The importance of real life perspective.

One of the sites I read a lot is Foreign Policy magazine.  They do have informative and interesting articles, but tend to lean a little bit too much to what even they call “the Ivory Tower”:  Academics who have a tendency to make flowery pronouncements without benefit of street realities, and then are puzzled as to why both politicians and the proletariat don’t just fall at their feet.  A good example is this “special report” I’ve been reading-  13 out of the tinderbox ways to save the economy.  It is 13 separate articles which they preface with: “Debt-ridden and hidebound, Europe may be on the verge of a painful breakup. America is still reeling from the 2008 financial crisis. Even China and India -- the new engines of global growth -- seem to be sputtering these days. Worse yet, the usual wonkish prescriptions don’t seem to be working anymore. So we asked 13 of the smartest people we know to give us their one out-of-the-box idea for fixing the global economy. Here’s what they recommend.”
They lead off with business editor Paul Kedrosky’s plan to institute a systematic, measured “Jubilee year” in which worldwide debt at all levels is written off.  Thought process being that while debt is necessary to capitalist economies, the amount we have is so unsustainable that something has to be done- a reset button, if you will.  I can follow that to a point, and the point is his as well- it is not a permanent fix, as debt will and will need to rebuild.  Where I find fault is that his, and any of these other fixes are only temporary in nature.   Follow me:  Modern industrial-financial progress is made possible by two things- the Market and Insurance.  Capitalism at its base is the transfer of goods and services, usually with the help of an exchange medium (i.e. money).  Neither the stock market or insurance transfer a product.  Thus they are a parasite on the system.  However, they have allowed the SCALE of economy that we are now tied to, and cannot untie ourselves short of all joining a Mennonite community.  Thus, a Jubilee year, or any other solution, is just pumping the water out of a basement that was never built to keep water out.
Next up was “freelance economist” Dianne Coyle, who isn’t the only one to suggest a WPA style program, on an emergency basis.  But you know, I wonder if this isn’t time to expand the idea.  Again, follow- what if you established a “National Infrastructure Corps”, by eliminating both Unemployment and Welfare, automatically enrolling these people in the NIC to learn construction and trades, and work the training off in building schools, roads, bridges.  The work would be paid for in unproductive funds no longer going to UEB and Welfare, the ones that learn the best would have the opportunity in private sector, and those that didn’t care for the work would be that much more motivated to go find something they DID like.  Of course, I’m sure that the liberals would be scrambling to put forth “right to not work” legislation to sink it.
Tech forecaster Paul Saffo suggests we find a way to collect “better data” with which to figure out what the economy is doing.  He says that we’ve been beating ourselves by thinking of the global economy as an “equilibrium” economy.  (it isn’t; the market and insurance alone assures that.)  He wants to be able to forecast its dynamism by establishing a world database that would be “ an institution with the analytic resources of Wall Street players, the reach of Google, and the openness of Wikipedia. “  Yeah, but if it has these attributes, how do you guarantee the ACCURACY of the data? It’s easy to say that it would “ serve a purely informational role with no policy responsibilities”; harder to see that those who DO have those responsibilities don’t feed it fudged numbers, like Obama’s unemployment numbers that look better until you add in those who’ve given up job searching altogether.

Barney Frank, of all people, is next with a proposal for a Ron Paul/George Sorous like neutering of Defense.  And actually, he has a part of something here.  He is spot on when he says,  “many of my conservative colleagues have opposed the idea of reducing our military budget on grounds that I refer to as "weaponized Keynesianism." They claim that government spending doesn't create jobs -- unless it is for the military. Many opponents of cuts in military spending now argue against them not in terms of national defense, but on the grounds that they would cause job losses. “  I would like to think I am not the military isolationist that the aforementioned gentlemen are; however, there is entirely too much waste being vacuumed into the Pentagon, and that has to stop.

