Tuesday, November 25, 2003
A Kinder Gentler Witch Hunt
"A witch can't be trusted because she's in league with the devil and can only spout lies. So, a trial is a waste of time since a witch will only give a dishonest testimony."
"A terrorist sympathisizer can't be trusted because she's in league with terrorists and can only spout lies. So a trial is a waste of time since the sympathisizer will only give a dishonest testimony."
"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."
-General Tommy Franks, interview in Cigar Afficianado.
The very arguments that brought about the Spanish Inquisition and religious persecution in the Middle Ages are emerging again with a new face. Same monster, new mask. Witches, demons, devils, were the buggaboos that allowed monarchs and clergy to oppress the masses. Today we have the specter of terrorism. The people are being duped into believing that a strong central authority will protect them from from this monster of terrorism.
Unlike witches, demons, and devils, terrorism is a real threat that happens, but just how great a threat is it, and how can it be beaten? Terrorism has been with humanity probably since humanity has been civilized. Sometimes its state sponsored, other times its the work of a minority of desperate individuals.
General Tommy Franks, the commanding general of Gulf War II, proclaimed that the Constitution would be scrapped in favor of a military government in the event WMDs were used on the U.S. To me, that smacks of fear mongering. The fact that there is little to no outrage over such a statement in a free society is a worrisome thing. "No big deal, scrap the Constitution." Scrap over 200 years of progressive advancing freedom? For what? A military police state. Sounds like a good trade off. You give up all your freedoms for security.
No more complaints about the liberal media. All those wacky protestors will be beaten, jailed, and shot, and you'll never have to worry about hearing a peep about anything of the kind. Anti-government remarks and pesky elections will be history, and probably only whispered about and suspected as rumor that such a thing ever happened. Anti-US sorts will be rounded up and put in camps, jailed, and properly educated.
Concerns about employment and the economy will also be history. All people will work to provide for America. Complaints will be dealt with severely if anyone complains about working conditions, health conditions, environmental conditions, or anything that questions the needs of America. Parents will consider it a good thing if their children turn over friends and relatives for making any comments or suggestions that are anti-American. (They'd be right to do it.)
Police would be armed on every street corner, with security cameras placed at every intersection. Armed robotic police sentries would roam the streets at night marking and noting any that violated curfews without special work visas allowing people out at night for official business. Certainly, other fun things would happen also.
Hate to say it, but if a nuke fried New York or LA, scrapping the Constitution would not change that fact. Scrapping the Constitution would not prevent such a thing from happening again. Now, I could understand if people were willing to work together to fight an enemy that would use WMDs, and I could understand a unity behind our military forces, but what good would be served in scrapping the Constitution? Creating a dystopian world of a tyrranical police state would not be a smart move. Order would be maintained for a period of time, but the rebellious backlash would plunge the world into a Second Dark Age.
George Orwell mentioned in 1984 that the future looked like a military booted foot smashing a face into the ground. Nice image. The thing is it takes energy and determination to constantly hold a human being down with a booted foot. Its certainly not a picnic for the person with the smashed face, but its a burden for the face smasher. It requires a high degree of inhumanity and soullessness to commit such an act of evil. The military is trained to defend the country, but they're also trained to wage war. General Franks comments makes me wonder if the Pentagon already has plans in the works for creating such a military government.
With control of the media, the military could say whatever it wanted, make up any story about anyone they crushed. Who would know the difference?
There were some movies from the 60's that make me think of things going on today; The Manchurian Candidate, Seven Days in May, and Dr. Strangelove (among others). All films that played of the paranoia of the Cold War. I think our current administration and the current set of military leaders in the Pentagon neglected the fact that those films stood as a warning against military and government dominance. (I could almost picture Bush riding a nuclear bomb a la Slim Pickens, but I digress... Yahoooo!!!) The central idea of films like these, and of the spirit of the 60's (and even the spirit that gave rise to modern conservatism and old fashioned populism) is the idea that government needs to have its powers checked by the people, because a government with unchecked power will only lead to oppression and extinction of personal liberty. (Not a good thing ,for those of you that are in favor of a military government.)
We've already started ignoring the Constitution by having the FBI and Homeland Security spy on Americans without warrants via the Patriot Act. Bush and Ashcroft have all but scrapped the 4th Amendment in a bloody witch-hunt against terrorists stating that anyone that helps terrorists will be stripped of their citizenship. (Sorry, only Congress has the ability to make laws, not the president.) Take Jose Padilla, for example. I'm not going to say the guys a boy scout, but he is an American citizen. Bush/Ashcroft nabbed the guy for allegedly conspiring with terrorists. Locked him up and threw away the key. The problem is he's an American citizen. He's protected by the laws of the Constitution. He's got rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Bush and Ashcroft have given the Constitution the finger. The guy may be scum. He may be lovers with Osama bin Laden, but he's still an American. If the president, be it a Democrat/Republican, or whatever is allowed to commit such acts against the people of this country, and not be questioned and challenged on it, we've already scrapped the Constitution in favor of presidential (central) authority. Another problem is the fact that Bush swore to uphold and protect the laws within the Constitution. Apparently, its okay to scrap the Constitution, the U.S. has a permanent war to wage on the world. Funny, I thought that was an impeachable offense for the president to ignore the Constitution for his own concers. Must only apply if you get a blow job.
