commented.

How the Democrats can lose this election

2008-01-17T16:08:00.000-08:00

It'll be a challenge, but they might just be up to it. Eating their own is probably a good start.

One of the things that I find most obnoxious about the Bush administration and the state of the Republican right is the insistence on orthodoxy. Like the Party in 1984, their command is not "Thou shalt," it is "Thou art." Our friends in the netroots despise this unwillingness to acknowledge the good faith of the other side, as do I.

Apparently, their solution is to emulate it. I don't think that is a winning position.

Mike Brown gets an extension

2008-01-17T15:16:00.000-08:00

I'm a little late to the party on this one; it happened a few days ago.

Now that the organization has shown some (well-deserved, don't get me wrong) confidence in its head coach, can we please, please, PLEASE hire him an assistant that knows something about offense???

Please?

Someone making sense? In the New York Times?

2008-01-17T15:09:00.001-08:00

It happened:

One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonald’s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives.

Not sure I agree with the policy result -- the idea that your education and experience could suddenly become obsolete because of foreign trade disincentives education, which I'm not sure we want to do. With that said, it's a powerful line of reasoning and one that should be considered carefully by those who want to use force to take my money and give it to people they think deserve it.

The Mind Reels

2008-01-16T13:54:00.000-08:00

This is really something.

While thousands voted in the Michigan presidential primaries yesterday, more than 3,500 union members and allies monitored polling places statewide for a potential “right to work” for less petition drive on the day of the primary. More than two dozen international unions participated in the statewide mobilization, taking shifts morning, noon and night at 2,000 polling locations across the state.

Now, I have nothing against union folks showing up to polling places. And, I have nothing against their opposing right-to-work legislation. I'm not sure it's a good idea, myself. But, one wonders how they were planning on opposing it if the petition circulators had shown up? If union folks expect to be allowed to leaflet polling places, then they have to expect that everyone else will get the same privilege. Right?

Advances

2008-01-14T11:32:00.000-08:00

While traipsing through the interwebs today I found this diary at Kos. It's some interesting (if not entirely economically literate) discussion of the investment or lack thereof in American infrastructure.

At any rate, in the comments was linked this essay by George McGovern. The quote I'm concerned with is as follows:

Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiativet aken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare,rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, to name just a few.*

(emphasis mine)

If you believe that every step forward in our history is provided by the government, then, yes, you are probably a liberal. If you like things like:

Personal computing (and, yes, the Internet, or at most of the content thereon)
Telephones, both wired and cellular
Automobiles
Drop ceilings
A thingy that sprays cleaning solution around your shower so you don't have to scrub it
Pizza delivery

Then you might realize that not all steps forward are provided by the government, and too much government interference might prevent the invention of things we like and use.

Jackson is sure doing something

2008-01-11T11:27:00.001-08:00

No one can say that Frank Jackson isn't doing something. He has found a remarkably efficient way to chase home lenders out of Cleveland, and like the bold leader he is, he put it into action!

Way to go, Mr. Mayor! Bold leadership for America!

Two things I don't usually do

2008-01-09T11:17:00.000-08:00

I don't normally think too much about abortion, and I don't base my votes on that issue exclusively. Also, I don't typically fear for society based on what I read on the internet; if I did, I'd never do anything else. Then I read something like this comment (scroll down):

To be forced to carry and give birth to a baby and then have it torn from you is unimaginable. For me, and for many other women, it's far worse than the ending of a life that has not yet truly begun.

Has our country really gotten so morally bankrupt that it's better to kill your own child than let them live if they can't be part of your life? And this point of view is celebrated?