Menzie Chinn and Jeffry Frieden suggest a small raise in the inflation rate will do the trick;  I am not convinced that this will do anything but pay someone else’s debts with my money.  Justin Yifu Lin suggests the WPA idea anew, but as a global project working in the third world- and I say, if I don’t want my efforts militarily expended there, why do I want my development money going there?  By the time we get them on a par with where we are, we’ll be on a par with where they were.
I really find it hard to believe that a blogger with a 30 year old degree in business from IPFW should have to tell such a famous and allegedly intelligent economist as JK Galbraith that he’s full of shit, but here we are.  He proposes a $5 raise in the minimum wage.  “a high minimum wage would be a self-enforcing deterrent against abusive employers seeking cut-rate help. Jobs for the undocumented would dry up. Those who hold onto their jobs -- the vast majority of low-wage workers and especially those with U.S. citizenship, English fluency, experience, and skills -- would gain a big advantage.”  He bases his support of this moronicy on three items. #1- “Would this hurt competitiveness? Not at all. That's an issue for manufactured goods and traded services like insurance and banking, sectors in which everyone already earns far more than $12 an hour.”  Hello, asshole?  I work in a manufacturing job in which NO ONE is making $12 an hour, and if they did, 90% of the jobs would be in China in a heartbeat- including mine.  You might want to look around and see that not everyone works a nice cushy union job before you pour forth such excrement.  #2- “Would prices go up? Some would. But rich people can afford it -- and workers would have extra income to pay the higher prices, so most of them would come out ahead. Women in particular would benefit because they tend to work for lower wages. With more family income, some people would choose to retire, go back to school, or have children, making it easier for others who need jobs to find them”.  Again, this justification discounts the entire strata I live in, and is a nice solution for the wealthy.  Just the kind of thing that idiot occupistas would support.  #3- “Most of all, a big jump in the minimum wage would be a reparation. It would be a payback to those who have suffered from the economic crisis: the working population. It would be an act of justice.”  Thank you, so much, JK, for gifting me with the loss of my job.  Kiss my ass.
The other ideas involved:  Seed money to small entrepreneurs, instead of pissing $500 bil down Solyndra’s toilets; stopping the “gaming” of the world’s exchange system (including, but not limited to, China); a surtax on private consumption over $500,000 (another lovely steal-from-the-rich plan that would fall flat as the wealthy turn savings into offshore investment –nod-nod-wink-wink);  Breaking the cycle of unemployment-to-poor-health- to poor-education- to unemployment by teaching people how to take care of themselves better (Can we wake up here? Please?  People don’t not take care of themselves do to lack of knowing how to- there are resources EVERYWHERE.  They don’t take care of themselves because they don’t FEEL LIKE IT.  Diet, exercise, checkups, are all things readily available.  Motivation is the problem, and no program will solve it.);  redesigning cities to be greener by being denser packed, thus eliminating the need for polluting public and private transportation ( and ensuring we all pay Selling New York prices for the least hovel); and the brilliant idea of one Daniel C. Dennett:  “We academics have long summer vacations and even longer sabbaticals -- glorious big chunks of green time in which to write books, spend months on end studying various phenomena, or just see the world or build a boat. We don't just enjoy recreation; we re-create ourselves.What would it take to create a system of allocating work that maximized green time for everyone? “  Now there’s a helpful idea- but what else would we expect from one of the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism”?

For your next special report, FPM?  How about ideas from people who might have a clue, who fight against total economic loss every day, and for whom bankruptcy is something more than an intellectual exercise to be done on some random “green” day?

My knid of campaign ad

I've mentioned several times lately that I find the latest Tom Hayhurst campaign ad amusing. They claim that Marlin Stutzman has done things in his current position that are "not so conservative", in a derogatory way. And I think to myself, if Tom Hayhurst is the liberal, and Stutzman acting "not so conservative" is a bad thing, and the opposite of conservative is liberal, are they then saying that their man Dr. Tom is worse yet? Or are democrats now conservative? Point being, this is a poorly thought out ad, as most attack ads on both sides are. I still recall cringing at the RNC ads for local candidates- you could tell that they were written by someone who had no idea what Indiana is about, and probably wasn't sure where it was. In a similar vein, this is why I am weighing whether to vote for Dan (hand picked by the RNC) Coats and make sure that Mama Pelosi's little boy Ellsworth gets beat, of vote for write in candidate Jim Miller and send the GOP a message that we don't need them to run local elections.