I'd say the first casualty of September 11th was truth, the second was common sense. I can't see how 50% of the population is behind and supports this Pretender-In-Chief. Well, if a WMD ever hits the US, I hope the country doesn't become a military state. I'd stand behind military action and a military response, but I wouldn't stand to watch my government be dismantled for my security. Its a government of the people, not a government of the Pentagon. Again, here's hoping. In the meantime, I'll stock up on Victory Gin. Cheers!!
"A witch can't be trusted because she's in league with the devil and can only spout lies. So, a trial is a waste of time since a witch will only give a dishonest testimony."
"A terrorist sympathisizer can't be trusted because she's in league with terrorists and can only spout lies. So a trial is a waste of time since the sympathisizer will only give a dishonest testimony."
"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."
-General Tommy Franks, interview in Cigar Afficianado.
The very arguments that brought about the Spanish Inquisition and religious persecution in the Middle Ages are emerging again with a new face. Same monster, new mask. Witches, demons, devils, were the buggaboos that allowed monarchs and clergy to oppress the masses. Today we have the specter of terrorism. The people are being duped into believing that a strong central authority will protect them from from this monster of terrorism.
Unlike witches, demons, and devils, terrorism is a real threat that happens, but just how great a threat is it, and how can it be beaten? Terrorism has been with humanity probably since humanity has been civilized. Sometimes its state sponsored, other times its the work of a minority of desperate individuals.
General Tommy Franks, the commanding general of Gulf War II, proclaimed that the Constitution would be scrapped in favor of a military government in the event WMDs were used on the U.S. To me, that smacks of fear mongering. The fact that there is little to no outrage over such a statement in a free society is a worrisome thing. "No big deal, scrap the Constitution." Scrap over 200 years of progressive advancing freedom? For what? A military police state. Sounds like a good trade off. You give up all your freedoms for security.
No more complaints about the liberal media. All those wacky protestors will be beaten, jailed, and shot, and you'll never have to worry about hearing a peep about anything of the kind. Anti-government remarks and pesky elections will be history, and probably only whispered about and suspected as rumor that such a thing ever happened. Anti-US sorts will be rounded up and put in camps, jailed, and properly educated.
Concerns about employment and the economy will also be history. All people will work to provide for America. Complaints will be dealt with severely if anyone complains about working conditions, health conditions, environmental conditions, or anything that questions the needs of America. Parents will consider it a good thing if their children turn over friends and relatives for making any comments or suggestions that are anti-American. (They'd be right to do it.)
Police would be armed on every street corner, with security cameras placed at every intersection. Armed robotic police sentries would roam the streets at night marking and noting any that violated curfews without special work visas allowing people out at night for official business. Certainly, other fun things would happen also.
Hate to say it, but if a nuke fried New York or LA, scrapping the Constitution would not change that fact. Scrapping the Constitution would not prevent such a thing from happening again. Now, I could understand if people were willing to work together to fight an enemy that would use WMDs, and I could understand a unity behind our military forces, but what good would be served in scrapping the Constitution? Creating a dystopian world of a tyrranical police state would not be a smart move. Order would be maintained for a period of time, but the rebellious backlash would plunge the world into a Second Dark Age.
George Orwell mentioned in 1984 that the future looked like a military booted foot smashing a face into the ground. Nice image. The thing is it takes energy and determination to constantly hold a human being down with a booted foot. Its certainly not a picnic for the person with the smashed face, but its a burden for the face smasher. It requires a high degree of inhumanity and soullessness to commit such an act of evil. The military is trained to defend the country, but they're also trained to wage war. General Franks comments makes me wonder if the Pentagon already has plans in the works for creating such a military government.
With control of the media, the military could say whatever it wanted, make up any story about anyone they crushed. Who would know the difference?
There were some movies from the 60's that make me think of things going on today; The Manchurian Candidate, Seven Days in May, and Dr. Strangelove (among others). All films that played of the paranoia of the Cold War. I think our current administration and the current set of military leaders in the Pentagon neglected the fact that those films stood as a warning against military and government dominance. (I could almost picture Bush riding a nuclear bomb a la Slim Pickens, but I digress... Yahoooo!!!) The central idea of films like these, and of the spirit of the 60's (and even the spirit that gave rise to modern conservatism and old fashioned populism) is the idea that government needs to have its powers checked by the people, because a government with unchecked power will only lead to oppression and extinction of personal liberty. (Not a good thing ,for those of you that are in favor of a military government.)
