Tag Archive for 'clinton'

Weekly Links: The Fed’s Coup, Life for Hoarding, and More

Business and Politics
U.S. considers overhaul of financial industry.

Minnesota’s smoking ban has wrought unintended consequences.

Controversy over a religious statue placed outside a Tennessee courthouse.

There is a looming rice shortage in the Philippines. The government is threatening rice hoarders with life in prison.

There Is No Gas Shortage

Al Qaeda does not target innocents. Also, bin Laden is alive and in good health.

Interesting take on Hillary’s “misspeak.”

Science and Technology
Microsoft’s brand has declined in the last four years. The article doesn’t say why Microsoft’s reputation is in decline, but it gives a hint:

Microsoft, which has been diversifying its business beyond packaged software in the past several years, has struggled to articulate how the many facets of its business — software, entertainment and online among them — show a cohesive business plan.

Microsoft’s brand is diluted by its breadth. People don’t know what Microsoft represents anymore.

Speculate much? UK astronomers have discovered the youngest known planet. It’s only 1,600 years old. The next youngest known planet is 10 million years old. One wonders how they figure these things out. Do planets come with birthdays tattooed on their rings?

Christianity
From Christianity Today: Not Your Father’s L’Abri - The Swiss retreat now tends less to philosophical skeptics than to disaffected evangelicals.

The Kiwi enters the debate on how much context matters

An olderish NT Wright interview Really good to watch if you’re still confused about his views.

Blue Like Jazz: The Movie

The Dangers of Political Pragmatism

Generally in presidential elections, voters really aren’t ecstatic over either candidate A or B (yes, even if there were a C and a mythical third party, people still could care less). Instead, they cast their vote based on who will likely not screw it up the most.

This election is no different - if Clinton and Giuliani win out, we will see republicans likely tossing out more than half of their major ideals to vote for a guy who, relative to the emblematic republicans of old - looks like Chairman Mao.

Why in the world do they do this?

The answer is pragmatism. Republicans see Clinton as a rabid, feminist, socialistic… well, Clinton. So even though they are actually voting for an anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-taxer, big spending, illegal immigration supporting, big-government politician - it’s ok because the pragmatic alternative is supporting Hillary. Forget the fact that, for all intents and purposes, they are voting for a democrat in everything but name.

Ironically, these people openly talk about why they are sorely disappointed with George W. Bush’s big-government legacy, as though they totally forgot that Bush openly ran as a big-government conservative. His immigration stance, spending-philosophy, government health care and big-government education program were all out in the open in both 2000 and 2004 - but republicans were terrified of Al Gore and John Kerry. Again, pragmatism.

Where Strategic Thinking Goes to Die
This is the ultimate danger of such a voting philosophy - pragmatism is only good for one battle - one moment in the thousands of moments of A versus B. When we elect a president, for example, we aren’t picking a winner and then everyone goes home. They stay in office for at least four years - and they do all the irresponsible things that we ignorantly hoped they wouldn’t do, but blatantly indicated they would.

As it has been said before - the lesser of two evils is still evil. And pragmatism is not a strategy -it’s suicide. Death by hanging or by jumping off a cliff?

Genuine strategy, the kind that is above base pragmatism, takes into account total wins and losses in each battle, and attempts to gain victory in the end. In other words - it’s not the end of the world if one battle is lost!

The candidate that a voter actually likes may be in tenth place, or in some obscure party which has no chance of winning. Of course, the battle will certainly be lost and the candidate will be soundly defeated - but that is one less person choosing not to play the game when the rules are stacked against them. It’s one more kid picking up their ball, and going home. Eventually, the only ones left are the bullies and thugs, and their threats and lies are exposed for the world to see.

That is the moral victory - and yes, even in amoral politics there are moral victories - the size of both A and B’s electorate and donation base just got smaller. Eventually, and maybe it takes twenty years, the politicians realize that a good number of people are actually voting on principles and not pragmatism and adjust accordingly. Now that would be real change!