So, what kind of campaign ads would I like? Hm. Let's see. I haven't heard one democrat ad pointing to the great contributions that Obama et. al. have made in the last couple years, so I think it's safe to say that a majority of people think Obama sucks and more ads that tell us that are not needed. I'm also not thrilled with the ads that say that the hon. Joe Blow will "stand up for American/Hoosier/family values", because that means that the hon. Blow will be yet another obstructionist in a playpen full of them already. How about one where the candidate says, "I promise to listen carefully to both sides of every debate, work to achieve a true consensus, and actually try to get something constructive done while you, the people, are paying me"? I mean, if Olympia Snowe can do it, why can't we string a few people together who will vote for what is good for the country and not what the party leadership demands?

I know I'm asking the impossible. Any days of true bipartisanship died when the democrats joined the NY Times and Washington Post in crucifying Nixon. (now, I'm a big enough man to admit that Nixon brought much of it on himself; haters out there, are you man enough to admit that no democrat president guilty of the same things would have gotten nearly the same treatment?) Regardless, the nation's politics was irreparably damaged by the Watergate feeding frenzy; neither party would be willing now to say, "as long as you're in the majority, we'll follow your lead; if you fail, and we become the majority, we expect the same respect." That's what this country needs, and I'm sure that 90% of politically minded people in America would laugh their butts off at me for saying it.

But here, let's face something. We have the liberal ideas of big government, offend nobody, and cradle to grave care. We can see by reading the Times of London on a daily basis that this doesn't work because it becomes too tied in P.C. and its leaders take advantage of the chance to belly up to the trough. In the liberal scenario, human nature draws us into a world where the government fattens itself at the expense of the people, and business grovels to suck at the teat. In the conservative scenario of less government, don't worry who you piss off in doing the right thing and up by the bootstraps, you have the bad thing about the Reagan years- that the de-regulation that was supposed to spur business combined with the lack of regulation to create an army of amoral money chasers who have drove the nation's finance to the edge of oblivion. So in the conservative scenario, it's business that gorges itself while the government follows along with hand out. And as people get increasingly frustrated, they become polarized until I can't even talk science and theory with someone without it becoming a whole political thing- and I'm not leaving myself out here. The thing we have to face is, that any government run by men is subject to corruption. Human nature what it is, we're only debating our choice of crooks.

And no, I'm not suggesting a theocracy. Israel couldn't pay attention long enough for God to write the Ten Commandments, and our good friend in Iran, Mahmud Iamanutjob, is another poor example. What I'm saying is, that as long as we are human beings, we will inevitably put ourselves under leaders who, given enough time, will be corrupted by power. So if all things are even, why not just say, you're in the majority, you tell us what to do. Once you've fubared it to a sufficient level, you'll get voted out and it will be our turn. Relax, it's just not worth hating your brother because he goes to tea party meetings.

You knew I'd have to chime in on something this stupid

And that is the Greek debt crisis. For those of us who don't follow such things, here's the Martin instant synopsis: Greece is a land of crooks and tax cheats where lying on one's tax return is rampant to a mind boggling degree and goof off civil servants can't be terminated because their rights are written into the Constitution! Say what you want about our constitution, at least it's not a glorified union contract. So along comes the EU, anxious to put the whole continent under its aegis, whether they meet the requirements for entry or not. So the Greek government, much like its citizens, lie about their financial state to the EU; the Union fails to do even cursory checking, apparently, and lets them in.

