Saudi Arabia’s Arab Spring, at Last
By Thomas Friedman
Nov, 23, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-arab-spring.html?comments#permid=24947255
I am with Mr. Friedman in his fervent wish, that this "Arab Spring" will actually lead to real, positive, and lasting change in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps the Middle East.
However, just as Mr. Friedman's overly optimistic analysis of the past Arab Springs, for example in Egypt, was completely off base, colored, as his analyses mostly are, by the last person he talks to, and by a blue-eyed unrealistic assessment of what social media can do, I fear this optimistic analysis too will prove to be wildly off.
Friday, November 24, 2017
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Comment on: "Angela Merkel’s Failure May Be Just What Europe Needs", by Ross Douthat, NYT, Nov. 22, 2017
Angela Merkel’s Failure May Be Just What Europe Needs
by Ross Douthat, Nov. 22, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/angela-merkel-germany-liberalism.html?comments#permid=24930133
Germany will emerge just fine from this political crisis , but I'm not so sure the US will survive Trump.
I do agree that the major political parties, both here, in Germany and in many other democracies, have failed to grasp and grapple with the negative effects of globalization. But the response of Britain and the US of blaming all problems on immigration is self-defeating. Already the UK is suffering from a lack of employees in a number of fields, healthcare for example, and Trump has to get special dispensation from his own anti-immigration rules in order to keep his various golf resorts functioning.
There is a battle going on between the US/UK (Anglo-Saxon) rapacious, unfettered free enterprise system and the system of "social market economy" (favored by Europe - capitalism with a social conscious and social restraints). Ray Dalio, also of Business Insider, makes a very interesting case for making policy not on the basis of global statistics (which hide vital internal differences) but to look at statistics separately for the lower 60% and upper 40% and focus social and economic policies on the statistics of the lower 60%.
Trump won by recognizing this split between the 60/40 and speaking to their frustrations (as have most right-wing nationalist), but in Trump's case, all his promises were self serving lies and his policies have nothing to do with helping the lower 60%, but rather, everything he says and does is simply aimed to bolster his low self-esteem and frighteningly sick personality.
by Ross Douthat, Nov. 22, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/angela-merkel-germany-liberalism.html?comments#permid=24930133
Germany will emerge just fine from this political crisis , but I'm not so sure the US will survive Trump.
I do agree that the major political parties, both here, in Germany and in many other democracies, have failed to grasp and grapple with the negative effects of globalization. But the response of Britain and the US of blaming all problems on immigration is self-defeating. Already the UK is suffering from a lack of employees in a number of fields, healthcare for example, and Trump has to get special dispensation from his own anti-immigration rules in order to keep his various golf resorts functioning.
There is a battle going on between the US/UK (Anglo-Saxon) rapacious, unfettered free enterprise system and the system of "social market economy" (favored by Europe - capitalism with a social conscious and social restraints). Ray Dalio, also of Business Insider, makes a very interesting case for making policy not on the basis of global statistics (which hide vital internal differences) but to look at statistics separately for the lower 60% and upper 40% and focus social and economic policies on the statistics of the lower 60%.
Trump won by recognizing this split between the 60/40 and speaking to their frustrations (as have most right-wing nationalist), but in Trump's case, all his promises were self serving lies and his policies have nothing to do with helping the lower 60%, but rather, everything he says and does is simply aimed to bolster his low self-esteem and frighteningly sick personality.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Comment on: "Who Won the Reformation?" by Ross Douthat, NYT, Nov. 1, 2017
Who Won the Reformation?
by Ross Douthat, Nov 1, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/opinion/protestant-reformation.html?comments&_r=0#permid=24674932
I generally try to stay away when Douthat writes one of his "religion" columns, but this heading intrigued me.
Working my way through all the gobbledygook of this column, the statement that takes the prize for "The Rediculous" is:
"But it [a unified Catholic Church] might have served as a stronger moral check on the new powers, a stronger countervailing force against greed and secular absolutism, than the divided churches that Europe had instead."
The Church, either in the time of Luther or now, is anything but a "moral check", but was and is morally bankrupt -- I have great respect for most individuals who profess the Christian faith of any denomination, but The Church is morally bankrupt (which includes the "religious right" - mostly Protestant - supporting the crazy person in the White House).
Even today the Church hides its culpability for eons of child molestation, even having various Diocese declare bankruptcy rather than acknowledging their culpability. And the graveyards still being discovered (e.g. In Ireland) with the bodies of babies born to unwed mothers is just abhorrent - I guess for these Catholics killing babies after they are born is better than abortion -- how do you like that for "the sanctity of life"???
Any large power structure, such as "The Church", will always find rationalizations to justify their terrible deeds, out of greed for money or greed for power.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Comment on: "General Mattis, Stand Up to Trump or He’ll Drag You Down" by Thomas Friedman, NYT, Oct 24, 2017
General Mattis, Stand Up to Trump or He’ll Drag You Down
by Thomas Friedman, NYT, Oct 24, 2017https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/opinion/general-mattis.html?comments&_r=0#permid=24577342
I am very worried by Americans' tendency of adulation, uncritical, almost religious admiration of military leaders - this always raises uncomfortable parallels to my country of birth, Germany, where the Prussian militarist tendencies played a large part in the ease with which the country followed a leader dressed up in a uniform.
Let's face it, our military leaders have been wrong more often than they have been right, and they have a long history of allowing themselves to be used for political expediency - just remember the Vietnam War, where it was obvious from the early days of the Johnson administration, that the war could not be "won" (whatever that has come to mean), yet the Generals kept sending more young men to die senselessly. Even McMasters, who wrote a much heralded dissertation critical of the Vietnam era military leadership, has debased himself by lying to the public on behalf of Trump.
The same can be said of the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters, where either the military leadership was/is completely blind and ignorant, or they supported each new "surge" for political expediency.