Today is what's right with America

2008-01-08T14:07:00.001-08:00

For horse-race punditry, go somewhere where it's followed closer than it is here. But, today, in New Hampshire, they choose a leader. My boy is John McCain, and here's his final thought. Whoever you favor, in New Hampshire or somewhere else, think about this as you vote:

Thank you for your support. Please vote for us tomorrow. But most importantly, I cannot tell you what an honor it is for me to have had the great privilege of sharing so many wonderful, wonderful experiences with you about the most important part of democracy, the best part of democracy in a nation that is still a shining city on a hill. Thank you very much, thank you for being here, God bless you and God bless America.

(H/T: Byron York)

Typical

2008-01-07T16:17:00.000-08:00

I don't know anything about this guy, but if this book title is a fair representation, he's like most union members. Hating to work is common in those communities, no?

An Argument I'd Wanted to Make

2008-01-07T12:53:00.000-08:00

This comment was made on a thread about TPM's Golden Duke Awards. It's a viewpoint that I wish would get more play in our national discussion:

Guys!

This is all just left bashing right (Did I miss a lefty named somewhere?). What is going on in America with the increasing rise of hateful, poisonous, mostly emotional attitudes? This desire to to hate, to villify, to call criminal and call for impeachment because certain groups of people don't like a politician's POLICIES and VIEWPOINT, is a very perverted, dysfunctional, inefficient way for society to operate.

As much as I don't want to see Hillary make office, I certainly don't want to put up with 4 to 8 years of emotionally generated, attempted take-downs by the right.

I'm not a Bush supporter, but there are so many lefties out there who do not understand that Bush is PURPOSEFULLY challenging the boundaries of the Constitution and the very powers of the office of the president. But this is his position and right UNDER the Consitution. Our system actually has checks on a president going too far (even if they seem to operate slowly). Notice how NONE of these checks have come into reality even with a Democratic majority? There's a reason, and you don't know what your talking about until you know the reason.

Michael R.
Roswell, NM

GMAC Bowl Halftime Commentary

2008-01-06T18:54:00.002-08:00

SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK HANG ON TO THE FOOTBALL SUCK SUCK SUCK.

That is all.

ABC Debate

2008-01-05T17:56:00.001-08:00

My boy Buckeyenewshawk is probably not watching the debate (with the Steelers on) so I'll fill in with some thoughts on the GOP debate:

What was with Romney pushing the health care mandate? He was taking a reasonable position, but can't be a winner in this primary, can it?
Yes, yes, we know. Mitt is a flip-flopper. Thanks, boys.
The measuring contest on who can be tougher on illegals was kinda silly. Fred Thompson was generally pretty good but he was unnecessarily shrill here.
It was nice to see my boy John above the fray somewhat -- he jumped on Mitt a couple of times but given the format, it must have been tempting to come at him more. I guess when you're the front-runner, you can play it safe.
Thompson, as the not-front-runner, could have been a little more aggressive. It's one thing to say "flip-flopper!" or "amnesty!" and another thing to offer your own policy proposals and contrast them with others'.
I still like McCain, but I thought Romney won the show. He showed mastery of the various issues in a way the other candidates didn't.

Blackwater to kill Obama

2008-01-05T06:19:00.000-08:00

You go, HuffPo. It's impossible to argue with closely reasoned logic like this. I mean, how can the rest of us compete with that?

H/T: NRO.

Happy New Year

2008-01-03T11:41:00.000-08:00

Yeah, so I haven't been so good about posting. Consider a regular appearance here to be a New Year's Resolution.

Check out this story from some guy in LA. Of particular interest is this graf:

Supporters of right-to-work statutes tend to be anti-collectivist, libertarian wannabes who elevate personal choice to iconic status, and are willing to be paid less and accept substandard benefits in return for the right not to have to join a big, bad workers' collective. When you consider the simple arithmetic involved, this antipathy to unions, this flat-out rejection of economic advancement via strength-in-numbers, isn't merely irrational, it's pitiful.

That could be. It's also possible that they don't want to pay for the "privilege" of supporting political causes they don't believe in. It's also possible that they would like to speak for themselves, and not have their talking done for them by a body that may not represent them. Or, maybe they believe in a collaborative working environment, that their job ultimately depends on the success of their employer.

