Monday, August 29, 2011
Recommended: Economics Without Illusions: Debunking the Myths of Modern Capitalism
Joseph Heath, author of Economics Without Illusions, is not an economist, as he readily admits. He is a philosophy professor at the University of Toronto. He approaches economics from the point of view of understanding whether the common arguments made by economists and those who supposedly interpret economists (like politicians and journalists) are logically valid or sustainable. Heath is an equal-opportunity critic. The book is divided into two parts of about equal length: the fallacies of the right and the fallacies of the left. And there are a lot of each. This is an important book to read, because a lot of these fallacies are driving the agendas of the conservatives and liberals today, to the great detriment of the nation.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Recommended: Special Providence
I just read and highly recommend Walter Russell Mead's 2001 book Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World
Mead’s central argument in this book, well supported by his historical review, is that despite the conventional wisdom that America didn’t even have a foreign policy until World War II, and has been largely inept ever since, actually America has had an active foreign policy since its inception, and in general our foreign policy has been far wiser and far more effective that most other nations, from following our “Manifest Destiny” to sweep across the continent and unite the whole land into one nation (think how much less powerful we would be if what is now America were still divided up into separate Spanish and French and English and American nations) to our maneuvering in World War II that left us a superpower. As Mead argues, America’s foreign policy has shaped today’s world, and in general it has shaped it better than competing nations would have shaped it.
Mead’s central argument in this book, well supported by his historical review, is that despite the conventional wisdom that America didn’t even have a foreign policy until World War II, and has been largely inept ever since, actually America has had an active foreign policy since its inception, and in general our foreign policy has been far wiser and far more effective that most other nations, from following our “Manifest Destiny” to sweep across the continent and unite the whole land into one nation (think how much less powerful we would be if what is now America were still divided up into separate Spanish and French and English and American nations) to our maneuvering in World War II that left us a superpower. As Mead argues, America’s foreign policy has shaped today’s world, and in general it has shaped it better than competing nations would have shaped it.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Recommended: Jobs Program? Here Are 3 Essential Ingredients
Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic has a piece Jobs Program? Here Are 3 Essential Ingredients that is worth reading. His three points -- make it big enough, do it soon enough, and be smart about how we do it -- make sense to me. Whether our polarized, ideology-driven (both Republican and Democrat) political machine in Washington can manage to do any of those three things is a real question, though.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
A naïve administration
We are now in the fifth month of supporting the rebels in Libya, and the fighting and bombing continues with no end in sight. Recall that on March 18 President Obama assured Congress that American involvement in Libya would be a matter of "days, not weeks", yet five months later we are still supplying substantial and expensive support (fuel, munitions, logistics, intelligence, air refueling, etc) to NATO forces.
Recall also that then-Secretary Gates and several of his top generals warned the administration in public that this would not be so easy, but were pointedly ignored by the White House. That "days, not weeks" estimate by Obama looks pretty naïve now.
Recall also that then-Secretary Gates and several of his top generals warned the administration in public that this would not be so easy, but were pointedly ignored by the White House. That "days, not weeks" estimate by Obama looks pretty naïve now.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Recommended; Obama’s Best Hope for Reelection
There is an interesting post over on The Daily Beast by Michael Tomasky, Obama's Best Hope for Reelection. Tomasky, a liberal, notes that the constitutionality of the individual mandate in ObamaCare will no doubt be resolved by the Supreme Court just before the next election. He certainly hopes the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare and doesn't declare it unconstitutional, and he acknowledges that if it is overturned, it would reflect poorly on Obama just before the election.
But he ponders what the effect will be if the Supreme Court upholds the law. He wonders whether that wouldn't infuriate and energize the conservative movement so much that it would assure Obama's defeat. This is an interesting speculation. Obama in particular and Democrats in general may do better in the next election if the law isn't upheld than if it is.
But he ponders what the effect will be if the Supreme Court upholds the law. He wonders whether that wouldn't infuriate and energize the conservative movement so much that it would assure Obama's defeat. This is an interesting speculation. Obama in particular and Democrats in general may do better in the next election if the law isn't upheld than if it is.
Recommended: Rick Perry and Texas Job Numbers
Governor Perry has entered the presidential primary race, and considering that Texas has produced half of all the new jobs created since this recession started, he has a bit of credibility among fiscal conservatives. The rest of the nation is still depressed, and Texas is booming!
Naturally enough, all sorts of pundits, especially liberal ones, are trying to spin this fact in some way which makes their own side look better, and as a result there have been a lot of unsubstantiated claims that these numbers aren't really so impressive.
To the rescue comes the site PoliticalMath with a well-researched piece Rick Perry and Texas Job Numbers, with a refreshingly original approach -- LET'S LOOK AT THE DATA!
I'm not enamored of Governor Perry for president for other reasons, but it seems to me one has to take seriously the success of Texas's small-government, low-taxes, minimal-regulation approach. It is working, and whatever we are doing in the rest of the nation isn't.