Thus, I have never understood the hope and optimism which the press and pundits placed in the presence of military leaders in what is supposed to be a civilian government. We need to start seeing our military leaders for what they are - humans with flaws, sometimes significant, selling out to Russia in the guise of consulting, not some pseudo holy-men.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Comment on: "Democracy Can Plant the Seeds of Its Own Destruction", by Thomas b Edsel, NYT Oct 19th 2017
Democracy Can Plant the Seeds of Its Own Destruction
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Comment on: Rationality and Rabbit Holes, by Paul Krugman, NYT, 10 Oct. 2017
Rationality and Rabbit Holes
by Paul Krugman
Oct 10, 2017
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/rationality-and-rabbit-holes/?comments#permid=24390908
Interesting - Prof. Krugman admits that "rationality is a lie" but "a noble lie". For a scientist to acquiesce to building a whole theory, and an academic discipline (neo-classical economics) on a lie, is atrocious and unconscionable.
This leads to generation after generation of students in economics being brainwashed with the ridiculous notion, that "we know how the economy works", that economics is optimizing and self-correcting, that there is "an invisible hand" guiding "the markets" to perform optimally and to everyone's "maximum utility".
Especially for those who just sample economics classes, and then become politicians and policy-makers, this brainwashing with the lie that is neoclassical economics leads to ridiculous, full-throated assertions that "government is the problem", and that if one only allowed "the markets" free reign, everything will be just dandy. As a society, this nonsense can lead to disastrous decisions, or omissions, as evidenced by Mr. Greenspan's infamous statement after the financial meltdown of 2008.
For what its worth, here is a link to my more detailed rant about neoclassical economics.
http://rantingsofgrumpyoldguy.blogspot.com/2017/10/debunking-neo-classic...
Debunking Neo-Classical Economics
Debunking Neo-Classical Economics
"Modern capitalism" is based on the “science” of neo-classical economics. I use “science” in quotes, because, as I will elaborate, in my somewhat polemical view, neo-classical economics is a zombie science, even though this “dismal science” is taught in most colleges.
It is dismal as a science because it is based entirely on the largely false assumption of "rational choice", evaluating all options, based on full knowledge, in order to maximize ones "utility". This assumption may have been "reasonable" in the time of Adam Smith, when the view of humans, both mind and body, was very mechanistic, but today there is overwhelming evidence, from behavioral fields and evolutionary studies of brain function, which shows that humans predominantly make decisions on emotional, non-rational and instinctive grounds, and only a small subset of such decisions are made on anything approaching a rational basis (see “Recognizing The Illusion Of 'Homo Economicus’”, by Wim Hordjik)
It is only with the false "rational choice" axiom in place that the nice smooth demand curves can be derived, not through observation, but through what economists like to refer to as “thought experiments. There is little to no experimental evidence for smoothly declining demand curves. Only when one accepts this hypothesis of smooth demand curves, and combines them with the (also assumed) smoothly increasing supply curves, can one arrive at the “law” that "market economies", left to their own devices, are optimizing and self-correcting. That, in turn, leads to the completely false dogma that "government is the problem".
"Free markets" in general are a complete fiction, because only with governmental authority, rules and regulations can “markets” function. Without government there would be no "market economy"; government ensures the basic rules which allow for markets to function. Furthermore ”Economics" as a discipline makes the self-serving and false assumption that economic activity can be "understood" in isolation. However, the interaction between economic activity, political and social activity, and even ethics are very tight and pervasive, so that “economics” can only be “understood”, in terms of making useful policy predictions, if the tight linkages to sociology and politics are included.
Unfortunately I am not equipped, educationally or intellectually, to join the chorus of other economists who claim to have devised “the unifying theory of economics”, still enamored with the advances in physics, where a unified theory is actually much closer to reality. I have to content myself with a critique of the major, most influential strain of economics, “neoclassical economics”, in the hope that once young people entering the field are no longer brainwashed with the false notion that “we know how the economy works”, and enables them to focus their intellectual energy towards coming up with better theories and models, ones which can actually be verified with experimental, observed data.
Rational Decision-Making and Utility Maximization
Rational Decision-Making and Utility Maximization are “axiomatic” theories, where the investigator puts forth a set of “axioms” - self-evident truths, which cannot be proven - and then proceeds to build a set of models. Mathematics is also an axiomatic discipline, but none of the axioms underlying mathematics have been sown to be untrue, nor is there any observable evidence to cast doubt on these axioms.
Economics is a social science, i.e it deals with the behavior, alone or in a social context, of human beings. It is often useful in social science, where experimental observations are not clear cut, as they are in the physical sciences, to build theories and models on the basis of axioms. But it then is the responsibility of the investigators, researchers and academics who espouse such an axiomatic theory or model, to continually test their axioms against current observable evidence, and results from other social sciences. Intellectual honesty and academic integrity would then demand, that if new evidence casts doubts on the validity of the underlying axioms, these theories or models be modified, or in ultimate consequence, discarded.
The conflict in economics between axiomatic theories and evidence based simulation is certainly not new. See for example https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/millennium.pdf.
Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), was a pioneer of the notion of rational self-interest as a motivating factor in economic decision making. This notion is akin to the view espoused by Thomas Hobbes and his followers, best expressed by Julien Offray de La Mettrie in his “Man a Machine” (1748), which argues that everything about human beings can be completely explained in mechanical terms.
Social Science today generally agrees, that human behavior is not deterministic, i.e. given a set of stimuli, a human being does not react in a deterministic, uniform way, but rather the reactions, or behavior, is distributed in a more or less normal distribution. Thus, for example, on an axis defined by “fully rational” on one end, and “non-rational/emotional/instinctual” on the other end, human decision making would exhibit a frequency distribution with a mean or average somewhere between the two extremes (red).
In this view of human behavior, one would need to see evidence that in economic decision making the distribution of human responses shifts dramatically towards the “rational/full information” end of the axis (green). However, there is very little, if any experimental, observable evidence that would justify such a dramatic shift in the distribution of human behavior towards the “rational/full information” end of the axis, which is required to make the axiomatic underpinning of neoclassical economics believable, or “self-evident”.