But, sure, people who believe in right-to-work must be stupid.

Tigers-Marlins

2007-12-05T07:32:00.000-08:00

Does it really change the balance of power in the AL Central? Cabrera is tough, I'll grant, and that lineup is scary. But, do we really expect a guy who had an ERA over 5 last year to come to the AL and get significantly better?

Unfortunately, it appears that the Tigers are trying to win now in the same window as the Indians, and the Tribe can't keep up the spending arms race. If that kind of spending starts in the Central, we could be looking at 40 years of White Sox and Tigers. Salary cap, please?

Back from Vegas

2007-11-16T08:20:00.000-08:00

. . . .Where I discovered how exactly the big casinos were built. I didn't do too bad, really, but I certainly have yet to go there and come out (financially) ahead.

One of my favorite topics is economic inequality, and while we can probably agree that it's bad, my question is, what do we do about it? Raising taxes on the rich seems like a ham-fisted way of helping the middle class, and one that's likely to do more harm than good. Apparently, I'm not the only person that thinks so.

I'm going to BG this weekend for quiz bowl.

The Cost of Redistribution

2007-11-05T07:26:00.000-08:00

This piece by Ezra Klein got me thinking. He argues that the wealthiest among us have "stolen" the productivity gains of the economy is bad and we should do something about it. I have always wondered how proponents of this line of thought propose to get people to pay $7 for a Big Mac because we raised the minimum wage to $11/hour, but that's neither here nor there.

My main question today is, is it not possible that the reason our economy has grown and recessions have gotten gentler over the past thirty years or so is that very inequality? Is it not possible that Paul Krugman's Great Compression is what was holding the economy back? Government redistributions have a cost; $1 in taxes costs the economy more than $1, and I propose that all that money we were spending on bureaucrats instead of people who actually produce something is the difference between the 50's and today. I'd love to see some serious analysis of this idea -- I'm not equipped to do it but it passes the smell test with me.

This blogging thing is hard. . .

2007-11-02T09:15:00.000-07:00

I have been writing a lot of questions lately and getting ready for some fake quiz bowl next week, so apologies to the three or so of you who read this blog. You might want to use the RSS feed.

This post from Working Life hits home with me as someone who lost a job a few years ago and was eligible for (but never got; I got a new job first) TAA assistance. I am a little confused by the folks that are so against free trade. I am not sure how they think that their middle-class lifestyles will be maintained if you make the economy less productive than it already is, by closing the door to your customers. The United States is the world's largest consumer market, and every business in the world wants to sell their stuff here, but no government is going to open the doors to U.S. companies if our doors are closed to theirs.

So, I'm not sure how we save middle class jobs if we roll back free trade. If the American market isn't big enough to buy the things you want to sell (at high wages, remember -- prices will have to be raised), then all those great manufacturing jobs that we've created are going to go out of business in a hurry. I don't care how little the CEO makes -- no company that doesn't make money will employ workers at any wage for very long.

In response to the distorting effects of farm subsidies that one commenter brought up, you won't see me defend them. That, and the very interesting post about education that the sociology professor posted, I'll deal with another day.

Krugman steps a bridge too far

2007-10-08T08:13:00.000-07:00

The hopes of Cleveland rest on crafty veteran Paul Byrd tonight, as he takes on the vaunted Yankees. Hopefully, they can slap the Yankees' Wang around again.

I always read Paul Krugman; he gets on my nerves but he's smart and hard to argue with. He went a bridge too far today:

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush’s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here’s how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a “rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems” because “the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority — so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.”

"People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In “The Conscience of a Conservative,” published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.”

Let's review, shall we? Bush is:

the heir to a movement that is really uninterested in decreasing the size of government, that is only using that claim as a hammer to win elections

the heir to a movement that is not interested in good government, only in decreasing its size

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts to equate dissent with treason.