We've already started ignoring the Constitution by having the FBI and Homeland Security spy on Americans without warrants via the Patriot Act. Bush and Ashcroft have all but scrapped the 4th Amendment in a bloody witch-hunt against terrorists stating that anyone that helps terrorists will be stripped of their citizenship. (Sorry, only Congress has the ability to make laws, not the president.) Take Jose Padilla, for example. I'm not going to say the guys a boy scout, but he is an American citizen. Bush/Ashcroft nabbed the guy for allegedly conspiring with terrorists. Locked him up and threw away the key. The problem is he's an American citizen. He's protected by the laws of the Constitution. He's got rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Bush and Ashcroft have given the Constitution the finger. The guy may be scum. He may be lovers with Osama bin Laden, but he's still an American. If the president, be it a Democrat/Republican, or whatever is allowed to commit such acts against the people of this country, and not be questioned and challenged on it, we've already scrapped the Constitution in favor of presidential (central) authority. Another problem is the fact that Bush swore to uphold and protect the laws within the Constitution. Apparently, its okay to scrap the Constitution, the U.S. has a permanent war to wage on the world. Funny, I thought that was an impeachable offense for the president to ignore the Constitution for his own concers. Must only apply if you get a blow job.
I'd say the first casualty of September 11th was truth, the second was common sense. I can't see how 50% of the population is behind and supports this Pretender-In-Chief. Well, if a WMD ever hits the US, I hope the country doesn't become a military state. I'd stand behind military action and a military response, but I wouldn't stand to watch my government be dismantled for my security. Its a government of the people, not a government of the Pentagon. Again, here's hoping. In the meantime, I'll stock up on Victory Gin. Cheers!!
Sunday, November 23, 2003
More thoughts on economics...
Again, I think I could fill a rocks glass with my knowledge of economics, but I was thinking about cash flow and its similarity to blood flow. For that matter, the similarity of a market to that of a living being.
Work with me a moment. Blood flows throughout the body carrying and transporting oxygen, nutrients, and cleansing areas that need to be cleaned. As long as blood flows through the body with no complications, the body remains healthy.
Similarly, money is the equivalent of blood in a market. Cash flow is what gives any economy its financial health. Too little cash flow, and your economy starves, withers and can die, too much cash flow and the economy can engage in spiraling out of control hyperinflation. This takes into account a generic concept of a market as a living being. Now, if a market was like the human body, for example, then blood/money will go to the area that needs it most.
If we take the supply-side/monetarist approach we just pump a steady and constant amount of money into the system and it will regulate itself without intervention from government. The heart and brain regulate the flow of blood in a body. In a neo-Keynsian approach to economics, the government intervenes to keep the market as close to equilibrium as possible.
If the government only increased the money supply at a rate of 3% per year, that could regulate anticipation in the market, but it could also spell out a potential disaster waiting to happen. If the market was experiencing a boom period, then limiting the amount of cash flow to only 3% could trigger stagnancy in financial growth. If the economy hit a recessionary period 3% increase in the amount of cash could trigger a stagflationary period. (Inflating the price of goods while devaluing the purchasing power of dollars and decreasing wages and personal income at the same time.)
I'd have to argue that control of the money supply needs to be regulated, granted with a degree of caution. Just as the heart rate will increase if the body is engaged in physical activity or the heart rate will decrease if the body is at rest, an automatic system for controlling cash flow needs to be in place. Giving too much money to the wrong area of a market, or restricting the cash flow to the wrong area of the market can cause ill effects for a healthy economy. Just as too little or too much blood to an area of a body can also cause ill effects.
We could play off Smith's Invisible Hand by saying that the market is an Invisible Body. The market, like an individual, is guided by the circumstances of the environment it exists in, and makes rational or foolhardy choices in that environment. In kind, cash flow/blood flow needs to be regulated to the appropriate circumstances of the given environment.
Now, if we take the concept of cash flow as crucial to the survival of an economy, we could take real world economies and ask if cash flow is the problem or if there are other circumstances that cause economies to be poor or wealthy.
Third World countries have high levels of poverty. Lets take a hypothetical country and call it Dystopia. Dystopia has a tyrannical militant government. It keeps its people in line with brutality, coercion, and fear. The bulk of the cash flow in Dystopia goes to the Tyrant and his family, the rest of the population is given scraps and must live in squalor. Now, the dictator, let's call him Saddam, wants more money to by new weapons to have a strong military to protect his assets and interests and keep internal rebellion and foreign intervention at bay.
He could have the Bank of Dystopia create more money, but that will not be invested well, since there is no incentive of the population to be entrepreneurial living under such a brutal regime. Hmm.. not good for Saddam, but there is a way for him to make money and get a strong modern military, he could allow a global corporation from Utopia, a neighboring country, to build factories in Dystopia. Let's call the global corporation WidgetCorp. WidgetCorp will pay Saddam billions in Utopian dollars (u-dollars) in exchange for allowing it to use the cheap labor force of Dystopia. The cheap labor of Dystopia and its non-existent environmental laws and non-existent regulation are the ideal environment for a profit motivated global corporation.
To keep the population from rebelling, Saddam asks the CEO's of WidgetCorp to pay them some wage. For pennies a day, the workers of Dystopia slave long sweatshop-like hours in unhealthy unsafe factories.
Dystopia now has a source of income. Saddam is immensely wealthy. WidgetCorp is making billions in profits. Sounds great unless you happen to be a Dystopian peasant. Where does Dystopia's cash flow come from? It comes from Utopia.