There is, however, increasing evidence that the distribution of human responses on a “rational/full-information” to “non-rational/emotional/instinctual” continuum might shift significantly towards the latter end (blue). This evidence comes from behavioral economics, evolutionary brain structure studies, and marketing research.
One example of this research described by Daniel Kahneman in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, which describes results of decades of research leading to the realization, that there are (at least) two modes of thought. One is fast, instinctive and emotional, the other slower, more deliberative, and more logical, with the first mode occurring much more frequently. This would strongly support the shift of the distribution of decision making modes described above towards the “non-rational/emotional/instinctive” end of the scale.
Another path of research looks at the imperatives of evolution and how it affected the development of the human brain (see https://paidpost.nytimes.com/oppenheimerfunds/does-the-body-reveal-secrets-about-our-decisions.html). This suggests that the bulk of decisions made are fast and instinctive, mandated by the need to survive, and that only a small number of decisions involve and invoke the more deliberative pathways of the brain. This research again points towards a shift of the distribution of the decision-making process towards the “non-rational/emotional/instinctual” end of the scale (blue), further invalidating the axiomatic foundation of neoclassical economics, and its reliance on the axiom of rational, fact-based, utility optimizing decision making.
Finally, Marketing research identifies and very successfully uses the susceptibility of humans to be influenced by non-factual, emotional, non-rational stimuli to influence their economic decisions. Just consciously paying attention to the typical and pervasive ads on TV (and in print media) demonstrates that these do the opposite of encouraging or enabling rational, fully informed purchasing decisions. An excellent and very readable book on this is “Predictably Irrational”, by Dan Ariely. This demonstrates the third strong force pushing the distribution of human decision making towards the “non-rational/emotional/instinctual” end of the scale.
So what? you may ask. Why is a non-economist, with perhaps three to four economics classes to his credit in college, sounding off about this? There are, to be sure, many people much more qualified to present these kinds of competing and conflicting theories in the broader field of Economics. However, I feel very strongly that the “junk science” of the dominant strain of economic thought, embodied in neoclassical economics, must be debunked, because it is causing real harm to our political, social and, yes, economic environment.
The majority of colleges and universities base their economics curriculum on neoclassical economics. Legions of students, including those who study economics as a “minor” subject, some of whom go on to become business leaders and politicians, are indoctrinated, even brain-washed, with the completely false notion that “we” actually know, as in understand, how the economy works, that there are “laws” (“the law of supply and demand”) and “rules” which guide economic behavior (as in “the invisible hand”) to be self-correcting, equilibrium-seeking and optimizing, and worst of all, implicitly and sometimes explicitly stating that government intervention in the “free markets” is detrimental. The full idiocy of this indoctrination was perhaps most vividly on display when arguably one of the most powerful people controlling and guiding economic development, Alan Greenspan, responded to the financial meltdown of 2007/8 with "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
The Future - Where do we go with “Economics”
I’m certainly not well qualified to provide a roadmap on where “Economics” as a discipline should go. But having argued for a dismantling of the current dominant form of academic economics, I feel some responsibility to at least make some suggestions.
First, using my background in “Systems Analysis” - the original meaning, before Computer Science co-opted that term for itself - one rule for defining the “system” one wishes to model is that most of the significant interactions should be “internal” and as few as possible of the significant interactions should cross the boundary of the “system”. In my view the interactions between politics, social phenomena and the psychology of decision making, on the one hand, and “economics” are so tight and important that any attempt to model “economics” in isolation, and expect those models to be useful for meaningful real-world predictions, are bound to fail. So my first suggestion would be to expand the boundaries of “economics” to include the very direct and tight interactions with politics (e.g. changing tax rates) and social phenomena (e.g. differing attitudes towards savings vs. spending in different societies, different attitudes towards “freedom” vs “shared responsibility”).
Second, I believe we have to accept that, contrary to economists claiming that “we know how the economy works”, we really know very little about that. Economists may be able to model very limited steady-state, equilibrium phenomena, but they have been unable to make meaningful and consistent policy input to predicting, for example, effects of tax reductions/increases, or predicting and preventing such major economic phenomena as the financial meltdown in 2008. The Greenspan quote cited above seems to be an acknowledgment of the inability of economists to “understand” the larger scale economic phenomena beyond the very short term steady-state, equilibrium phenomena.
Some academic economists have likened their axiomatic models to the continuing search for a “unifying theory of physics”. But one has to keep in mind that models in physics are for the most part based on observable data, or, where they developed from axiomatic theories (E=mc2), physicists are continually testing the predictions of such models against observable data.
If we compare the state of knowledge in economics versus in physics, I would liken it, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, to Newton sitting under the apple tree, observing apples fall to the ground, and speculating about what causes the apples to accelerate as they fall. We have to date no confirmed cause-effect relationships in economics; there are many statistically relevant correlations, but none can be specified as cause-effect relationships, very different from Newton’s theorem regarding gravitational attraction.
Thus, I believe, that we need to enter a phase of intensive collection of data on how decisions are actually made by the various actors in the social/political/economic continuum, both on the demand and the supply side, in order to escape the “deadly embrace” of the false axiom that these decisions are made rationally, with full information and with a “utility optimizing” goal.
In today’s hyper-connected (internet) and hyper-monitored (Facebook, Google, Amazon et.al. monitor your every click) world it seems to me quite feasible to define large samples of real people and collect data on how they actually make decisions, both as consumers and as suppliers. To be useful, such data cannot just be passively collected, like the Nielsen Ratings of the past, but must include active participation by the sample members. For example, it is not sufficient to passively monitor that sample member “12345” purchased an automobile brand a, model X, but rather, the sample member would have to supply (as accurately as possible) the decision process gone through in making that purchase.
Similarly, on the supply side, managers/decision-makers who are part of the sample would be asked to specify in as much subjective and objective detail as possible why/how certain decisions were made. For example, was a merger made because objective data showed it would benefit “the company”, or because the bonus structure of the managers made such a move profitable for the managers; or, did a company decide to expand and hire because of some new tax regulation, or because of some observed or perceived new demand.