As opposed to moveon.org equating non-dissent with treason, or an attempt at enforcement of fiscal responsibility as an active preference for keeping children without health care? I don't always the support the tone of the Bush administration, but blaming one side for the political discourse that has been endemic for years, and , indeed, is on display in this very column is disingenuous at best.

Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top — who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons — I’ve got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.

Do you really honestly think that if there was any "there" there, Lawrence Walsh wouldn't have found it? How much was spent on that investigation?

You keep that flame of hate alive, Paul.

First Monday

2007-10-01T06:34:00.000-07:00

Here come the Supremes -- and as we turn to the month on the calendar where eight (well, nine, until tonight anyway) cities are focused more on other groups of nine contesting the baseball playoffs, the Supreme Court will begin its session today. Many big cases are on tap; for the best coverage anywhere, take a leap past Linda Greenhouse at the NYT and go straight to the recently redesigned SCOTUS blog. If the law is as interesting to you as it is to me, you'll enjoy the read.

Which brings me to my main point for today. I have no brief for the current crop of Republican presidential candidates, except for McCain, who probably won't win. In fact, if it ends up being

Giuliani vs. HRC, there isn't much difference on policy positions and on intangibles I would probably prefer Hillary.

But, I would have to vote for Rudy in that case. The most important difference is that Rudy will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will respect the Constitution and the other branches of government for the next 20 years. Hillary will appoint justices who will rewrite the constitution to achieve their policy objectives. That is more important than anything else, in my opinion.

Everybody go read this!

2007-09-27T12:38:00.000-07:00

It's really, really good stuff on economic misconceptions that plague voters.

(Hat tip to Greg Mankiw.)

They Signed

2007-09-26T07:56:00.000-07:00

The UAW and GM have apparently come to agreement on a new contract, ending a day-and-a-half strike. Terms weren't disclosed, but are believed to contain some job security concessions in exchange for the formation of a VEBA.

I am not sure what will become of the VEBA, but it is hard to see that being a good deal for retirees. The only way that this saves GM any money is if it's underfunded -- so, by definition, if it's a savings for GM it's going to run out of money as happened at Caterpillar.

Then again, the VEBA could be funded more or less fully (70% is the figure that's been batted around, which is close to full funding as some of the obligations of the fund haven't actually been incurred yet), which makes it simply a means of removing uncertainty from GM's books, and making Wall Street happy with little effect on the actual size of the obligation.

Watch this space -- as the details come out it'll be interesting to see what happened, and if the contract is ratified.

No Guarantees

2007-09-25T07:24:00.000-07:00

Sorry I was gone, I was busy celebrating the 2007 AMERICAN LEAGUE CENTRAL DIVISION CHAMPIONS!!!!!! See you at the Jake for the ALDS!!!!!!!

(Sorry about that, I let my emotions get away with me for a second.)

You may have noticed that the UAW went out yesterday. It seems that one of the more important issues is job security. I'm not sure they're thinking this through all the way. You can't get a guarantee of job security besides producing a product at a price people will pay for it. If you do that, you don't need a guarantee. If you don't, no guarantee will save you.

What's a Louis Vuitton dress worth?

2007-09-13T06:31:00.000-07:00

Not as much as it costs, apparently. This is from a few weeks ago, but since I missed it then I hope you'll take a look at it now. It's this kind of thinking that leads people to rail against "excessive" corporate profits. I don't understand this personally; unless they're operating a government-enforced monopoly or are using slave labor, then the transactions by which they made that money were all adjudged by the people who made them to be in their best interests. Do we really want government to be in the business of telling people that, "no, darn it, you shouldn't buy that coat -- it's way overpriced?" Personally, I think advertising on Daily Kos costs too much; they should be forced to lower their rates.

