On the Fritz
Saturday, November 06, 2004
New Maps Slave Maps
¶ 10:12 PM 0 Comments
My brother sent me a link to these juxtaposed maps, but what they were to indicate was unsaid.
Still I wondered.
At first you think they're trying to say Republicans = Slavery
But this would just be silly. At least for most people.
Is it that the north still wants to plunder the resources of the south using the ballot strength of its urban populations?
Or, more currently, urban populations in general still want to use their ballot strength to plunder the resources of the rest of the country?
Or maybe it shows that the parties have completely flipflopped since the republicans used to be in the north and the democrats in the south.... Not only do things not never change, they can change completely!
Also interesting: since a greater percentage of republicans (than democrats) in congress voted for civil rights legislation in the 60s, perhaps that was the beginning of the turnaround...
Or maybe this map was created by someone from the red netherworld to say to the blue regions, "Ha, you ruled us since the civil war with a heavy hand of government but we had more babies than you since then, so we rule now! Our culture is unstoppable. We will own the supremes for two generations! Ha!"
¶ 10:12 PM 0 Comments
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Slimey Stuff
KERRY: "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."
I don't like big government so I haven't preferred Kerry. But my jaw dropped upon hearing this. Crass, calculated and such bad taste from a self-absorbed pedant. I hope others see it that way. I couldn't help sensing that he felt some moral superiority while delivering this below-the-belt dig, and thought, during the momentary pause before "who is a lesbian" crossed his lips, that he really did become conscious of the irony. But by then it was too late.
¶ 1:23 PM 1 Comments
I don't like big government so I haven't preferred Kerry. But my jaw dropped upon hearing this. Crass, calculated and such bad taste from a self-absorbed pedant. I hope others see it that way. I couldn't help sensing that he felt some moral superiority while delivering this below-the-belt dig, and thought, during the momentary pause before "who is a lesbian" crossed his lips, that he really did become conscious of the irony. But by then it was too late.
¶ 1:23 PM 1 Comments
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Missing Jobs Found
Yesterday the WSJ reported that the old way of measuring jobs is skewed, and that the current economy, which grows even more dynamic and flexible, shows a healthy job market with unemployment at 5.4%. It turns out that self-employment and partnership formation is the unreported fuel for growth.
In fact, adding the "household survey" to the "establishment survey" (which is the typically reported payroll data) increases the number of jobs created during the current expansion by two million. So much for the woes of outsourcing...
¶ 7:53 AM 0 Comments
Monday, October 11, 2004
Corporate Tax Measure Nears Passage in Senate
What do you bet this is characterized by the left as a giveaway to corporate interests, even while it has bipartisan support, and benefits the manufacturing sector and restricts "evil" outsourcing? (WSJ subscription required)
¶ 7:37 AM 1 Comments
¶ 7:37 AM 1 Comments
Sunni Won't Participate in Elections
A NYTimes article today suggests that an Iraqi election won't be legitimate if the Sunni minority refuses to participate. But what of the will of 80% of the population? The Sunni participation won't necessarily be prevented from voting by the majority, a more typical critique of questionable democratic elections. Instead, they fear the brutality of the Sunni insurgents (or more rightly, terrorists) among them. Which means the Sunnis are unwilling to root out the evil, selling their freedom to thugs in exchange for not being killed by them. Why should the 80% consider that legitimate?
¶ 7:18 AM 0 Comments
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Root Problems
¶ 9:05 AM 0 Comments
I just read a book review, "Debugging Indian Computer Programs - Dude, Did I Steal Your Job?"
Because it's a book review, the article itself was thin on actual content, but his position is provocative: that Americans, instead of trying to be competitive just want to shut the competition out. Current arguments about outsourcing would support his claim. And in particular those made by Lou Dobbs.
Mr. Dobbs is a CNN heavy who has a business commentary show, has written books, sydicated columns, etc and has a degree in economics from Harvard. (you can search google and get plenty) He has just released a book called "Exporting America" which assembles much about what he has written over the last couple of years, namely that jobs are being shamelessly exported by corporations, which the Bush adminstration is "doing nothing" about (hey wait, but Clinton signed NAFTA), and it's terrible because the trade deficit is also widening along with the job exports.
His prescription is more government regulation and "fair trade" legislation. He speaks the conventional wisdom, and so has had glowing reviews and fawning from the media elites.
I think his prescription is completely wrong. But who the heck am I? Right?
On the other hand, he doesn't have a post graduate degree, and I wonder if his popularity grows because he's just confirming what the liberal elite want to hear. My guess is that that's what John Stossel would say...
One of the big problems is that it appears he doesn't understand the trade deficit, which, if you don't know, suggests that there is not enough capital in the economy to fund all the desired investments, so foreign capital arrives to keep the engines running.
But what is the root of the problem? Government solutions are always like medicines addressing so many symptoms. Someone who is obese with joint problems and diabetes treats their symptoms, and then complains that the medical costs are too high so demands that someone else pay for it. Attacking the root problem is so much simpler, and is free of coercion, but doctors (or anyone) are "insensitive" to demand it, let alone to suggest it. If it were a free-market issue, the person would have to eat less or else they would be uncomfortable, or even die (and I'm not talking about real medical conditions).
In the current climate, we won't change the root problems because we think we can bandaid the symptoms. It's easier in the short term, but who ends up paying in the long term?