Such data collection would have to continue over many years, and new samples of participants would have to be defined regularly (to avoid systematic bias). It is quite possible that such data collection would become an accepted part of our social order for the foreseeable future, as the motivating factors and mechanisms of decision-making are likely the change over time.
The datasets collected in this way would, by necessity, be huge, with many, many dimensions, such as socioeconomic data, detailed data about the transaction or “decision”, much of it possibly un-structured and not well categorizable, and even subjective. But we have today the data storage (“Big Data”) and computational capabilities to store and analyze such huge data sets. Much of the analysis would again result in “statistical correlations”, like much of the empirical research going on today. But the wealth of data thus available would also be a rich source for discovering possible bona-fide cause-effect relationships. Short of that, the wealth of data available would also lend itself to building “simulation models” (as opposed to axiomatic models) which could go a long way to providing tools for real policy making. Today economists seem to be at sea when asked to predict the effect of, for example, a tax cut or rise, or a minimum wage law. But with long-term time-series data sets available, simulation models may become quite good at making such policy assessments. Furthermore, such simulation models, based on massive long-term data sets, might become useful at predicting (and avoiding) such catastrophic “market failures” as we experienced during the financial meltdown of 2008.
Friday, September 29, 2017
Return of the German Volk
by Roger Cohen, NYT, SEPT. 29, 2017https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/german-election-afd.html?comments#permid=24251428
I find it very interesting that this right-ward shift is happening world-wide. Yes, the German swing to "Volk" and "völkisch" is especially worrisome, but it has startling similarities with Trump's "Make America Great Again" and the Brexit emphasis on "taking back control". The trends in Poland, Hungary and Turkey are much more overtly aimed at destroying democratic institutions, but with the same nationalist fervor.
This phenomenon will hopefully run its course without world-wide conflagration, but only if the societal and especially democratic institutions remain up to the task. In Germany this means in the short run forming a stable government which learns to deal "democratically" with the anti-democratic AfD. In the longer run the outcome will be determined by how well Germany deals with "integration", both the integration of the old East Germany (there are huge cultural and social differences, as demonstrated by the relative popularity of the AfD in East and West), and the integration of the new refugees, as well as the better integration of the previous waves of "guest workers".
In the US it will mean surviving the incompetence and idiocy of two of the three democratic pillars - the Presidency and Congress, both currently completely dysfunctional. The judicial system is the only one, which still seems to be partially functional. The current Constitution, with its artificial two-party system, where radical strains can co-opt an entire party, may not be up to the task.
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Comment on "The Twilight of Angela Merkel" Roger Cohen NYT SEPT. 25, 2017
The Twilight of Angela Merkel
by Roger Cohen, NYT, SEPT. 25, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/merkel-election-germany-populism.html?comments#permid=24210261
As someone born in Germany in the waning days of Hitler, and someone educated in Germany under the guiding principle that "this must never be allowed to happen again", then watching Germany from both the outside and inside slowly change from a pacifist, inner-focused country into one of the enduring champions of European unity, the rise of the AfD is truly a scary phenomenon. The fact that this is part of a world-wide rightward shift is no solace: Germany has a special responsibility to keep nationalist, racist tendencies at bay.
The main hope is that, just as Berixit will prove disastrous for the UK and Trumpism will be shown to be a disaster in the US, these nationalist, racist movements will discredit themselves worldwide, and the trend will be reversed.
However, there are important lessons to be learned by the "mainstream" political forces from this rightward shift. They, the mainstream parties, have been blind to the real problems experience by large minorities within their constituencies. They have been lazy (or fearful) to acknowledge, that there are massive shifts going on in how the world operates, and they have, by and large, acquiesced to letting "the markets" determine how to deal with these changes, resulting, at the national level in an ever widening gap between the haves and have-nots, while (interestingly) spreading "wealth" in the world as a whole more evenly (if you can call the fact that few people are starving as "wealth").
Friday, September 22, 2017
Comment on “Merkelism vs. Trumpism” by Jochen Bittner, NYT, SEPT. 22, 2017
Comment on “Merkelism vs. Trumpism” by Jochen Bittner SEPT. 22, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/opinion/merkel-trump-free-world.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront
I read Mr. Bittner’s columns both in the NYT and in Die Zeit. Although I find his opinions at time a bit hysterical, he certainly has a good grasp of modern German politics.
Where I agree with Mr Bittner in this column is that Trumpism has not only embarrassed the US in the eyes of most of the “Western World”, and had signaled that the US has given up its leadership role, certainly diplomatically and morally, of the liberal democratic world order in favor of nationalism and protectionism. Where I disagree with Mr. Bittner is in his assessment, that Angela Merkel is actively seeking to replace Trump as leader of the “western world order”, for the purpose of her “legacy”, this in all likelihood being her last term as German Chancellor.
My reading of Angela Merkel is that she is much too pragmatic and unassuming (which is different from unambitious, for certainly she is and has always been very ambitious) to seek that kind of high-profile international prominence. Add to that the still very prevalent pacifist and anti-world-leadership instincts in her (and my) post-war German generation (as well as her upbringing as the daughter of a Lutheran pastor), and the result you have is a German leader very reluctantly acknowledging the leadership responsibilities thrust upon her by Germany’s economic dominance in Europe and the world. Her very careful statement about Europe not being able to rely on the US for leadership after her disastrous initial meeting with Trump illustrates, I think, this reluctance in assuming a more prominent role.
If we are looking for a European leader much more eager to assume a leading role against the nationalist and isolationist policies of Trumpism, France’s Macron is, I think, willing and eager to assume that role. It fits perfectly with his grandiose entry into his role as French President, and his stated ambition to increase France’s role in world politics, which is of course in line with France’s vision of itself as “la Grande Nation”. This is not a criticism of France or Macron; it seems to me that Macron is seeking to enhance French pride primarily as a means to help him rouse France from its economic doldrums, and helping him push through the necessary internal reforms he sees ac vital.