As long as the people of Utopia by the products of WidetCorp, money will flow into Dystopia. (For my argument, lets make the presumption that Utopia has the perfect well balanced economy. Additionally, lets say that Utopia is a free and prosperous country where the people live with justice, fairness, and universal equality.)
So, if Dystopia is our model of a Third World country, is the problem with Dystopia's poverty a matter of cash flow? The people are working, and they are earning incomes. So, could employment be considered a sign of wealth or economic prosperity for Dystopia? If the unemployment rate in Dystopia is 1% does that indicate a healthy growing economy? Is wealth trickling down from top to bottom?
Again, I think I could fill a rocks glass with my knowledge of economics, but I was thinking about cash flow and its similarity to blood flow. For that matter, the similarity of a market to that of a living being.
Work with me a moment. Blood flows throughout the body carrying and transporting oxygen, nutrients, and cleansing areas that need to be cleaned. As long as blood flows through the body with no complications, the body remains healthy.
Similarly, money is the equivalent of blood in a market. Cash flow is what gives any economy its financial health. Too little cash flow, and your economy starves, withers and can die, too much cash flow and the economy can engage in spiraling out of control hyperinflation. This takes into account a generic concept of a market as a living being. Now, if a market was like the human body, for example, then blood/money will go to the area that needs it most.
If we take the supply-side/monetarist approach we just pump a steady and constant amount of money into the system and it will regulate itself without intervention from government. The heart and brain regulate the flow of blood in a body. In a neo-Keynsian approach to economics, the government intervenes to keep the market as close to equilibrium as possible.
If the government only increased the money supply at a rate of 3% per year, that could regulate anticipation in the market, but it could also spell out a potential disaster waiting to happen. If the market was experiencing a boom period, then limiting the amount of cash flow to only 3% could trigger stagnancy in financial growth. If the economy hit a recessionary period 3% increase in the amount of cash could trigger a stagflationary period. (Inflating the price of goods while devaluing the purchasing power of dollars and decreasing wages and personal income at the same time.)
I'd have to argue that control of the money supply needs to be regulated, granted with a degree of caution. Just as the heart rate will increase if the body is engaged in physical activity or the heart rate will decrease if the body is at rest, an automatic system for controlling cash flow needs to be in place. Giving too much money to the wrong area of a market, or restricting the cash flow to the wrong area of the market can cause ill effects for a healthy economy. Just as too little or too much blood to an area of a body can also cause ill effects.
We could play off Smith's Invisible Hand by saying that the market is an Invisible Body. The market, like an individual, is guided by the circumstances of the environment it exists in, and makes rational or foolhardy choices in that environment. In kind, cash flow/blood flow needs to be regulated to the appropriate circumstances of the given environment.
Now, if we take the concept of cash flow as crucial to the survival of an economy, we could take real world economies and ask if cash flow is the problem or if there are other circumstances that cause economies to be poor or wealthy.
Third World countries have high levels of poverty. Lets take a hypothetical country and call it Dystopia. Dystopia has a tyrannical militant government. It keeps its people in line with brutality, coercion, and fear. The bulk of the cash flow in Dystopia goes to the Tyrant and his family, the rest of the population is given scraps and must live in squalor. Now, the dictator, let's call him Saddam, wants more money to by new weapons to have a strong military to protect his assets and interests and keep internal rebellion and foreign intervention at bay.
He could have the Bank of Dystopia create more money, but that will not be invested well, since there is no incentive of the population to be entrepreneurial living under such a brutal regime. Hmm.. not good for Saddam, but there is a way for him to make money and get a strong modern military, he could allow a global corporation from Utopia, a neighboring country, to build factories in Dystopia. Let's call the global corporation WidgetCorp. WidgetCorp will pay Saddam billions in Utopian dollars (u-dollars) in exchange for allowing it to use the cheap labor force of Dystopia. The cheap labor of Dystopia and its non-existent environmental laws and non-existent regulation are the ideal environment for a profit motivated global corporation.
To keep the population from rebelling, Saddam asks the CEO's of WidgetCorp to pay them some wage. For pennies a day, the workers of Dystopia slave long sweatshop-like hours in unhealthy unsafe factories.
Dystopia now has a source of income. Saddam is immensely wealthy. WidgetCorp is making billions in profits. Sounds great unless you happen to be a Dystopian peasant. Where does Dystopia's cash flow come from? It comes from Utopia.
As long as the people of Utopia by the products of WidetCorp, money will flow into Dystopia. (For my argument, lets make the presumption that Utopia has the perfect well balanced economy. Additionally, lets say that Utopia is a free and prosperous country where the people live with justice, fairness, and universal equality.)
So, if Dystopia is our model of a Third World country, is the problem with Dystopia's poverty a matter of cash flow? The people are working, and they are earning incomes. So, could employment be considered a sign of wealth or economic prosperity for Dystopia? If the unemployment rate in Dystopia is 1% does that indicate a healthy growing economy? Is wealth trickling down from top to bottom?
