The election of a Republican in Massachusetts was not the most unsettling recent development. Massachusetts voters, who already have a public health insurance law, were terrified that the federal health care reform would eliminate their health care law. They were also scared silly by health insurance industry lies. No, the most unsettling development was the issuance of a decision by five Republican members of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.”
In Citizens United, the majority of the Court ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The Court overruled prior decisions in which it had upheld parts of the McCain-Feingold law that restricted spending by corporations and labor unions in elections. The decision was based upon the premise that restrictions on corporate spending in elections are a violation of corporations’ First Amendment rights of free speech. In other words, corporations are “people” with the same free speech rights as you and me.
This, of course, was a purely political decision made by Republican justices appointed by Republican presidents. The Republican Party has long been the party of big business, and has long opposed most government regulation of business. Thus, the insurance industry has been able to weaken and possibly defeat health care reform that would benefit all Americans. The oil and gas, pharmaceutical, banking, securities, and other industries have been able to count on Republican support in Congress against any attempt to keep them from despoiling, polluting, overcharging, defrauding, and abusing the American people. Republicans have long opposed any legislation that would guarantee workers better working conditions, minimum wages, decent hours, the right to unionize and bargain, and other rights.
Now the Supreme Court has made it likely that Corporations will become directly involved in most elections, backing candidates that adhere to the corporate lust for profits and opposing candidates that call for any kind of laws benefiting workers, the environment, safety, and public welfare. Corporations will swamp the electoral process with money. President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
While the Supreme Court made this decision ostensibly in the name of free speech, it had nothing to do with free speech. It was pure politics--like the 2000 election decision. Corporate spending is not free speech. Conservative Republicans have never been strong supporters of free speech. They have a history of opposing free speech, particularly the free speech of anti-war, anti-segregation, and anti-corporate demonstrators. Conservative Republicans approve of free speech only when they approve of the content. When speech involves political views they dislike or sexual material that offends them, the principle of freedom of speech disappears.
And corporations are not “people” entitled to the same rights of free speech as you and I. Their expenditure of money to sway public opinion and prevent the election of candidates who might support legislation affecting their profits is not “speech.” A corporation is an artificial construct, created for the purpose of protecting shareholders from liabilities. The McCain-Feingold and other laws never restricted the free speech rights of corporate officers, directors, employees, or shareholders. They merely restricted the use of corporate money to influence campaigns. Today’s giant corporations are faceless leviathans without consciences. Young executives get promoted for adding to the bottom line, not for their concern about the welfare of the community.
Any liberals who think that labor unions, environmental organizations, peace groups, civil rights organizations, and other groups devoted to the rights and protection of people will be able to offset the massive amount of money that will be spent by corporations are smoking something illegal.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Causes of the Recession
Several articles by leading economists and journalists, including Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman in The New York Times Magazine, Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz in Vanity Fair, and John Cassidy in The New Yorker, have identified the major causes of the Recession and have explained the collapse of conservative economic theory.
In his Times article, “How did Economists Get It So Wrong,” Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at Princeton University, described how the profession of economics is divided between “saltwater” economists, located mainly in East Coast universities such as Harvard, M.I.T., and Princeton, and “freshwater” economists, located mainly in Midwestern schools like the University of Chicago.
The saltwater economists follow the teachings of John Maynard Keynes who, in his 1936masterwork, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money,” explained that markets do not always follow logical patterns of self-correction and that governmental regulation and intervention are often necessary to make the economy work properly.
The freshwater economists adhere to the teachings of men like Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago who developed the theory called “Monetarism.” Under Monetarism, the only governmental action necessary to prevent depressions is for central banks to keep the nation’s money supply (the sum of cash in circulation and bank deposits) growing on a steady path.
Freshwater economists believe that because markets are self-adjusting, there is little or no need for governmental regulation of and intervention in the economy. This concept is called the “Efficient Market Theory.” Under the Efficient Market Theory as propounded by University of Chicago economists like Robert Lucas, Eugene Fama, and John Cochrane, the prices of stocks and other financial assets accurately reflect all of the available information about economic fundamentals. Along with this, the freshwater economists believe in the “rational-expectations theory,” which posits that (Wall Street) individuals and firms are hyper-intelligent decision makers, and that the combined effect of their good decisions is a market that continuously adjusts to changing conditions and accurately reflects the state of the economy.
The big problem with the theories of the freshwater economists is that the recession proved them to be all wet. The adoption of their theories by the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress led to the recession. As stated by Paul Krugman: “They (the freshwater economists) turned a blind eye to the limitations of human rationality that often lead to bubbles and busts; to the problems of institutions that run amok; to the imperfections of markets — especially financial markets — that can cause the economy’s operating system to undergo sudden, unpredictable crashes; and to the dangers created when regulators don’t believe in regulation.”