By contrast, I believe, Angela Merkel sees her “legacy” primarily in ushering Germany through its very difficult task of dealing with the flood of refugees by successfully integrating them into German society, and thus demonstrating, that she did not act irresponsibly when she opened Germanys borders to them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/opinion/merkel-trump-free-world.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront
I read Mr. Bittner’s columns both in the NYT and in Die Zeit. Although I find his opinions at time a bit hysterical, he certainly has a good grasp of modern German politics.
Where I agree with Mr Bittner in this column is that Trumpism has not only embarrassed the US in the eyes of most of the “Western World”, and had signaled that the US has given up its leadership role, certainly diplomatically and morally, of the liberal democratic world order in favor of nationalism and protectionism. Where I disagree with Mr. Bittner is in his assessment, that Angela Merkel is actively seeking to replace Trump as leader of the “western world order”, for the purpose of her “legacy”, this in all likelihood being her last term as German Chancellor.
My reading of Angela Merkel is that she is much too pragmatic and unassuming (which is different from unambitious, for certainly she is and has always been very ambitious) to seek that kind of high-profile international prominence. Add to that the still very prevalent pacifist and anti-world-leadership instincts in her (and my) post-war German generation (as well as her upbringing as the daughter of a Lutheran pastor), and the result you have is a German leader very reluctantly acknowledging the leadership responsibilities thrust upon her by Germany’s economic dominance in Europe and the world. Her very careful statement about Europe not being able to rely on the US for leadership after her disastrous initial meeting with Trump illustrates, I think, this reluctance in assuming a more prominent role.
If we are looking for a European leader much more eager to assume a leading role against the nationalist and isolationist policies of Trumpism, France’s Macron is, I think, willing and eager to assume that role. It fits perfectly with his grandiose entry into his role as French President, and his stated ambition to increase France’s role in world politics, which is of course in line with France’s vision of itself as “la Grande Nation”. This is not a criticism of France or Macron; it seems to me that Macron is seeking to enhance French pride primarily as a means to help him rouse France from its economic doldrums, and helping him push through the necessary internal reforms he sees ac vital.
By contrast, I believe, Angela Merkel sees her “legacy” primarily in ushering Germany through its very difficult task of dealing with the flood of refugees by successfully integrating them into German society, and thus demonstrating, that she did not act irresponsibly when she opened Germanys borders to them.
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Comment on: "Macron’s Art of the Deal", by Roger Cohen, NYT Sept. 21, 2017
Macron’s Art of the Deal
by Roger Cohen, Sept. 21, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/opinion/columnists/macron-trump-paris-climate-iran.html?comments#permid=24154176
As usual, a very good piece by Mr. Cohen.
Just two brief points.
Embarrassingly, in describing Macron's efforts to try and modify the idiocy of Thump's nationalist/isolationist pronouncements (Climate Accord, and Iran deal), he sounds like a teacher in a special-ed class (Macron) trying to modify the irrational behavior of s slightly retarded young student without, in deference to the parents (the US population) being too direct or insulting.
As a related side note, when Cable TV describes the exchanges between Kim Yong Il and Trump, one never quite knows who is being quoted - they both sound identical in their 8th grader rantings.
On Macron's domestic priority of reforming labor laws and regulations, I am hoping he can do that without breaking the labor unions, because, although currently they are part, if not the primary reason for past failures, in the long run well functioning labor unions are vital to ensuring rising wages for employees.
Germany managed to reform its labor markets, but the labor unions still play a vital (and in most cases constructive) role in ensuring the rights and fair wages of workers - they are also at the forefront of confronting the misuses of "Leih-Arbeit" (contract workers), which was part of the German reforms.
The British, under Thatcher, had to emasculate the once overly powerful British unions, which got the British economy going but hurt workers in the long run. Hopefully Macron learns from these historical precedents.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Comment on "Greek Tragedy, Act V" NYT, Sept. 19,2017
Greek Tragedy, Act V
by Roger Cohen, Sept. 19. 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/opinion/greece-crisis-euro-tsipras.html?comments#permid=24127016
I'm glad to see pundits acknowledge the role of the EU and NATO in helping to get Greece through the "Euro Crisis", and, yes, the Greeks deserve much credit for "keeping their cool" and not following the path of, for example, Venezuela, into complete chaos - their democratic institutions held, bravo.
However, I still see even in Mr. Cohen's column, the only slightly disguised "blaming" of Germany, being the economic leader of the EU, for its "humiliating tutelage" of Greece, while at the same time himself listing all the still remaining inadequacies in Greek political culture to successfully deal with the problems of a modern world - bloated, unaccountable public services, bribery, inability to implement a modern taxation system, etc. etc.
What most pundits still don't recognize, is that the Euro was a political tool to move forward with a tighter European Union, much more than it was a economic tool. This is evidenced again by both Mr. Macron's and Mr. Junker's urging for more countries to join the EURO zone, because it is only through these kinds of institutional unifiers that other levels of cooperation and unity can progress.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Comment on: "The Democratic Party needs to become a workers’ party"
The Democratic Party needs to become a workers’ party
by Scott Courtney, WP, Sept 4, 2017https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/04/the-democratic-party-needs-to-become-a-workers-party/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b9f78f7669ab#comments
As someone who became politically conscious in Germany of the 50's and 60's, with "Social Democracy" gaining in relevance in Europe at the time, I agree that a re-vitalization of Unions is vital as a counterweight to the economic and political power of the 0.1%. However, the American model of Labor Unions is completely outdated and ineffectual.
Labor Unions in Germany have a much more effective, successful structure, being organized around a sector-wide model with much more power in setting wages and work-standards sector wide, rather than just employer-by-employer.
But most importantly, employees/labor in Germany have a guaranteed right to participate in corporate decision-making by virtue of their membership in Corporate Boards. This implements the, for Europeans, self-evident truth, that Corporations have responsibilities NOT ONLY to their share-holders, but also to their employees and to society in general. Thus, for example, corporation have an obligation to directly participate in the training and re-training of the workforce they need to stay competitive, rather then just lay them off and then expect, miraculously, to have the properly trained people available when they need them.