However, that's exactly what some are trying to do with "living-wage" legislation. Now, I understand that the analogy doesn't apply perfectly because employers have much more market power than minimum-wage employees, but, give me a break. Do we really want to really want to open ourselves up to the market-distorting effects of a high minimum wage because we as a society would rather make the decision of what wage to seek on people's behalf?
Can't the argument also be made that sub-"living-wage" wages are what makes middle-class living possible? If the production expenses of the goods we want are increased, they'll cost more and we'll just inflation, not any increase in our standard of living.

Do Unions Add Value?

2007-09-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite labor commentary sites is Working Life, where Jonathan Tasini writes on all sorts of topics. I can usually count on him to raise my blood pressure, and get me thinking. Anyway, he took on the auto negotiations yesterday:

You see, there are actually plenty of auto jobs, here and abroad. But, they increasingly are NON-UNION jobs. The auto industry is growing in the U.S.--but it's growing in the South, it's growing non-union and it's growing with wages and benefits far lower than the average wage of a current auto worker.

The ultimate goal, from the corporate end, in the auto negotiations is to survive--and, then, proceed on the merry road the companies have embarked on for some time now: rid themselves of the union and the cost structure that good unions jobs entail. It makes perfect logical, financial sense. That it is a disaster for working Americans is not their concern.

I am not sure that this development is a disaster for working Americans. It's working Americans that buy the cars that will be more affordable if they can be produced for less. If people who buy cars saw value in union-made automobiles, they would pay more for them. If that was the case, the Big 3 wouldn't be in the fix they're in.

In any event, as I posted over there, the UAW (and American workers in general) are like a grocery store owner selling a can of tuna for $2, that you can get down the street for $1. If you want to get paid more, you'd better be selling better tuna. I think it's clear that for a lot of products, producing in America (as opposed to, say, China) is worth the higher cost. Manufacturers in all kinds of industries have proved that over the past ten years. The standard of living enjoyed in America as opposed to other places isn't a birthright -- if we don't continue to add more value than the other guy, we can't expect to get paid more and live better than him.

What's less clear to me is the value that organized labor provides. If you want to get paid more for making cars than your non-union brethren down south, you need to be doing it better or your pay can't be sustained. The marketplace will quickly take care of disparities, and is doing so with a vengeance.

By the way, I think you can make a case that unions do add value to productive enterprises, at least sometimes. Considering how much they use in resources, they'd better be.

Economist 1, Jonathan Chait 0

2007-09-10T08:30:00.000-07:00

A little more on the taxation topic, from Free Exchange at the Economist. It's always nice when the data backs you up.

Seriously, though -- I can't think of reasons why anyone would be surprised by this. Making money is hard -- you have to take risk, or do things like work which you would rather not do. Meanwhile, whatever you did to make money helps somebody else because you've produced something that they wanted (that is, unless you work in government.) If you get less reward for whatever you're doing because of higher taxes, then you're less likely to do it. Admittedly, I'm not an economist, but I don't see why this is complicated. You can argue about how much it happens, but I don't see much of an argument that it happens at least somewhat.

Supply-Side Follies

2007-09-07T07:43:00.000-07:00

A lot of online ink has been spilled within the last few days regarding Jonathan Chait's new book "exposing" the supply-side thinking of Republicans. I hope he enjoyed burning down the straw man of supply-side because that's all he did.

There are a lot of serious reasons that tax cuts are good -- you don't have to believe that revenue will increase as a result of cutting taxes to believe that tax cuts are good in a given situation. Take a look at this story from the Economist economics blog.

If you want to say that Republicans are uninformed about economics and make stupid arguments, that's not exactly breaking news. I'm sure you can point to examples of Republicans saying any number of stupid things are any number of topics. So are a lot of Democrats -- economic literacy is not a requirement to be in politics. However, it's more useful to engage the legitimate arguments if you want to shed any light on a topic. It's bad argument to say that "This point that your side sometimes makes is wrong, therefore, you're not worth listening to at all."