Flash foreward to a few months ago. The world's economies go into the tank because of rampant and unsecured debt acquired on the basis of illusory assets that dissolve into thin air when needed most. Greece, who the EU has let play at the big boy's table without a stake, gets hurt bad. An enonomy based on tourism and building on OPM (other people's money) isn't going to hold up too well in a recession. Needing help, they decide to come somewhat clean with the EU and admit that their debt is 5 times what they claimed. Their ratings go into the tank, and suddenly they couldn't get a loan from a confidence man. The EU decides we will help, but Greece will have to do some cutting. Greece's people revolt, screaming they won't put up with these austerity measures. Included in these are an increase in the taxes they don't bother to pay anyway; a cut in the subsidies the gov't pays out to the university students who have nothing better to do that protest stuff they don't understand and light candles at the foot of their Karl Marx posters; Lay-offs for the hitherto protected civil servants who do little but draw a salary and enjoy the good life, in between lying on their tax forms; and changing the retirement age (and thus the date they start receiving their version of social security) to 65 or 67. What is it now, you ask? 53. That's right, fifty-fricking-three. So of course, now the Greek people are rising in all sorts of protests, including a 4 hour general strike coming up on Tuesday. In the Meantime, you have Germany who has somehow found themselves on the hook for most of this bailout. The German people are pissed because they have to bailout a nation full of people who are in debt so that they can retire 15 years before any German can. They say, if yu cut your spending, cut your corruption, and act like adults, you wouldn't need a bailout. The Greeks (and I forget who the quoted party/parties were on this) reply, Yeah , well, if Germany would repatriate all the gold and other stuff the Nazis stole from Greece during 1941-5, we wouldn't need the bailout either.

Bottom line: the EU and Greece reached an "agreement" on the bailout plan (which, before it could be finalized, doubled in size on Friday), after Tim Geithner told his German counterpart, you're the big bopper in Europe, it's your pooch to screw. Truth is, Greece is just the fizzy cap on a nightmare that can and may well take the USA down with it. Observe:

I'm hoping when I post this you'll be able to click on this and make it bigger. Ah, I just checked, and yes you can. As you can see, Greece is the teeny tiny peak on a verrrrry large iceberg. If Italy goes down, she'll take France with her. Britain has already been warned that the first thing that the new p.m. will have to deal with is that their day of reckoning is at the doorstep. Do we survive a general European collapse? Ask yourself why Geithner got involved in this in the first place.
I hope you understand, I'm not saying the world's going to collapse because the Greeks are crooks. What I am saying, is that the Greeks sat at a table they had no business being at, so they get to be the first ones to go down. The question is whether they will be the last.

_____________________________________________

Speaking of going down, news from the KHL: Dynamo Moscow, which looked like they might fold despite their long and glorious history, have reached an agreement to merge with sucessful neighbor and playoff runner-up HC MVD. The resulting team will be called OHK (Russian for "joint hockey club") Dynamo Moscow, and will play out of Balasheika (if you listen to the MVD people) or an arena just outside of Moscow (if you listen to the Dynamo people). Obviously a few wrinkles are left to iron out.

______________________________________

Scrappy and I had a walk today that was run of the mill coming and going, but a bit interesting at the turn. Cutting through the Papermill office park, we ran into our old friend Mr. Bunny Rabbit, who we trailed back into the backside of the apartments. Looking for a place to cut through to the street, we went past a place that thought hat it was safe to leave their dog (I think it was some kind of boxer mix) on their porch without tying him. We learned different, when he managed to jump the fence. Hoping for no fight, I watched as the two dogs touched noses. Then the dog looked at me, and I told him, "You'd better get home." He tried, but one closed fence gate looks much like another, and he ran on down the row. I hope things turned out okay, but GD it, people, the leash law is there for a fricking reason! Finally, once at the street we ran into a girl who asked about Scrappy:
"Is it a beagle?"
"Yup."
"Full beagle?"
"Yup."
"Beagles are so cute. (Then, petting Scrappy) I wish you would have puppies so I could have one."
"That would be a trick for him."
The girl moved on then, pizza box in hand, leaving me to wish Scrappy could better understand human conversations, so I could've enjoyed the WTF look on his face.