Comment on: "A 2020 Democratic agenda is emerging" by Ed Rogers, WP, Sept 4, 2017
A 2020 Democratic agenda is emerging
by Ed Rogers, WP, Sept 4 2017https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/09/04/a-2020-democratic-agenda-is-emerging/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.abfc7407ae03#comments
Ed Rogers typifies the mindless ignorance of today's conservatives, as in his core statement - "Economic polices will consist of government giveaways and anti-business crusades. Social causes will give no quarter to moderate positions, and LGBT special interests, labor unions, global warming fanatics and factions such as Black Lives Matter, along with other grievance industry groups, will face no moderating counterforce".
What he lambasts as a "radical agenda" and "a dangerous lurch to the left" is what most other advanced civilized societies consider to be centrist policies such as "a single-payer health-care system, a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition".
Take single payer health care. EVERY other advanced society has adopted this model and as a result pays on average half as much as the US in per capita expenditures for healthcare, with hugely better outcomes in them of almost every indicator of societal well-being.
Free university is another one of those issues, where the US conservatives cannot see beyond the tips of their own nose. A well educated populace is the main guarantor for economic progress - even conservatives mouth that self-evident truth - and also of a well functioning democracy. with $20,000 - $40,000 annual tuition, only a small segment, the 1%, can afford to send their children to university. For the rest it means either crippling debt for years to come, or relying on a worthless high school diploma.
Finally, Mr. Rogers use of "antifa" as a Boogyman is typical of the current Trumpian effort to divert attention from the current fascist tendencies of Trump-followers.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Comment on: "The Biggest Misconception About Today’s College Students"
The Biggest Misconception About Today’s College Students
by Gail O. Mellow AUG. 28, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/opinion/community-college-misconception.html?comments#permid=23903548
The US is missing the boat (again!) compared to basic European policies regarding what areas should be supported by public funds. A well educated populace is a huge long term benefit to any society and free college and apprenticeship education is the most cost effective way of preventing the formation of an un- or under-educated subclass, which will cost society dearly downstream.
Friday, August 25, 2017
Comment on" "What if Steve Bannon Is Right?" by Timothy Egan
What if Steve Bannon Is Right?
by Timothy Egan, Aug. 25, 2017https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/opinion/bannon-trump-polls-republican.html?comments#permid=23863730:23869941
The Democrats under Bill Clinton in the US were not the only ones who switched course to a more business friendly policy position.
At about the same time the Social Democrats were in power in Germany, a time during which Germany was described as "the sick man of Europe", with a sluggish economy and high unemployment. Under the leadership of the SPD the unemployment/social service/job protection schemes in Germany were radically altered in favor of business interests. One can fairly argue that this contributed to the dramatic economic up-turn in Germany, turning it from the "sick man in Europe" to "the economic power of Europe".
The difference, however, is that even the Conservative CDU/CSU in Germany is probably more "progressive" than the Democrats in the US. The primary "loosening" in Germany was around job protection, with the introduction of temporary (rather than permanent) work contracts, and of "Leiharbeit", essentially domestic outsourcing. However, the basic social safety nets (universal healthcare, meaningful unemployment/social benefits, strong unions, free college, apprenticeship programs, etc.) are still in place, and under the principals of the "social market economy" even the Conservatives would never consider reducing these.
These are the kind of programs the Democrats should fight for.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Comment on: Angry Trump Grilled His Generals About Troop Increase, Then Gave In
Angry Trump Grilled His Generals About Troop Increase, Then Gave In
By MARK LANDLER and MAGGIE HABERMAN AUG. 21, 2017https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/world/asia/trump-afghanistan.html?comments#permid=23825103
We should all be worried that there are now a significant number of Generals in lead positions of our (civilian?) government. One of the few sensible campaign promises Trump made was to remove us from the insane involvement in the war in Afghanistan (and Iraq).
Our Generals have a disastrous track record with their recommendation in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Americans, very unfortunately and very dangerously, have the notion that "patriotism" requires supporting military leaders suggestions. ALL the predictions by "the Generals" in these wars have been wrong. The notion that another 4500 soldiers (or whatever the "secret number turns out to be) can accomplish what 100,000 soldiers could not is pure stupidity. The notion that Afghanistan is a terrorist training ground which directly endangers America's homeland is absolute nonsense - none of the terrorist attacks in recent years have had anything to do with Afghanistan - even 9/11, although planned by Bin Laden, who was holed up in Afghanistan, was almost exclusively carried out by Saudis, radicalized by the Saudi brand of Islam - yet Saudi Arabia is still one of our "trusted allies".
The whole effort in Afghanistan was originally justified by our then "Clown in Chief" with the notion that we had to "get bin Laden", which would somehow solve all the terrorism problems. Well, "we got bin Laden", and absolutely nothing has changed.
Get out of Afghanistan NOW!
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Debunking Neo-Classical Economics
Debunking Neo-Classical Economics
"Modern capitalism" is based on the “science” of "neo-classical" economics. I use “science” in quotes, because, as I will elaborate, in my view neo-classical economics is a zombie science, even though this “dismal science” is taught in most colleges.
It is dismal as a science because it is based entirely on the largely false assumption of "rational choice", evaluating all options, based on full knowledge, in order to maximize ones "utility". This assumption may have been "reasonable" in the time of Adam Smith, when the view of humans, both mind and body, was very mechanistic, but today there is overwhelming evidence, from behavioral fields and evolutionary studies of brain function, which shows that humans predominantly make decisions on emotional, non-rational and instinctive grounds, and only a small subset of such decisions are made on anything approaching a rational basis.
It is only with the false "rational choice" axiom in place that the nice smooth demand curves can be derived, not through observation, but through what economists like to refer to as “thought experiments. There is little to no experimental evidence for smoothly declining demand curves. Only when one accepts this hypothesis of smooth demand curves, and combines them with the (also assumed) smoothly increasing supply curves, can one arrive at the “law” that "market economies", left to their own devices, are optimizing and self-correcting. That, in turn, leads to the completely false dogma that "government is the problem".