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water if you ignore the fact that tax cuts can expand the economy, or, for that matter, the moral argument that the money belongs to the people and the government should use it efficiently.

A better way for health care

2007-09-06T14:00:00.000-07:00

RIP, Paul Gillmor. A good man and a good Representative. This OH - 5ian will miss you.

For those who are trying to preserve the good of the U.S. health care system and bring more equality, take a look at this story from the Wall Street Journal. (It's on Page 1 today, I believe it's free. If not and you want to see it, let me know.). This seems like an interesting idea. While the U.S. health care system isn't perfect, there's a lot going on that's good, and it would be nice to preserve some it if we're going to monkey with it.

From the strange bedfellows department. . . .

2007-09-05T06:34:00.000-07:00

It's not often that the politician I agree with most on a major political issue is John Dingell, but check this out. Now, I realize that it is entirely possible that Dingell is taking an extreme position in order to scotch any reform at all, but a carbon tax is a sound idea and perhaps Dingell's position will get it a wider hearing.

This brings up a larger point. The political blogosphere tends to divide into red and blue, and ne'er the twain shall meet. It's not enough to disagree with people, they must be proven to be inadequate human beings and destroyed. I submit that this has gotten worse on the internet, and hinders good government. Please, people, less calling names, more engaging ideas.

Happy Labor Day!

2007-09-03T09:39:00.001-07:00

Respect to all those who provide something that people want to pay for today.

Check this article out -- if economics was better understood by the population at large we'd have a lot fewer Democrats. If the political discourse in the United States focused more on costs and benefits, we could get a lot further.

With that said, this article ignores the externalities caused by carbon usage. If all the costs of an action aren't borne by the people who take it, you'll get more of it than is societally optimal. A carbon tax is one way to restore those costs and make sure that the true costs of energy use are factored into every decision. Greg Mankiw wrote my intermediate macroeconomics textbook, so, I suppose it's only natural that I would follow him into the Pigou Club.

Pandering

2007-08-31T13:17:00.001-07:00

Apparently the Republican National Committee is going to ask Larry Craig to resign per CNN.

Let's break this situation down. Taking the facts as alleged, he wanted to have sex. Distasteful for a married man, certainly. A "crime involving conduct unbecoming a Senator," as Norm Coleman alleged, possibly. But, this is a crime that doesn't impact his fitness as a Senator. Apparently, he's enjoyed having sex with men for years and been OK as a member of the Senate. If a Senator likes having anonymous sex, does that by definition make him unfit to be a Senator? I guess not.

This just about makes me ashamed to be a Republican. Some of the members of our erstwhile party are apparently operating under the assumption that it is necessary to pander to the religious right in order to win elections. How about, I don't know, governing effectively? Maybe lowering taxes, cutting spending, fighting terrorists? You think that might be a good way to spend time. Oh wait, never mind, we have to get those gays! That's a much better idea!

I'm back

2007-08-27T11:05:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the lack of posts. . .I've been gone for a while, off to NYC and a little relaxing time. But now, it's time for the real world to restart, with a new semester and new projects.

Big series for the Tribe this week -- they got the job done on this road trip but now they'll have to get the sticks out against Minnesota. Now is not the time to let them back into the race.

The Power of Free Trade

2007-08-14T09:41:00.000-07:00

This commentary in today's LA Times (by Nathan Gardels) discusses the foremost power of free trade. The U.S.'s dependence on China has been much in the news recently, with China's discussion of a sell-off of U.S. Treasuries leading to dire prophesies of economic collapse.

Like any other transaction, though, real power accrues to buyers, not sellers.

In the name of sovereignty, China's leaders for a long time have gotten away with suppressing their own citizens while ignoring the get-gloriously-rich-quick corruption that has thrived in the absence of the rule of law. But, thanks to globalization, China's export reliance on the U.S. market has imported the political demands of the U.S. consumer into the equation. Americans won't hesitate to cut the import lifeline and shift away from Chinese products that might poison their children or kill their pets.