Free Love and Free Markets...
I just had a thought. All these politicians and big business lobbyists are beating the drum about globalization and free markets. They treat protectionism like its a bad thing. They treat the free market system and open market system likes its the panacea for everything.
These ideas came from the same generation that promoted "free love." Suppose we take the same idea about markets to the family. Why don't we have open families, sharing love, sex, and things with everyone. Wouldn't that be great? You'd come home to your domestic commune, a line of about three or four guys waiting to sleep with your girlfriend/wife/non-commital female partner. Great. Just what would give a child stability growing up with several dads and moms. OK, so maybe the sex would be great, at least for those that were deemed sexy, but for the rest of us people, well maybe it wouldn't be so hot.
Comparatively, the free market idea works like the free love idea. Its a great idea. Open all markets, let goods and services flow like crazy, in the long run it would balance out and the whole world would prosper, but it doesn't work that way. It works best for those on top of the financial food chain, and its a burden for those exploited by it.
The US created the WTO to keep 1st World countries in power, and to ensure that emerging nations would never emerge from poverty under the guise that its purpose is to create a world of prosperity and egaliatarian financial growth. Reality doesn't jive with the goal. Just like a free love commune. The idea can sound great, especially if you're young and sexy. The WTO was an orgy of Democrats, Republicans, and corporate elites dictating a new world order. (It would also explain why Democrats and Republicans eagerly passed NAFTA.)
Bush has found himself in a pickle. The US Steel industry has been hurting because of globalization. Bush signed protective tariffs to protect US Steel jobs and the US Steel industry. Good. The Europeans didn't like the fact that they lose out on the deal. They go to the WTO, the US gets in trouble with the Frankenstein it has created. Bush relents and removes the protective tariffs. Bad.
Its like our commune, all people in the commune agree not to be exclusive in their relationships. Once you get exclusive your penalized by the group, or your booted out.
It was a weird thought. Some things work on paper, but not in reality.
I just had a thought. All these politicians and big business lobbyists are beating the drum about globalization and free markets. They treat protectionism like its a bad thing. They treat the free market system and open market system likes its the panacea for everything.
These ideas came from the same generation that promoted "free love." Suppose we take the same idea about markets to the family. Why don't we have open families, sharing love, sex, and things with everyone. Wouldn't that be great? You'd come home to your domestic commune, a line of about three or four guys waiting to sleep with your girlfriend/wife/non-commital female partner. Great. Just what would give a child stability growing up with several dads and moms. OK, so maybe the sex would be great, at least for those that were deemed sexy, but for the rest of us people, well maybe it wouldn't be so hot.
Comparatively, the free market idea works like the free love idea. Its a great idea. Open all markets, let goods and services flow like crazy, in the long run it would balance out and the whole world would prosper, but it doesn't work that way. It works best for those on top of the financial food chain, and its a burden for those exploited by it.
The US created the WTO to keep 1st World countries in power, and to ensure that emerging nations would never emerge from poverty under the guise that its purpose is to create a world of prosperity and egaliatarian financial growth. Reality doesn't jive with the goal. Just like a free love commune. The idea can sound great, especially if you're young and sexy. The WTO was an orgy of Democrats, Republicans, and corporate elites dictating a new world order. (It would also explain why Democrats and Republicans eagerly passed NAFTA.)
Bush has found himself in a pickle. The US Steel industry has been hurting because of globalization. Bush signed protective tariffs to protect US Steel jobs and the US Steel industry. Good. The Europeans didn't like the fact that they lose out on the deal. They go to the WTO, the US gets in trouble with the Frankenstein it has created. Bush relents and removes the protective tariffs. Bad.
Its like our commune, all people in the commune agree not to be exclusive in their relationships. Once you get exclusive your penalized by the group, or your booted out.
It was a weird thought. Some things work on paper, but not in reality.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
I've been reading a book entitled "Peddling Prosperity" by Paul Krugman. I've only started it, but I like it. He starts to break apart and tear down "supply-side economics." His argument that "supply-side economics" is not real economics makes sense. Its overly simplistic and takes few things into account that really effect the economy. He compares "supply siders" to "creationists." (ie. Supply Siders are to economics as Creationists are to biology)
I'll use a sports analogy to emphasize Krugman's point. Now, I've read other texts and have had courses on economics and knew at a gut level that supply-side economics really is "voodoo economics."
Here's my sports analogy. Say I have a football team. I proclaim that the only way to win is to keep the ball, and constantly run it up the middle of the field. No passing, special teams, trick plays, West Coast offense, just plain simple run the ball up the middle of the field.
Now running the ball up the middle is occasionally an effective strategy in football. However, even if you knew nothing about football, you'd probably suspect that its overly simplistic. Nonetheless, I stick to my guns, and keep pounding the ball up the middle. If it doesn't work, I blame negative naysayers, a biased media, and say that it takes time for the offensive ball control strategy to work.