"Free markets" in general are a complete fiction, because only with governmental authority, rules and regulations can “markets” function. Without government there would be no "market economy"; government ensures the basic rules which allow for markets to function. Furthermore ”Economics" as a discipline makes the self-serving and false assumption that economic activity can be "understood" in isolation. However, the interaction between economic activity, political and social activity, and even ethics are very tight and pervasive, so that “economics” can only be “understood”, in terms of making useful policy predictions, if the tight linkages to sociology and politics are included.
Unfortunately I am not equipped, educationally or intellectually, to join the chorus of other economists who claim to have devised “the unifying theory of economics”, still enamored with the advances in physics, where a unified theory is actually much closer to reality. I have to content myself with a critique of the major, most influential strain of economics, “neoclassical economics”, in the hope that once young people entering the field are no longer brainwashed with the false notion that “we know how the economy works”, and enables them to focus their intellectual energy towards coming up with better theories and models, ones which can actually be verified with experimental, observed data.
Rational Decision-Making and Utility Maximization
Rational Decision-Making and Utility Maximization are “axiomatic” theories, where the investigator puts forth a set of “axioms” - self-evident truths, which cannot be proven - and then proceeds to build a set of models. Mathematics is also an axiomatic discipline, but none of the axioms underlying mathematics have been sown to be untrue, nor is there any observable evidence to cast doubt on these axioms.
Economics is a social science, i.e it deals with the behavior, alone or in a social context, of human beings. It is often useful in social science, where experimental observations are not clear cut, as they are in the physical sciences, to build theories and models on the basis of axioms. But it then is the responsibility of the investigators, researchers and academics who espouse such an axiomatic theory or model, to continually test their axioms against current observable evidence, and results from other social sciences. Intellectual honesty and academic integrity would then demand, that if new evidence casts doubts on the validity of the underlying axioms, these theories or models be modified, or in ultimate consequence, discarded.
The conflict in economics between axiomatic theories and evidence based simulation is certainly not new. See for example https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/millennium.pdf.
Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), was a pioneer of the notion of rational self-interest as a motivating factor in economic decision making. This notion is akin to the view espoused by Thomas Hobbes and his followers, best expressed by Julien Offray de La Mettrie in his “Man a Machine” (1748), which argues that everything about human beings can be completely explained in mechanical terms.
Social Science today generally agrees, that human behavior is not deterministic, i.e. given a set of stimuli, a human being does not react in a deterministic, uniform way, but rather the reactions, or behavior, is distributed in a more or less normal distribution. Thus, for example, on an axis defined by “fully rational” on one end, and “non-rational/emotional/instinctual” on the other end, human decision making would exhibit a frequency distribution with a mean or average somewhere between the two extremes (red).
In this view of human behavior, one would need to see evidence that in economic decision making the distribution of human responses shifts dramatically towards the “rational/full information” end of the axis (green). However, there is very little, if any experimental, observable evidence that would justify such a dramatic shift in the distribution of human behavior towards the “rational/full information” end of the axis, which is required to make the axiomatic underpinning of neoclassical economics believable, or “self-evident”.
There is, however, increasing evidence that the distribution of human responses on a “rational/full-information” to “non-rational/emotional/instinctual” continuum might shift significantly towards the latter end (blue). This evidence comes from behavioral economics, evolutionary brain structure studies, and marketing research.
One example of this research described by Daniel Kahneman in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, which describes results of decades of research leading to the realization, that there are (at least) two modes of thought. One is fast, instinctive and emotional, the other slower, more deliberative, and more logical, with the first mode occurring much more frequently. This would strongly support the shift of the distribution of decision making modes described above towards the “non-rational/emotional/instinctive” end of the scale.
Another path of research looks at the imperatives of evolution and how it affected the development of the human brain (see https://paidpost.nytimes.com/oppenheimerfunds/does-the-body-reveal-secrets-about-our-decisions.html). This suggests that the bulk of decisions made are fast and instinctive, mandated by the need to survive, and that only a small number of decisions involve and invoke the more deliberative pathways of the brain. This research again points towards a shift of the distribution of the decision-making process towards the “non-rational/emotional/instinctual” end of the scale (blue), further invalidating the axiomatic foundation of neoclassical economics, and its reliance on the axiom of rational, fact-based, utility optimizing decision making.
Finally, Marketing research identifies and very successfully uses the susceptibility of humans to be influenced by non-factual, emotional, non-rational stimuli to influence their economic decisions. Just consciously paying attention to the typical and pervasive ads on TV (and in print media) demonstrates that these do the opposite of encouraging or enabling rational, fully informed purchasing decisions. This demonstrates the third strong force pushing the distribution of human decision making towards the “non-rational/emotional/instinctual” end of the scale.
So what? you may ask. Why is a non-economist, with perhaps three to four economics classes to his credit in college, sounding off about this? There are, to be sure, many people much more qualified to present these kinds of competing and conflicting theories in the broader field of Economics. However, I feel very strongly that the “junk science” of the dominant strain of economic thought, embodied in neoclassical economics, must be debunked, because it is causing real harm to our political, social and, yes, economic environment.
The majority of colleges and universities base their economics curriculum on neoclassical economics. Legions of students, including those who study economics as a “minor” subject, some of whom go on to become business leaders and politicians, are indoctrinated, even brain-washed, with the completely false notion that “we” actually know, as in understand, how the economy works, that there are “laws” (“the law of supply and demand”) and “rules” which guide economic behavior (as in “the invisible hand”) to be self-correcting, equilibrium-seeking and optimizing, and worst of all, implicitly and sometimes explicitly stating that government intervention in the “free markets” is detrimental. The full idiocy of this indoctrination was perhaps most vividly on display when arguably one of the most powerful people controlling and guiding economic development, Alan Greenspan, responded to the financial meltdown of 2007/8 with "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
The Future - Where do we go with “Economics”
I’m certainly not well qualified to provide a roadmap on where “Economics” as a discipline should go. But having argued for a dismantling of the current dominant form of academic economics, I feel some responsibility to at least make some suggestions.