The Chinese economy is so dependent on selling to the U.S. market that its masters dare not risk anything that will offend the U.S. consumer. Labor standards, a free press, and the rule of law are all more likely to happen now that the Chinese market depends on countries that value them. An engaged society has an obligation to play by the world's rules. The U.S. consumer has, and is continuing to, use its funds for the betterment of humanity, in a more powerful way than any other means could.

If you don't govern, you can't win

2007-08-13T11:40:00.001-07:00

Karl Rove is leaving the White House at the end of the month. He is without question one of the foremost political minds of his generation, but the story of the Bush administration generally and him in particular shows that that isn't enough. It's great to win elections but if you don't use the opportunity you're given, you're still not getting anywhere.

Consider this a call for more policy heft in Republican ranks to go along with the political side. The current crop of candidates has had little of substance to say on the economy or tax system, health care, or other domestic policy questions. There are plenty of Republican intellectuals with strong free-market policy solutions -- let's see some of them.

Steve Skvara said. . .

2007-08-10T06:19:00.000-07:00

When LTV filed bankruptcy, my Nana lost her eligibility for medical coverage through a technicality. She was a surviving spouse and not the employee himself. My grandmother was forced to spend her hard-earned savings on additional medical coverage through a private insurer, and the cost of healthcare wiped out most of her savings.

Nobody likes it when things like this happen. The people who are doing it don't like it, either. But, sad to say, the only way for government or anyone else to do anything about it is to create enough wealth in the economy to pay for whatever it is you're going to do. The best way to do that, hands down, is free trade.

After all, if nobody earns it, you can't tax it.

Where do capitalist millions come from?

2007-08-09T13:42:00.000-07:00

a) Ripping out of the mouths of the poor
b) Stealing from the workers
c) Fleecing from the government
d) Comedy "providing a good or service people want and will pay for" option

I Hope I Get A Vote, At Least. . .

2007-08-08T10:08:00.000-07:00

before this happens. With that said, would that mean that I could accumulate seniority toward a job at Deadspin or, better yet, the AFL-CIO blog? I think I'd fit right in there, and they can't keep me out. That's arbitrary and capricious refusal to let me exercise my rights in a democratic workplace! Once I accumulate seniority I demand a position on the AFL-CIO blog.

Manufacturing Flexibility

2007-08-07T09:58:00.000-07:00

The folks at Future of the Union (which is a highly recommended read, by the way) posted an AP story in which a Ford worker was asking the entirely reasonable question, "Why are the auto companies sticking it to us, when labor is only 10% of the cost of a car?" You can read the story here. The simple answer is twofold:

1. It's harder to fix deeper mismanagement issues; reducing labor costs is the easiest way to show immediate progress. Showing immediate progress is a very important part of convincing investors that the Detroit companies can continue as going concerns, which is obviously in everyone's best interests.

2. There's a lot more to the added costs of the UAW than union wages. In fact, just about all the non-union auto plants pay roughly the same costs. Flexibility is the biggest issue; efficient production is impossible if the workforce isn't able to do different jobs. Toyota doesn't make cheaper cars because they pay less; they can do it because their factories are able to respond to changing demand conditions. To the extent that union rules prevent that, it costs a lot more than a few extra dollars an hour would. Hopefully the auto companies will give on wages to gain on flexibility, recognizing where their true costs lie.

Creating Living-Wage jobs

2007-08-03T08:32:00.000-07:00

This (from Jonathan Tasini over at workinglife) was in response to an editorial in today's WSJ blaming Mexican immigration on lack of effective job creation.

After NAFTA passed, the peso crashed and millions of people were pushed further into poverty. The problem is not job creation: the problem is having jobs that allow people to put food on the table--which Mexico cannot do as long as a central driving force behind the economy--as is true in other countries hit by so-called "Free trade"--is to push down wages. Mr. "Heart of Darkness" Kurtz-man, if you generate jobs that don't pay a living wage, why do you expect people to stop feeling that economic disaster?