Naturally enough, all sorts of pundits, especially liberal ones, are trying to spin this fact in some way which makes their own side look better, and as a result there have been a lot of unsubstantiated claims that these numbers aren't really so impressive.
To the rescue comes the site PoliticalMath with a well-researched piece Rick Perry and Texas Job Numbers, with a refreshingly original approach -- LET'S LOOK AT THE DATA!
I'm not enamored of Governor Perry for president for other reasons, but it seems to me one has to take seriously the success of Texas's small-government, low-taxes, minimal-regulation approach. It is working, and whatever we are doing in the rest of the nation isn't.
On Day 938 of his presidency, Obama says he'll have a jobs plan in a month or so
Andrew Malcolm has a piece in today's Los Angeles Times whose title says it all: On Day 938 of his presidency, Obama says he'll have a jobs plan in a month or so The piece is worth reading, but in fact the main point is in the title, and it is right on!
President Obama's major tactical error thus far has been to waste time and political capital on ideological issues dear to liberal hearts (like universal health care), rather than focus from day one on restoring the economy and getting people back to work.
President Obama's major tactical error thus far has been to waste time and political capital on ideological issues dear to liberal hearts (like universal health care), rather than focus from day one on restoring the economy and getting people back to work.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Conventional Wisdom is Wrong Again
It is amazing how many things that we Americans believe turn out not to be true. For example, everyone "knows" that stuff made in China is taking over the marketplace, presumably destroying American businesses and jobs. So read the article today in the Los Angeles Times entitled Sticker shock: 'Made in China' ranks only 2.7% of U.S. spending
Yup, according to a recent government survey, only about 2.7% of US personal consumption spending went to "made in China" products. And even for those items that were made in China, perhaps half or more of what a consumer paid went to US services (trucking costs, merchandising costs, advertising, etc.).
So much for "conventional wisdom". I wonder how many other things we all believe are also wrong...........
Yup, according to a recent government survey, only about 2.7% of US personal consumption spending went to "made in China" products. And even for those items that were made in China, perhaps half or more of what a consumer paid went to US services (trucking costs, merchandising costs, advertising, etc.).
So much for "conventional wisdom". I wonder how many other things we all believe are also wrong...........
Reality
Here is the fundamental reality that dooms liberal's long-term chances of turning America into a European-style socialist democracy, however hard they try, whomever they manage to elect as President, whichever parts of Congress they may temporarily control:
As this long-term trend from the Gallup Poll shows, the nation is overwhelmingly center-right (40% conservative and 35% moderate) and has been for as long as they have asked the question. In the face of this, left-wing socialist plans are always going to meet stiff opposition, as they have with this administration.
Liberal pundits and politicians can talk about conservative "extremists" and "neanderthals" and "terrorists" all they like, and it won't change the underlying political preferences of the nation. Some moderately "socialist" policies have been successfully established, like Social Security and Medicare, and the nation has tolerated, even supported those as long as times were good and money was easy. Now that the crunch is coming, however, the underlying political nature of the country will almost certainly prevail. It is an unpleasant reality for liberals, but it is the reality.
Liberal pundits and politicians can talk about conservative "extremists" and "neanderthals" and "terrorists" all they like, and it won't change the underlying political preferences of the nation. Some moderately "socialist" policies have been successfully established, like Social Security and Medicare, and the nation has tolerated, even supported those as long as times were good and money was easy. Now that the crunch is coming, however, the underlying political nature of the country will almost certainly prevail. It is an unpleasant reality for liberals, but it is the reality.
The ObamaCare Appeals Court ruling
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important decision yesterday in the case originally brought by 26 states against the ObamaCare bill. They ruled 2-1 that the “individual mandate” was unconstitutional. That is the part of President Obama’s health care bill that REQUIRES everyone in the nation to buy health insurance. Lower courts have split on this issue, and this is the first case to reach the appeals courts.
This is an important ruling because the majority argued the mandate is a new power, not Constitutionally based, that Congress has arrogated to itself by trying to stretch the “regulation of interstate commerce” clause of the Constitution to cover health care, arguing that it is a form of interstate commerce even if the insurance company and the buyer are all in the same state. As the state’s attorneys argued, if Congress can force everyone to buy private health insurance under this clause, is there ANYTHING Congress can’t force people to do? By the same argument, we could all be forced by federal law to enroll in a gym or eat broccoli if the majority in some future Congress thought it would be good for us.
The appeals court ruling makes it certain this case will now move on the Supreme Court, and although it is never certain how the Supreme Court will view a case, and how the individual justices will vote, I think the odds are that they will uphold the appellate court ruling.
If the Supreme Court upholds the appellate court’s decision it will bring up an interesting question. Congress in its haste to ram through the bill neglected to include a standard “severance” clause – legal language that says if any part of the law is invalidated by the courts the rest of the law still stands. Without this clause, it can be argued that invalidating any part of the law invalidates all of it.