The Motivation for Pragmatism is Fear
Are pragmatists afraid? Yes. They get caught up in every election - which is built up by both A and B - that this is the defining battle between the two sides. They and their pundits will say that compromise is essential, because there is just too much at stake. If you don’t vote for A, B will raise your taxes, socialize your health care and make you use lightbulbs that cost $400 a piece. But if you don’t vote for B, A will instate a draft, round up the Muslims and start arresting you for jaywalking.

It’s fear people. The heart of pragmatism exposed.

How to Break the Cycle
In choosing pragmatism, the only safeguard built into the plurality system is neutered: idealism. When democrats, for example, who overwhelmingly oppose the war, pick Clinton who has no qualms about keeping troops in Iraq another five years - they are saying that they don’t really care about ending the war. In the next congressional election, democratic candidates are going to be more moderate on that issue because they know they can win without being an ideologue. Eventually, ending the war gradually fades from the platform.

However, if Giuliani gets elected, then the democrats in the congressional elections react strongly against the war - and win - because that’s what the democratic electorate really wants. In other words, even though it’s only in baby steps, the parties are gradually shaped back into what people actually want them to be, and not what they are willing to settle for to prevent that other crazy party from getting power.

Is all of this even realistic? Probably not. People will go on, voting for their own destruction, until the whole thing breaks (if it isn’t there already). But the vision should be held, because even when this country finally breaks beyond repair, a new one is going to have to be built from scratch.

The Minimum Wage I: Economic Analysis

The minimum wage is a popular and well-thought-of piece of legislation which many people believe is only helpful - or, may have some drawbacks but is more helpful than not. Fortunately, the minimum wage can be looked at objectively by examining how general economic law works as well as socially, by examining what kind of affects the minimum wage has on real people. This two-part article is designed to look at the minimum wage at a fundamental economic level and then for its broader impacts on society.

Removing Morality
For the first part of this article, a pure economic analysis, we must put aside anecdotes and emotional arguments. For example, “but he’s a waiter and deserves minimum wage!” is not a valid point right now, because we are going to look at pure economic law and effects. If the reader comes into this analysis unwilling to engage the material for what it is, then the reader should be honest with himself and admit that he does not want his preconceptions on the idea to be challenged.

Many times, this results from not taking a moment to remove the subjective morality or “fairness” ideas that one brings with them into an argument. Besides, we will deal with these entirely in part II - so just hold your horses.

Wages as Prices
What is a wage anyway? Often, people don’t make the connection that wages are just another price in the massive global market of good and services. Just like a new bike has several components and interactions on the market that determine it’s price, so to does a person’s time and skills - their labor - fetch a price based on these same phenomena.

We only separate out wages into a special category because in modern society, this price has a significant impact on the seller (the employee is selling his labor; the employer is the buyer of labor) because his livelihood, status and often his access to opportunities are dramatically affected by the price he can fetch on his labor. But those are moral considerations, and you promised not to go there until next time, remember?

We have to understand that a price on a wage is reached when there is mutual consent - the employer wants the labor more than he wants the money from the wage and the employee wants the wage more than he wants his time. So if a price can be reached, then it is because both parties believe that they are better off.

People have to trade this way because there is scarcity - not only are material goods finite, but time is finite as well. So demand and supply can’t shoot up into infinity. If it were so, we could legislate a minimum wage as high as we liked and there would be no consequences. However, because things are finite, there is a limit to how high we can raise a wage through legislation.

How Wage Prices Are Determined
Jobs and wages do not come about by employer generosity (or, on the contrary, greed). That is, companies don’t just provide jobs for kicks and don’t pay wages as charity. They actually have a demand for labor in order to get something done - the end result of which is likely for their profit (either financially or maybe idealistically [they need labor to build a free hospital in Sudan]). If they don’t think this way then they lose money and go out of business (and provide no jobs by the way).

On the other hand, laborers are not slaves by nature - they only want to trade their time if it benefits them. In most cases, this is to seek a wage that provides at least their basic subsistence and usually a little more than that - again this is profit.

These two parties meet somewhere above the employee’s minimum value on their time and somewhere below the employer’s cost for what the labor produces. The price is driven down by the scarcity of demand - the less demand for labor, the lower the price that laborers will have to set for their abilities. The price is driven up by how talented, experienced, educated, hard-working, skilled and so on the laborer is. The more talented the laborer, the more objective value he has in the market.