Eventually, I get some sports talk show hosts to follow my lead and argue that my method is the best method for winning football games. They attack the mainstream sports media and proclaim its inherenlty biased against my strategy. The sports hosts attack schools for not implementing my coaching strategy for their respective football teams. I get many fans of my strategy because its very easy for the average fan to comprehend. (Just pound it up the middle, Stupid!)
Now I get really lucky, I get a head coach of a major football team to adopt my football strategy, with a little tweaking and luck putting the right people in the right place, this head coach wins a national championship. I can now argue that my football strategy is the best possible football strategy, anyone else is just a biased nincompoop.
You can probably see where this is going.
Supply side economists use the same strategy for pushing their agenda. Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts... Big government, government regulation, and taxes are the enemy of a healthy economy. Cut those taxes, especially on the rich and on big businesses, cut wasteful spending in the government, cut social spending in the goverment, and borrow money from the treasury to finance any programs. (I'm sure you've heard things like this in the media. Particulary from guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, and other conservatives.)
If the economy slumps or falters, blame the excessive taxes on the rich and on the private sector. Argue that the tax system is so unfair and burdensome, the economy cannot possibly recover. Free those rich people and big businesses from those burdens and you should get a booming economy. If it doesn't happen right away, just remind people that progress takes time, or blame the liberals and argue that more taxes on the rich and private sector need to be cut.
If anyone criticizes claim they are liberals, enemies of free enterprise, anti-progress, or just ignorant because of the lies, propaganda, and deceptions of the liberal media. (You could really go out on a limb and say they're "commies" or "socialists," even if you dont' know what those things really are. ;))
Why people believe the crap about "supply-side" economics comes down to poor education. Heck, I didn't know how to deconstruct it until I had a class on economics. I just knew (gut feeling) before then that giving rich people tax breaks doesn't always fix economic problems. (It can work in certain circumstances, but not as a universal economic panacea.)
Economics, like science and other academic stuff, is not always simple in its analysis of problems and does not always have solutions to economic problems either. Krugman compares the current state of economic understanding to the science of medicine about 100 years ago.
I'd compare the simplistic approach of using tax cuts to solve every economic problem to using leeches to cure disease, or perhaps even better, my football analogy.
We would all love to pay nothing in taxes. For that matter, we'd love to pay nothing for everything. (As the debacle of internet music-piracy and file sharing currently indicates.) That falls on the "demand-side" of the economic see-saw. The concept of supply has to be balanced with the concept of demand in economics. The goal of economic equilibrium, perpetual steady growth with little to no inflation and little to no deflation is the holy grail of political economics.
For now, we're still stuck in the tug of war between supply and demand. Its like gravity, we can't really do much about it, but we can work with it and around it. People will always want something. That creates demand. Someone, or a group of someones, will be able to meet that demand. No surprises here, but they will want something for their ability to provide a supply of the desired demand.
Regardless of whether you live in a primitive tribal culture, capitalist nation state, or communist starship travelling the stars, people will want and need material things.
The real problem is how do we get things (goods, services, ideas, etc.) to those that demand it? Once you begin to think about these things, you will begin to realize that simple answers don't always fix complex problems.
Again to the football analogy. What does my conservative ball control offense do against a team that moves the ball downfield at will, scores with little effort using a combination of passing and running plays, and has a tough defense that stops run plays up the middle? If I stick with my plan, I lose. Likewise, supply side economists and their respective cheerleaders overlook the simplistic problems of using tax cuts for the wealthy as a cure all. What do you do in a stagnant economy where the incentive of the rich and private enterprise to invest in job growth and job creation is not lucrative? When the supply of goods and services provided and exceeds current demand for those goods and services, and the bulk of consumers are fearful of the economic situation in their country, and fearful of losing their primary means of financial income. A tax cut for the rich and big business is not going to solve the problem, especially if the wealthy have an abundance of money and wealth from 2 decades of tax cuts and lots of investment deregulation. Incentive to invest in business and business growth, and job creation is minimal at best.
You can rail all you want that tax cuts will fix everything, that privatizing public services will cure the woes of job growth, the liberals and liberal media are the main problems, but the reality is the situation is complex, and a simple solution will not fix the problem.
Thinking about this really hammers the notion home that Bush, the Republicans, and the right-wing conservatives, the right-wing media (Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News, etc.) are beating a drum that has lost all of its oomph. Its time for them to go the way of the dinosaur. Sadly, I think that Bush/Cheney (not to mention Reagan and Bush I on that list) and their ilk have caused a great degree of financial damage to the US and its ability pull itself together economically in the present and future. Bad economic policies do not fix economic realities/problems, just as bad football strategies do not win football games.
-30-
I'll use a sports analogy to emphasize Krugman's point. Now, I've read other texts and have had courses on economics and knew at a gut level that supply-side economics really is "voodoo economics."
Here's my sports analogy. Say I have a football team. I proclaim that the only way to win is to keep the ball, and constantly run it up the middle of the field. No passing, special teams, trick plays, West Coast offense, just plain simple run the ball up the middle of the field.
Now running the ball up the middle is occasionally an effective strategy in football. However, even if you knew nothing about football, you'd probably suspect that its overly simplistic. Nonetheless, I stick to my guns, and keep pounding the ball up the middle. If it doesn't work, I blame negative naysayers, a biased media, and say that it takes time for the offensive ball control strategy to work.