Moreover, it is not clear that the law can work as intended without the individual mandate. If participation is voluntary, many young healthy people will elect not to buy insurance, as they do now. That means the pool of people covered will have a disproportionate number of chronically ill people, which will push the costs up sharply. Since Medicare is already on the way to bankrupting the nation, these added costs are simply unsustainable.
It will be interesting to see how this all comes out. And of course if in the end ObamaCare is ruled unconstitutional (as I think it probably should be, however noble its intentions), it will probably be a major blow to President Obama’s re-election chances.
----------------
Correction: this is not the first ObamaCare challenge to reach the appeal level. At the end of July a three judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled on another ObamaCare challenge, and essentially supported the constitutionality of the law, but with many disagreements among the three judges. In addition, somewhat different issues were raised in this case. In essence the court is this case ruled that the Constitution does not forbid regulation of “inactivity”, which seems to me a bit of a stretch.
This is an important ruling because the majority argued the mandate is a new power, not Constitutionally based, that Congress has arrogated to itself by trying to stretch the “regulation of interstate commerce” clause of the Constitution to cover health care, arguing that it is a form of interstate commerce even if the insurance company and the buyer are all in the same state. As the state’s attorneys argued, if Congress can force everyone to buy private health insurance under this clause, is there ANYTHING Congress can’t force people to do? By the same argument, we could all be forced by federal law to enroll in a gym or eat broccoli if the majority in some future Congress thought it would be good for us.
The appeals court ruling makes it certain this case will now move on the Supreme Court, and although it is never certain how the Supreme Court will view a case, and how the individual justices will vote, I think the odds are that they will uphold the appellate court ruling.
If the Supreme Court upholds the appellate court’s decision it will bring up an interesting question. Congress in its haste to ram through the bill neglected to include a standard “severance” clause – legal language that says if any part of the law is invalidated by the courts the rest of the law still stands. Without this clause, it can be argued that invalidating any part of the law invalidates all of it.
Moreover, it is not clear that the law can work as intended without the individual mandate. If participation is voluntary, many young healthy people will elect not to buy insurance, as they do now. That means the pool of people covered will have a disproportionate number of chronically ill people, which will push the costs up sharply. Since Medicare is already on the way to bankrupting the nation, these added costs are simply unsustainable.
It will be interesting to see how this all comes out. And of course if in the end ObamaCare is ruled unconstitutional (as I think it probably should be, however noble its intentions), it will probably be a major blow to President Obama’s re-election chances.
----------------
Correction: this is not the first ObamaCare challenge to reach the appeal level. At the end of July a three judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled on another ObamaCare challenge, and essentially supported the constitutionality of the law, but with many disagreements among the three judges. In addition, somewhat different issues were raised in this case. In essence the court is this case ruled that the Constitution does not forbid regulation of “inactivity”, which seems to me a bit of a stretch.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Recommended: The System Works
Charles Krauthammer has a thought-provoking piece today in the National Review Online site: The System Works. While the talking heads all bemoan how dysfunctional the government seems to be, he argues it is working just the way a democracy should work. Yes, it is noisy and messy and slow, but, he argues, the creators of our government system meant it to be slow to change, so that it wouldn't be constantly buffeted by the fads of the day.
He views the issue from a right-wing perspective, of course, but nonetheless I think he has a valid point. Beginning to attack the debt and deficit problem in the debt ceiling debate was driven, not by an extremist few, as the liberals keep claiming, but by a widespread consensus in the nation that we are too much in debt. But, as he points out, the Republicans shouldn't have won a massive cut in that negotiation, because the nation hasn't yet entrusted them with the whole Congress.
Massive change in our government policies, he argues, SHOULD be slow and subject to intense national debate. So when the Obama administration sought to make a massive change in ObamaCare, it SHOULD have been debated loudly and widely, and it was and still is. Messy, yes, but far better than an autocratic imposition of change without debate.
He views the issue from a right-wing perspective, of course, but nonetheless I think he has a valid point. Beginning to attack the debt and deficit problem in the debt ceiling debate was driven, not by an extremist few, as the liberals keep claiming, but by a widespread consensus in the nation that we are too much in debt. But, as he points out, the Republicans shouldn't have won a massive cut in that negotiation, because the nation hasn't yet entrusted them with the whole Congress.
Massive change in our government policies, he argues, SHOULD be slow and subject to intense national debate. So when the Obama administration sought to make a massive change in ObamaCare, it SHOULD have been debated loudly and widely, and it was and still is. Messy, yes, but far better than an autocratic imposition of change without debate.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
An interesting set of charts
Here are an interesting set of charts from the New York Times and Boston Globe. As they show, Obama certainly hasn't helped the debt, but he isn't the cause of most of it:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