What are the root causes of outsourcing? Lou Dobbs says that if corporations don't stop it themselves by being socially responsible citizens, then government should step in. But that's treating the symptom.
Is it because employees have become inured to salaries that were too high in the first place? Is it because unions have used the force of government to keep salaries artificially high? Is it because the market has been distorted by government action in banking, farming, entertainment, trade policy and labor laws? Are we now facing new pressures to absorb previously failed policy to equalize results by applying new layers of policy to try and keep results equal? Will there ever come a time when we will let the market sort it out?
My guess is that the more we try to bandaid the symptoms by re-working previous flawed policies that compound distortions in the market, we risk increasing the likelihood that the final reckoning will be violent.
In searching for continuous improvement in business, some theories posit that managers should keep asking "why" to get to the root of the problem. Why are there 10 defects for every 50 widgets we make? Because the machine misses stamping them on center. Why? Because they enter the machine too fast. Why? Because the rubber slowing mechanisms don't work. Why? Because they haven't been replaced. Why? Because Jim hasn't replaced them. Why? Because he operates 10 machines. Why? Because he's the only one who knows how. Why? Because he won't train anyone. Why? Because he is affraid of losing his job. Why? Because managment has fired others who have trained people that will take their jobs for less. Why? Because managment has not shown a long term commitment to employees... (I'm assuming you allow for this strawman argument to make the point)
Ahh. So, our basic problem is managment policy, and how employees respond to it. What can we do to fix it? What is the new paradigm that the employee will embrace because if we have his trust, we can get those 10 defects down to one, and really make a profit!
Who is doing this with outsourcing, let alone education, or medicine, or whatever. Why can't really fix the problem until we know the root cause, can we?
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Bush's Certainty
What about this charge that Bush is too "certain?"
I can't help thinking that Kerry's "certainties" are equally, if not more disturbing. He seems to be pretty certain about a policy of appeasement and a freeze on nuclear defense. I think with regards to terrorism those policies are dead wrong and dangerous. But they're consistent with Kerry's long senatorial history. Kerry seems to be especially good at playing Monday morning quarterback, but no one is ever wrong in that role. France, Germany and Iran have all said, point blank, that they will not negotiate with Kerry (at least on the points for which Kerry admonishes Bush). ¶ 8:24 AM 0 Comments
I can't help thinking that Kerry's "certainties" are equally, if not more disturbing. He seems to be pretty certain about a policy of appeasement and a freeze on nuclear defense. I think with regards to terrorism those policies are dead wrong and dangerous. But they're consistent with Kerry's long senatorial history. Kerry seems to be especially good at playing Monday morning quarterback, but no one is ever wrong in that role. France, Germany and Iran have all said, point blank, that they will not negotiate with Kerry (at least on the points for which Kerry admonishes Bush). ¶ 8:24 AM 0 Comments
Political Differences
¶ 7:58 AM 0 Comments
I'm intrigued by the differences between schools of thought, and have been trying to objectively determine what elements are in play that attract people to either side. I mentioned at one point that it has little to do with intelligence, though I have heard the left use that criticism of their opposition more often than the right. But there are facts and there are assumptions that, both combined, produce a variety of conclusions.
As an aside, I would ask, "what are the facts?" I looked to factcheck.org after seeing it mentioned in a few places as some factual authority, and discovered their sources are more frequently the Washington Post and the NY Times than the bureau of labor statistics or the US census reports. That was distressing. As Mark Twain said (or popularized; Disraeli said it first), there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.
But people gravitate to certain schools of thought for a reason. For an accurate history, does one seek Paul Johnson, or Arthur Schlesinger? On economics is it Paul Krugman or Greg Mankiw, Paul Samuelson or Milton Friedman, Keynes or Hayak? For legal issues, how about William Brennan or Antonin Scalia, Lawrence Tribe or Robert Bork? For political commentary, is it the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, The Nation or The American Spectator, Bill Moyers or John Stossel, Lou Dobbs or George Gilder, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or George Soros? Presidents Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan? Radio commentators Michael Medved or Al Franken? Moviemakers Steven Spielberg or Mel Gibson? The list is endless. None of these people are/were stupid.
I would guess there are books out there that try to formulate the causes of people's attraction to either side (and then, adding to the left/right paradigm, we should probably integrate the libertarian/totalitarian perspectives: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html).
I will look around.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Who's Responsible for Outsourcing?
Let's assume outsourcing is a problem because it either lowers wages or destroys jobs. Assuming that's true, what is the cause? I think it can be blamed in large part on government granted monopoly power that began with National Labor Relations Act (or Wagner Act) of 1935. That monopoly has had the effect of inflating wages, something like a subsidy. As we have moved from an industrial society to a technological/knowledge/service economy, global labor markets are putting pressure on those inflated wages. Those who demonize outsourcing want to continue propping up those earlier "subsidies" in various forms (tariffs, regulation, tax incentives) which all distort the market further.
I would like to think that there is a place for government to set policy that would be implemented only for a short period to soften the blow of market shake-ups, but that never happens. The subsidies become permanent, because people build their livlihoods around them. I haven't read this anywhere, because it's my own theory.
¶ 8:13 AM 0 Comments
I would like to think that there is a place for government to set policy that would be implemented only for a short period to soften the blow of market shake-ups, but that never happens. The subsidies become permanent, because people build their livlihoods around them. I haven't read this anywhere, because it's my own theory.
¶ 8:13 AM 0 Comments