What a Price Floor Does
If then, a wage is just like any other price, than a price floor (a minimum price allowed) is going to have a universal effect. If we legislate that gas, for example, must be at least $5 a gallon to help those poor oil companies, then a lot of people are going to go without gas, simply because they can’t afford it (other will have to cut back significantly in other areas to pay the increased price). It might elevate all the profits from gas for just a little while, but the customer base is going to shrink a lot more than it normally would. So you may have the average customer paying more for gas, but you will have so few of them that, in time, the gross profit is going to actually be less. Neither of the parties benefits.

Say it’s a price floor on wages now. The minimum wage is $15. It’s not just a matter of everyone currently making $5.15 getting a whopping raise. Rather, many of the employee’s customers (employers) can no longer afford their service. In fact, so many employers would be unable to buy labor at that rate that over time, the net profit on labor is going to go down. In fact, the scarcity of jobs is going to rise so much that those employees still left will make less money because supply and demand have been adjusted against them. There are less laborers to compete, but there are even less jobs, so all parties lose.

Raise the Sea - Float All Boats?
Many think of the minimum wage (and price floors in general) like a sea of water that carries boats with it as the water level rises. But employees are not floating - that would imply that their value is totally subjective. Rather, they have anchors, made of all the talents and skills, which hold them to the bottom. The anchors only get longer as more talents and education (and the like) are gained by the employee.

Realize that each employee is a unique combination of skills, experience, training and talents - no two are alike. They earn a unique price for their labor on the market. We’ve already established that someone working for $8 is not making that because their employers likes them “eight dollars worth” or is generous or mean, but $8 is the price that his labor can fetch on the market. What happens then when the minimum price allowed for labor rises above $8? Objectively, our $8 man is drowned because it’s not like his talents and abilities (which got him the price in the first place) increase along with the wage floor. No, we have raised the water level over his head, and drowned those least able to swim.

Tomorrow we will cover the social aspects of a minimum wage and take into account what kind of effects this has on working people and their families. This is the realm where most of the support for a minimum wage comes from.

Internet Buzz is Irrelevant

According to a Fox News online poll [It was actually a cellphone poll. - Ed.] earlier this month, Representative Ron Paul won the New Hampshire Republican debate by a significant margin (Ron Paul wins by a landslide). Unfortunately for Ron Paul enthusiasts, that support has not translated into big numbers on the offline polls. A September 7-8 Gallup poll put Ron Paul at the bottom of the field with 1% support. Subsequent polls show a similar level of insignificance.

Why does Ron Paul poll so well online but not elsewhere? Rush Limbaugh says it’s because of small number of his supporters are spamming the online polls (May 16 transcript) and that Paul’s buzz isn’t real.

But it’s not just Ron Paul. Other candidates are seeing the same pattern: huge online support, but dismal showings in scientific polls. In a New York Times op-ed piece (The Center Holds) David Brooks reports:

In the various polls on the Daily Kos Web site, John Edwards, Barack Obama and even Al Gore crush Hillary Clinton, who limps in with 2 percent to 10 percent of the vote.

But in the scientific polls, Hillary Clinton is polling nearly double the numbers of her nearest competitor. Gallup has her support at 47% compared to Obama’s 25% (Sept. 14-16 poll). Unless every candidate except for Clinton has supporters spamming the online polls, we can’t chalk this phenomenon up to online chicanery. Something else is happening.

David Brooks offers one explanation in his New York Times piece:

As the journalist Ron Brownstein and others have noted, Democratic primary contests follow a general pattern. There are a few candidates who represent the affluent, educated intelligentsia (Eugene McCarthy, Bill Bradley) and they usually end up getting beaten by the candidate of the less educated, lower middle class.

That’s what’s happening again. Obama and Edwards get most of their support from the educated, affluent liberals. According to Gallup polls, Obama garners 33 percent support from Democratic college graduates, 28 percent from those with some college and only 19 percent with a high school degree or less. Hillary Clinton’s core support, on the other hand, comes from those with less education and less income — more Harry Truman than Howard Dean.