All three writers show how the recession was caused by the deregulation of the banks and securities markets. When the Republican Congress lifted the bans on predatory lending by banks, erased the strict separation of banks and securities houses, lowered the reserve requirements for financial institutions, and permitted Wall Street to engage in wildly speculative trading in derivatives, the entire structure that was supposed to be self-correcting came crashing down.
While a number of freshwater economists, such as Fama, Lucas, and Cochrane, refused to admit their mistakes, several others courageously admitted the failure of their theories. During hearings on Capitol Hill, Alan Greenspan, a freshwater conservative, acknowledged that his economic philosophy was flawed and that the embrace of this philosophy by America—and much of the rest of the world—made it inevitable that the economy would crash. Another conservative, Richard A. Posner, admitted that “The movement to deregulate the financial industry went too far by exaggerating the resilience—the self-healing powers—of laissez-faire capitalism.”
The nation is lucky that after the recession hit, President Obama and the Democrats took-over the economy, and by means of bailouts and stimulus were able to avert a major depression.
In his Times article, “How did Economists Get It So Wrong,” Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at Princeton University, described how the profession of economics is divided between “saltwater” economists, located mainly in East Coast universities such as Harvard, M.I.T., and Princeton, and “freshwater” economists, located mainly in Midwestern schools like the University of Chicago.
The saltwater economists follow the teachings of John Maynard Keynes who, in his 1936masterwork, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money,” explained that markets do not always follow logical patterns of self-correction and that governmental regulation and intervention are often necessary to make the economy work properly.
The freshwater economists adhere to the teachings of men like Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago who developed the theory called “Monetarism.” Under Monetarism, the only governmental action necessary to prevent depressions is for central banks to keep the nation’s money supply (the sum of cash in circulation and bank deposits) growing on a steady path.
Freshwater economists believe that because markets are self-adjusting, there is little or no need for governmental regulation of and intervention in the economy. This concept is called the “Efficient Market Theory.” Under the Efficient Market Theory as propounded by University of Chicago economists like Robert Lucas, Eugene Fama, and John Cochrane, the prices of stocks and other financial assets accurately reflect all of the available information about economic fundamentals. Along with this, the freshwater economists believe in the “rational-expectations theory,” which posits that (Wall Street) individuals and firms are hyper-intelligent decision makers, and that the combined effect of their good decisions is a market that continuously adjusts to changing conditions and accurately reflects the state of the economy.
The big problem with the theories of the freshwater economists is that the recession proved them to be all wet. The adoption of their theories by the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress led to the recession. As stated by Paul Krugman: “They (the freshwater economists) turned a blind eye to the limitations of human rationality that often lead to bubbles and busts; to the problems of institutions that run amok; to the imperfections of markets — especially financial markets — that can cause the economy’s operating system to undergo sudden, unpredictable crashes; and to the dangers created when regulators don’t believe in regulation.”
All three writers show how the recession was caused by the deregulation of the banks and securities markets. When the Republican Congress lifted the bans on predatory lending by banks, erased the strict separation of banks and securities houses, lowered the reserve requirements for financial institutions, and permitted Wall Street to engage in wildly speculative trading in derivatives, the entire structure that was supposed to be self-correcting came crashing down.
While a number of freshwater economists, such as Fama, Lucas, and Cochrane, refused to admit their mistakes, several others courageously admitted the failure of their theories. During hearings on Capitol Hill, Alan Greenspan, a freshwater conservative, acknowledged that his economic philosophy was flawed and that the embrace of this philosophy by America—and much of the rest of the world—made it inevitable that the economy would crash. Another conservative, Richard A. Posner, admitted that “The movement to deregulate the financial industry went too far by exaggerating the resilience—the self-healing powers—of laissez-faire capitalism.”
The nation is lucky that after the recession hit, President Obama and the Democrats took-over the economy, and by means of bailouts and stimulus were able to avert a major depression.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Dick Cheney on Terror
What can you do with a lovable old curmudgeon like Dick Cheney? Put him in prison for war crimes? Nah. We need him out there spouting his imbecilities to help us forget all of the mistakes made by the Cheney/Bush Administration when it came to terrorism.
Cheney has repeatedly criticized the President Obama for laxity on terrorism. Part of this criticism has been Cheney’s effort to defend his own use of torture as an interrogation technique. He recently criticized the President for not responding quickly to the Christmas Day airplane bombing attempt (President Obama took three days to publicly address the incident-- Bush took six days to respond to an identical incident with the 2001 shoe bomber, Richard Reid). Cheney said that President Obama “seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war.” As we all now know, since Christmas President Obama has acted swiftly and resolutely to strengthen our defenses against terror.