How, exactly, do you create living-wage jobs? The only answer is to enable the employers to make enough money to pay those wages. A company that carries employees that don't create value commensurate with their wages isn't going to be paying any wages, living or otherwise, for very long.

NAFTA, by increasing the market for Mexican goods, can only increase the inflows into Mexico's economy. This cash will benefit the entire economy, making all kinds of jobs possible that weren't possible before. If you're selling to a small market, it will be hard to generate any jobs, much less the living-wage ones, the lack of which Mr. Tasini so laments.

CEO bonuses

2007-08-02T07:03:00.000-07:00

All thoughts with the victims and families of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

Check out this story arising Northwest's ongoing labor troubles. Of particular interest was the bonus that was paid to the CEO recently. I'm not saying that he didn't deserve it. A successful turnaround would be worth every penny of what he was paid, and then some.

But, what the board apparently didn't think about here was the true cost of giving the CEO that money in a situation where labor dissatisfaction was so high. By giving that bonus, they've riled the situation so much that the workers have apparently decided to try to sabotage the company. This makes it much less likely that the turnaround will ultimately be successful.

I'm not against high CEO pay -- if you want top talent, you need to pay accordingly. But top talent should be willing to wait until the results are in to get paid. Then, there'll be enough to go around.

Capital Costs Money Too

2007-08-01T08:46:00.000-07:00

I read with interest the discussions about whether or not GM's and Ford's recent quarterly results announcements will hurt them as they enter negotiations with the UAW and will, no doubt, be looking for conciliatory contracts. (You can see some here.) A couple of comments:

A look at the results indicates that North American operations are still loss-making for both Ford and GM. The fact that both companies are making profits overseas is not any kind of argument that their North American cost structures aren't still out of whack.
(and more importantly) Hard work deserves to be compensated properly; there's no doubt about that. No company can survive without its workers. But, neither can it survive without capital to enable its expansions and fund its strategy. Just like workers who give their time to the company need to be paid, so do the investors that give their money to the company need to paid. Profits are how that happens, and if they are no profits, there is no capital. No jobs and no wages aren't far behind.

A Research Project

2007-07-31T03:34:00.000-07:00

I believe that workers don't want a union under normal circumstances. They're expensive, and they create an antagonistic environment in the workplace that nobody wants. They also end up supporting mediocrity because they have to; it's their job. Imagine a steward in a meeting with a foreman, defending a guy who doesn't and never will work hard and do his job. Most of the time, the steward doesn't want that guy there either; but he's bound to defend him through the process.

Furthermore, companies want to be fair. It's just bad business not to be; even without the threat of having to deal with a union, being capricious causes disruption in the workplace that can get expensive in a hurry. Someone brooding about about the wrong you just did to them is hardly likely to put 100% of his focus on the job that day.

The reason they end up supporting unions is that management has so upset them about something that don't see a choice. The question I want to explore is, what are those things that upset workers enough to seek collective bargaining, and how can companies avoid doing those things? If companies can avoid doing those things, management and workers can stay on the same team, and the company can remain an optimally efficient, profit-making enterprise.

Edited to fix typos.

Welcome

2007-07-30T07:14:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Attempted Polymathematica, a place for me to share my attempts to grow as a scholar and a writer with the internets. It's private-public for now, I am hoping that by the time people figure out that this is here, I'll have figured out what I'm doing with it. Wish me luck with that!

Topics will include labor relations and management, Asia-Pacific relations, theology, Cleveland sports, and other things of interest to me. I have a fairly wide set of interests, hence the title.

By the way, I am Brian Saxton, I'm getting my MBA at Cleveland State right now. I'm hoping to start a Ph.D. in labor relations in the fall of '08.