Brooks’s unsaid assumption is that the internet activists are better educated and wealthier than the general public. If we assume this is true, then the skewed online polls are just another manifestation of an ongoing class divide in America. The real divide is between the wealthy and the lower middle class. Ron Paul’s online dominance is not due to libertarian crackpots stuffing the internet ballots. It is an effect of the fact that internet users are not a representative cross-section of America. It’s only the wealthier folks who support Ron Paul.

Or so Brooks’s article leads you to believe. But does his unsaid assumption fit the facts? Do internet users in America represent the “affluent, educated intelligentsia?” A 2006 Pew report shows that 73% of American adults are online. (Internet Penetration and Impact) The report shows that income and education did play a factor–53% of adults making less than $30,000 were online compared to 86% of adults making $50,000 to $75,000. But the report also shows that age is an even greater indicator: 88% of 18-29 year-olds are online compared to 32% for those 65 and older. It’s possible that the overrepresentation of Ron Paul supporters on the internet is a result of a new generation with new values. If that is the case–and I caution that it is by no means proved–then we can expect political shifts in the next few decades as this young generation matures.

But for now, the internet is irrelevant.

Democratic Debate Highlights

First of all, watch the entire debate here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
And a transcript here.

The candidates were asked if they would go after Bin Laden even if it meant some civilian casualties. Notice that all candidates raise their hands (except Kucinich) and then realize that maybe they made a mistake… Biden is the first to mention that maybe there is some gray area. Then a chorus of people agree in a quick attempt to cover themselves. Chris Dodd sheepishly tries to make it look like he wasn’t raising his hand, but just scratching the back of his head.

John Edwards made the point that part of his foreign policy would be to provide 100 million children around the world with free US-style education. Don’t be suprised, senator, if they turn that down.

Domestic Policy
The democrats had one common theme in this area – complete ignorance of economic law. There were constant promises to create goods and services by fiat – especially in health care. See specifically how Obama is more interested in attacking profit than he is about solving the issue. No mention about how it’s profits that encouraged those companies to provide insurance in the first place. I don’t think out next president should be so ignorant on basic economics.

Dennis Kucinich showed a lot of shrewdness and courage to say outright: “What Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, Senator Obama are talking about, they’re talking about letting the insurance companies stay in charge. They’re talking about continuing a for-profit health care system.” Now, the man is an open socialist, but he is calling it like it is: all the republican and democratic solutions for universal health care simply grant the insurance companies a monopoly. At least Kucinich, while I think he’s wrong, is 100% honest about the facts here.

Coverage
CNN’s coverage has been one of extremes – some useful and innovative, others just plain annoying.

Among things annoying:

  • the amount of time given to mainline candidates was terribly unfair. It seemed like every question had to feature a response from Obama, Clinton and Edwards – while Gravel and Kucinich were ignored. Specifically, after Clinton bragged about her husband balancing the budget, Gravel made the weighty accusation that it was done by raiding social security. The conversation just moved on as though it didn’t happen.
  • The camera angles also were a little over the top. Occasionally they used a camera angle that reminded me of one at a rock concert -shaking, out of focus and definitely not giving me any useful visual information. They should have just blacked out the camera instead.

At time there was anarchy because there didn’t seem to be any time limits or formal means by which candidates were selected to answer questions. It basically seemed like a talk-show with Wolf Blitzer.

Useful:

  • Finally there were calls to stop the applause. I was really impressed with Wolf Blitzer asking the crowd over and over to stop it.
  • Moderator discretion was also generally well done – mostly used to make candidates actually answer questions.

Overall
This debate was a little more insightful than the others. People will claim there was more mud flung among the top-tier, but that really was just at the beginning. In fact, I couldn’t help but notice how many times Edwards would throw praise at Obama - probably looking to lock up a place on the ticket. Like all the others so far, I am very thankful that these debates have featured the lower-tier candidates. Gravel and Kucinich in this debate were willing to throw out ideas and challenges that would never be address by other candidates who need to play it safe. The media may like it because it’s good for ratings. I like it because it’s good for voters.


Archives

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'clinton' tag.

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'clinton' tag.

August 2008
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for 'clinton' tag.