Eventually, I get some sports talk show hosts to follow my lead and argue that my method is the best method for winning football games. They attack the mainstream sports media and proclaim its inherenlty biased against my strategy. The sports hosts attack schools for not implementing my coaching strategy for their respective football teams. I get many fans of my strategy because its very easy for the average fan to comprehend. (Just pound it up the middle, Stupid!)
Now I get really lucky, I get a head coach of a major football team to adopt my football strategy, with a little tweaking and luck putting the right people in the right place, this head coach wins a national championship. I can now argue that my football strategy is the best possible football strategy, anyone else is just a biased nincompoop.
You can probably see where this is going.
Supply side economists use the same strategy for pushing their agenda. Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts... Big government, government regulation, and taxes are the enemy of a healthy economy. Cut those taxes, especially on the rich and on big businesses, cut wasteful spending in the government, cut social spending in the goverment, and borrow money from the treasury to finance any programs. (I'm sure you've heard things like this in the media. Particulary from guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, and other conservatives.)
If the economy slumps or falters, blame the excessive taxes on the rich and on the private sector. Argue that the tax system is so unfair and burdensome, the economy cannot possibly recover. Free those rich people and big businesses from those burdens and you should get a booming economy. If it doesn't happen right away, just remind people that progress takes time, or blame the liberals and argue that more taxes on the rich and private sector need to be cut.
If anyone criticizes claim they are liberals, enemies of free enterprise, anti-progress, or just ignorant because of the lies, propaganda, and deceptions of the liberal media. (You could really go out on a limb and say they're "commies" or "socialists," even if you dont' know what those things really are. ;))
Why people believe the crap about "supply-side" economics comes down to poor education. Heck, I didn't know how to deconstruct it until I had a class on economics. I just knew (gut feeling) before then that giving rich people tax breaks doesn't always fix economic problems. (It can work in certain circumstances, but not as a universal economic panacea.)
Economics, like science and other academic stuff, is not always simple in its analysis of problems and does not always have solutions to economic problems either. Krugman compares the current state of economic understanding to the science of medicine about 100 years ago.
I'd compare the simplistic approach of using tax cuts to solve every economic problem to using leeches to cure disease, or perhaps even better, my football analogy.
We would all love to pay nothing in taxes. For that matter, we'd love to pay nothing for everything. (As the debacle of internet music-piracy and file sharing currently indicates.) That falls on the "demand-side" of the economic see-saw. The concept of supply has to be balanced with the concept of demand in economics. The goal of economic equilibrium, perpetual steady growth with little to no inflation and little to no deflation is the holy grail of political economics.
For now, we're still stuck in the tug of war between supply and demand. Its like gravity, we can't really do much about it, but we can work with it and around it. People will always want something. That creates demand. Someone, or a group of someones, will be able to meet that demand. No surprises here, but they will want something for their ability to provide a supply of the desired demand.
Regardless of whether you live in a primitive tribal culture, capitalist nation state, or communist starship travelling the stars, people will want and need material things.
The real problem is how do we get things (goods, services, ideas, etc.) to those that demand it? Once you begin to think about these things, you will begin to realize that simple answers don't always fix complex problems.
Again to the football analogy. What does my conservative ball control offense do against a team that moves the ball downfield at will, scores with little effort using a combination of passing and running plays, and has a tough defense that stops run plays up the middle? If I stick with my plan, I lose. Likewise, supply side economists and their respective cheerleaders overlook the simplistic problems of using tax cuts for the wealthy as a cure all. What do you do in a stagnant economy where the incentive of the rich and private enterprise to invest in job growth and job creation is not lucrative? When the supply of goods and services provided and exceeds current demand for those goods and services, and the bulk of consumers are fearful of the economic situation in their country, and fearful of losing their primary means of financial income. A tax cut for the rich and big business is not going to solve the problem, especially if the wealthy have an abundance of money and wealth from 2 decades of tax cuts and lots of investment deregulation. Incentive to invest in business and business growth, and job creation is minimal at best.
You can rail all you want that tax cuts will fix everything, that privatizing public services will cure the woes of job growth, the liberals and liberal media are the main problems, but the reality is the situation is complex, and a simple solution will not fix the problem.
Thinking about this really hammers the notion home that Bush, the Republicans, and the right-wing conservatives, the right-wing media (Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Fox News, etc.) are beating a drum that has lost all of its oomph. Its time for them to go the way of the dinosaur. Sadly, I think that Bush/Cheney (not to mention Reagan and Bush I on that list) and their ilk have caused a great degree of financial damage to the US and its ability pull itself together economically in the present and future. Bad economic policies do not fix economic realities/problems, just as bad football strategies do not win football games.
-30-
[ Wed Nov 12, 06:16:26 PM | d graham | edit ]
I recently watched the third Matrix movie. Hmm... I liked it. Of course, I went in with little to no expectations since I was left non-plussed by the second Matrix movie. Matrix 2, did not meet my expectations. The first 40 minutes or so was boring and dull. No movie should ever be boring and dull, especially a film thats a sequel to one of the coolest science fiction movies made in recent American filmdom.