Cheney contends that President Obama has hurt the image of the United States around the world by trying to engage in dialogue with Muslim nations! Funny, but the Nobel Prize Committee doesn’t seem to agree with him.
Cheney and the Republicans seem to think that President Obama should not have been vacationing in Hawaii at the time of the Christmas incident (George W. Bush holds the record for amount of time taken by a president on vacation--over 900 days). One Republican strategist, Kevin Madden, made the brainless remark that “Hawaii, to many Americans, seems like a foreign place.”
My guess is that Dick Cheney is suffering from that predicament we older people often experience--forgetfulness. He may or may not be able to distinguish his hunting companion from a quail, but he cannot remember the policies that resulted in the 9/11 attacks. He seems to forget the response of his administration in early 2001, before 9/11, when Richard A. Clarke, counter-terrorism advisor on the National Security Council, repeatedly warned of the danger of an attack from al Qaeda.
In January, 2001, Clarke made an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the Middle East. Clarke also suggested strategies for combating al-Qaeda. The Cheney/Bush Administration rejected Clarke’s urgent warnings, and suggested that Clarke was exaggerating the danger and influence of Osama bin Laden.
In his book, “Against All Enemies,” Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, Bush and Cheney were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda by a preoccupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke wrote that the day after the 9/11 attack, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the 9/11attacks. In response, Clarke wrote a report, signed by the FBI and the CIA, stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement. The paper was quickly returned by a White House deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit." Bush had no interest in going after al Qaeda. He wanted Saddam Hussein.
As a result of the neglect by the Cheney/Bush Administration, there was more than a failed attempt to blow-up some powder on an airplane. There was a massive, horrible attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93, with thousands of people killed. For some reason, this did not focus Bush and Cheney’s attention on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. For the next eight years Cheney and Bush pursued a wasteful, murderous war in Iraq, virtually ignoring the real terrorists in Afghanistan.
Now that he is an aged, blithering idiot, Cheney has forgotten all that.
Cheney has repeatedly criticized the President Obama for laxity on terrorism. Part of this criticism has been Cheney’s effort to defend his own use of torture as an interrogation technique. He recently criticized the President for not responding quickly to the Christmas Day airplane bombing attempt (President Obama took three days to publicly address the incident-- Bush took six days to respond to an identical incident with the 2001 shoe bomber, Richard Reid). Cheney said that President Obama “seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war.” As we all now know, since Christmas President Obama has acted swiftly and resolutely to strengthen our defenses against terror.
Cheney contends that President Obama has hurt the image of the United States around the world by trying to engage in dialogue with Muslim nations! Funny, but the Nobel Prize Committee doesn’t seem to agree with him.
Cheney and the Republicans seem to think that President Obama should not have been vacationing in Hawaii at the time of the Christmas incident (George W. Bush holds the record for amount of time taken by a president on vacation--over 900 days). One Republican strategist, Kevin Madden, made the brainless remark that “Hawaii, to many Americans, seems like a foreign place.”
My guess is that Dick Cheney is suffering from that predicament we older people often experience--forgetfulness. He may or may not be able to distinguish his hunting companion from a quail, but he cannot remember the policies that resulted in the 9/11 attacks. He seems to forget the response of his administration in early 2001, before 9/11, when Richard A. Clarke, counter-terrorism advisor on the National Security Council, repeatedly warned of the danger of an attack from al Qaeda.
In January, 2001, Clarke made an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the Middle East. Clarke also suggested strategies for combating al-Qaeda. The Cheney/Bush Administration rejected Clarke’s urgent warnings, and suggested that Clarke was exaggerating the danger and influence of Osama bin Laden.
In his book, “Against All Enemies,” Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, Bush and Cheney were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda by a preoccupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke wrote that the day after the 9/11 attack, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the 9/11attacks. In response, Clarke wrote a report, signed by the FBI and the CIA, stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement. The paper was quickly returned by a White House deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit." Bush had no interest in going after al Qaeda. He wanted Saddam Hussein.
As a result of the neglect by the Cheney/Bush Administration, there was more than a failed attempt to blow-up some powder on an airplane. There was a massive, horrible attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93, with thousands of people killed. For some reason, this did not focus Bush and Cheney’s attention on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. For the next eight years Cheney and Bush pursued a wasteful, murderous war in Iraq, virtually ignoring the real terrorists in Afghanistan.
Now that he is an aged, blithering idiot, Cheney has forgotten all that.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Conspiracy Theories and Ockham's Razor
Some people are going to be bothered by the following statement, but it is correct. There was no conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy. The assassination of Kennedy was the work of only one man, Lee Harvey Oswald. If that statement makes some uncomfortable, it is a sign that they are persons who prefer conspiracy theories to sharp, rational, scientific evidence. There have been a number of studies proving conclusively that Oswald acted alone.