Nontheless, Matrix 3 was much better, although the ending was a bit of a downer. If you'd be interested in seeing a film with loads of action, and little story, this would be a film I'd recommend.
###
I've also just finished the latest Harry Potter book. The book started off slow, but picked up speed, and ended on a sour note. This is not surprising since its in the middle of a series and the author wants the reader to keep buying her books. I'm interested in finding out what happens next, which I'd say is a compliment to the author.
I'm not certain what it is about the Potter books that's intriguing, I suppose its their simplicity, sympathetic characters, and a world filled with magic.
I wasn't going to ready any of the Harry Potter books until all the movies were made, but since the films are behind schedule, I decided I couldn't resist temptation and dove into the series of books.
I suspect Harry will not be a cheerful young man in the next couple of books.
####
What is it that makes a "guy flick" a guy flick and a "chick flick" a chick flick? I was listening to the radio this morning and the sports show guys decided to pick the best Guy Flicks of All Time. They broke the movies into categories.
I decided that a guy flick would be a film where the primary conflict was not about emotion, but about reaction to an event. For example, a character is a spy and needs to thwart evil doers from harming innocent people, or someone killed the protagonist's (fill in the blank) and the protagonist is seeking revenge. Hence, simple emotional conflict resulting in a more action filled movie. This is not to say that all guy flicks are inherently simplistic in their conflicts, the more complex the more interesting.
Now, inversely, what is it that makes a "chick flick" a chick flick? I decided that the primary conflict in the film would revolve around the protagonists emotions and involve a more intuitive and emotional manner for solving and dealing with problems. Less action, more dialogue in other words. For example, characters that deal with weddings, babies, family stuff, and the emotional odds and ends that follow such events.
So, lets say I pick the best guy flicks. I'd break them into categories.
Action:
Off the top of my head... Die Hard, Raiders of the Lost Ark, uh...
Science Fiction:
Alien, Aliens, The Matrix, Star Trek II, Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Batman, Predator, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, uh....
Drama:
The Godfather, Gladiator, Behind Enemy Lines, uhm...
Comedy:
Caddyshack, Animal House, Airplane, South Park, Bachelor Party (usually flicks with titilation and corny/dirty jokes fall into the guy category.)
As for ranking "chick flicks," forget it.
- 30 -
I recently watched the third Matrix movie. Hmm... I liked it. Of course, I went in with little to no expectations since I was left non-plussed by the second Matrix movie. Matrix 2, did not meet my expectations. The first 40 minutes or so was boring and dull. No movie should ever be boring and dull, especially a film thats a sequel to one of the coolest science fiction movies made in recent American filmdom.
Nontheless, Matrix 3 was much better, although the ending was a bit of a downer. If you'd be interested in seeing a film with loads of action, and little story, this would be a film I'd recommend.
###
I've also just finished the latest Harry Potter book. The book started off slow, but picked up speed, and ended on a sour note. This is not surprising since its in the middle of a series and the author wants the reader to keep buying her books. I'm interested in finding out what happens next, which I'd say is a compliment to the author.
I'm not certain what it is about the Potter books that's intriguing, I suppose its their simplicity, sympathetic characters, and a world filled with magic.
I wasn't going to ready any of the Harry Potter books until all the movies were made, but since the films are behind schedule, I decided I couldn't resist temptation and dove into the series of books.
I suspect Harry will not be a cheerful young man in the next couple of books.
####
What is it that makes a "guy flick" a guy flick and a "chick flick" a chick flick? I was listening to the radio this morning and the sports show guys decided to pick the best Guy Flicks of All Time. They broke the movies into categories.
I decided that a guy flick would be a film where the primary conflict was not about emotion, but about reaction to an event. For example, a character is a spy and needs to thwart evil doers from harming innocent people, or someone killed the protagonist's (fill in the blank) and the protagonist is seeking revenge. Hence, simple emotional conflict resulting in a more action filled movie. This is not to say that all guy flicks are inherently simplistic in their conflicts, the more complex the more interesting.
Now, inversely, what is it that makes a "chick flick" a chick flick? I decided that the primary conflict in the film would revolve around the protagonists emotions and involve a more intuitive and emotional manner for solving and dealing with problems. Less action, more dialogue in other words. For example, characters that deal with weddings, babies, family stuff, and the emotional odds and ends that follow such events.
So, lets say I pick the best guy flicks. I'd break them into categories.
Action:
Off the top of my head... Die Hard, Raiders of the Lost Ark, uh...
Science Fiction:
Alien, Aliens, The Matrix, Star Trek II, Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Batman, Predator, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, uh....
Drama:
The Godfather, Gladiator, Behind Enemy Lines, uhm...
Comedy:
Caddyshack, Animal House, Airplane, South Park, Bachelor Party (usually flicks with titilation and corny/dirty jokes fall into the guy category.)
As for ranking "chick flicks," forget it.
- 30 -