When I hear someone spouting conspiracy theories, I deduct 20 points from his or her IQ. People who believe in one conspiracy theory usually believe in others. That is because their weak minds are unable to deal with the kind of logic and precision needed to understand the modern world. Belief in a conspiracy theory is a form of mental laziness. It is a substitute for rational thought.
There are a lot of irrational conspiracy theories out there. One of them put out by people called “Birthers” is that President Obama was not born in America and therefore is not an American citizen qualified to be President. Now that the State of Hawaii has squelched this theory by producing a valid birth certificate, you would think that the Birthers would drop to matter. They haven’t. They think the birth certificate is part of a dark conspiracy.
Another theory being put-out by right-wing crazies is that illegal immigration is part of a conspiracy to return the southwestern United States to Mexico. They believe that it isn’t jobs or money that is luring those people across the border; it is a desire to make states like Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona part of Mexico again.
One foaming-at-the-mouth talk-show host named Alex Jones claims that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the military-industrial complex and "global elites" to bring-on totalitarian world government. Huh?
Another group of brain-damaged people believe that the moon landings never happened and were faked by the government to dupe the public.
Glenn Beck, who has established himself as a full-fledged paranoid psycho-moron, said on his radio show that the Obama Administration is going to use the automobile alert system, OnStar, to spy on Americans and enforce martial law.
There are lots of conspiracy theories about secret societies like the Masons, Yale’s Skull and Bones, and the Catholic order of Opus Dei. There are people who believe that the world is run by a secret group called “The Illuminati.” That is about as credible as believing that the world is run by the Xenia chapter of the Elks.
The murder of President Kennedy profoundly influenced my philosophy of life. I came to realize that much in life is the result of arbitrary forces for which there is no reason and no explanation. Things just happen. I developed a lawyer’s method of reasoning based on “Ockham’s Razor.”
Ockham's Razor (or Occam’s Razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). In other words, the simplest explanation is almost always the best.
Why do people continue to have faith in conspiracy theories? Because people do not want to believe that the bad things that happen to us are arbitrary and have no real meaning. They want to believe that there is an explanation for everything, and that most of the bad things that happen can be attributed to some evil person, conspiracy, or spirit. Most such people are quite superstitious.
It is true that there are actual conspiracies out there; 9/11 was a conspiracy. But most conspiracy theories are bogus. The truth is that most bad things that happen are not the result of any conspiracy. They just happen.
When I hear someone spouting conspiracy theories, I deduct 20 points from his or her IQ. People who believe in one conspiracy theory usually believe in others. That is because their weak minds are unable to deal with the kind of logic and precision needed to understand the modern world. Belief in a conspiracy theory is a form of mental laziness. It is a substitute for rational thought.
There are a lot of irrational conspiracy theories out there. One of them put out by people called “Birthers” is that President Obama was not born in America and therefore is not an American citizen qualified to be President. Now that the State of Hawaii has squelched this theory by producing a valid birth certificate, you would think that the Birthers would drop to matter. They haven’t. They think the birth certificate is part of a dark conspiracy.
Another theory being put-out by right-wing crazies is that illegal immigration is part of a conspiracy to return the southwestern United States to Mexico. They believe that it isn’t jobs or money that is luring those people across the border; it is a desire to make states like Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona part of Mexico again.
One foaming-at-the-mouth talk-show host named Alex Jones claims that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the military-industrial complex and "global elites" to bring-on totalitarian world government. Huh?
Another group of brain-damaged people believe that the moon landings never happened and were faked by the government to dupe the public.
Glenn Beck, who has established himself as a full-fledged paranoid psycho-moron, said on his radio show that the Obama Administration is going to use the automobile alert system, OnStar, to spy on Americans and enforce martial law.
There are lots of conspiracy theories about secret societies like the Masons, Yale’s Skull and Bones, and the Catholic order of Opus Dei. There are people who believe that the world is run by a secret group called “The Illuminati.” That is about as credible as believing that the world is run by the Xenia chapter of the Elks.
The murder of President Kennedy profoundly influenced my philosophy of life. I came to realize that much in life is the result of arbitrary forces for which there is no reason and no explanation. Things just happen. I developed a lawyer’s method of reasoning based on “Ockham’s Razor.”
Ockham's Razor (or Occam’s Razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). In other words, the simplest explanation is almost always the best.
Why do people continue to have faith in conspiracy theories? Because people do not want to believe that the bad things that happen to us are arbitrary and have no real meaning. They want to believe that there is an explanation for everything, and that most of the bad things that happen can be attributed to some evil person, conspiracy, or spirit. Most such people are quite superstitious.
It is true that there are actual conspiracies out there; 9/11 was a conspiracy. But most conspiracy theories are bogus. The truth is that most bad things that happen are not the result of any conspiracy. They just happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