First, using my background in “Systems Analysis” - the original meaning, before Computer Science co-opted that term for itself - one rule for defining the “system” one wishes to model is that most of the significant interactions should be “internal” and as few as possible of the significant interactions should cross the boundary of the “system”. In my view the interactions between politics, social phenomena and the psychology of decision making, on the one hand, and “economics” are so tight and important that any attempt to model “economics” in isolation, and expect those models to be useful for meaningful real-world predictions, are bound to fail. So my first suggestion would be to expand the boundaries of “economics” to include the very direct and tight interactions with politics (e.g. changing tax rates) and social phenomena (e.g. differing attitudes towards savings vs. spending in different societies, different attitudes towards “freedom” vs “shared responsibility”).
Second, I believe we have to accept that, contrary to economists claiming that “we know how the economy works”, we really know very little about that. Economists may be able to model very limited steady-state, equilibrium phenomena, but they have been unable to make meaningful and consistent policy input to predicting, for example, effects of tax reduction/increases, or predicting and preventing such major economic phenomena as the financial meltdown in 2008. The Greenspan quote cited above seems to be an acknowledgment of the inability of economists to “understand” the larger scale economic phenomena beyond the very short term steady-state, equilibrium phenomena.
Some academic economists have likened their axiomatic models to the continuing search for a “unifying theory of physics”. But one has to keep in mind that models in physics are for the most part based on observable data, or, where they developed from axiomatic theories (E=mc2), physicists are continually testing the predictions of such models against observable data.
If we compare the state of knowledge in economics versus in physics, I would liken it, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, to Newton sitting under the apple tree, observing apples fall to the ground, and speculating about what causes the apples to accelerate as they fall. We have to date no confirmed cause-effect relationships in economics; there are many statistically relevant correlations, but none can be specified as cause-effect relationships, very different from Newton’s theorem regarding gravitational attraction.
Thus, I believe, that we need to enter a phase of intensive collection of data on how decisions are actually made by the various actors in the social/political/economic continuum, both on the demand and the supply side, in order to escape the “deadly embrace” of the false axiom that these decisions are made rationally, with full information and with a “utility optimizing” goal.
In today’s hyper-connected (internet) and hyper-monitored (Facebook, Google, Amazon et.al. monitor your every click) world it seems to me quite feasible to define large samples of real people and collect data on how they actually make decisions, both as consumers and as suppliers. To be useful, such data cannot just be passively collected, like the Nielsen Ratings of the past, but must include active participation by the sample members. For example, it is not sufficient to passively monitor that sample member “12345” purchased an automobile brand a, model X, but rather, the sample member would have to supply (as accurately as possible) the decision process gone through in making that purchase.
Similarly, on the supply side, managers/decision-makers who are part of the sample would be asked to specify in as much subjective and objective detail as possible why/how certain decisions were made. For example, was a merger made because objective data showed it would benefit “the company”, or because the bonus structure of the managers made such a move profitable for the managers; or, did a company decide to expand and hire because of some new tax regulation, or because of some observed or perceived new demand.
Such data collection would have to continue over many years, and new samples of participants would have to be defined regularly (to avoid systematic bias). It is quite possible that such data collection would become an accepted part of our social order for the foreseeable future, as the motivating factors and mechanisms of decision-making are likely the change over time.
The datasets collected in this way would, by necessity, be huge, with many, many dimensions, such as socioeconomic data, detailed data about the transaction or “decision”, much of it possibly un-structured and not well categorizable, and even subjective. But we have today the data storage (“Big Data”) and computational capabilities to store and analyze such huge data sets. Much of the analysis would again result in “statistical correlations”, like much of the empirical research going on today. But the wealth of data thus available would also be a rich source for discovering possible bona-fide cause-effect relationships. Short of that, the wealth of data available would also lend itself to building “simulation models” (as opposed to axiomatic models) which could go a long way to providing tools for real policy making. Today economists seem to be at sea when asked to predict the effect of, for example, a tax cut or rise, or a minimum wage law. But with long-term time-series data sets available, simulation models may become quite good at making such policy assessments. Furthermore, such simulation models, based on massive long-term data sets, might become useful at predicting (and avoiding) such catastrophic “market failures” as we experienced during the financial meltdown of 2008.
Monday, August 14, 2017
Comment on: "Single Payer or Bust"
Single Payer or Bust?
By MICHAEL TOMASKY AUG. 14, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/opinion/single-payer-or-bust.html?comments#permid=23714009
I agree that "single payer" is not the only, and not necessarily the best system. As the author states, there are many models in the rest of the world to choose from. But the one thing ALL of these other systems have in common is, that EVERYONE MUST BE COVERED for a baseline of health care services. Only by spreading the risk over the entire population can the cost be brought down. The next most expensive per capita healthcare costs are in Switzerland, and that per capita cost is HALF of that in the US. The Swiss allow private, for profit insurance companies to provide the coverage, but under strict rules by the government. Because private, for profit insurance is involved in providing BASIC coverage is the reason they have the second highest per-capita cost, after the US - after all these companies are allowed to make a PROFIT.
In Germany, on the other hand, basic coverage is provided ONLY by non-profit companies, who get reimbursed from the "National Healthcare Fund", which is collected, based on income, half from employer, half from employee. Their reimbursements also take account of the differing risk pools, which is determined by analyzing their claim histories annually. The required contributions are reset (I think every other year), again based on claim histories. Rates have been fairly stable, indeed in some years actually go down. Private insurance companies can sell policies for coverage above and beyond the defined base line. Bottom line -- UNIVERSAL is the key!!
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Comment on: "Google’s War Over the Sexes", by Ross Douthat
See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/opinion/google-women-memo.html?comments&_r=0#permid=23634653
As so often, Douthat misses his own point. Of course there are differences between the sexes. Societies, however, are changing such that in many, if not most, areas "female" qualities have advantages. We no longer live in a world where male physical strength and aggressiveness are needed for survival. Already an increasing number of "households" are supported primarily by females; including single-mother households, they probably dominate. There are already more female college graduates than male, and women now often have the better earning potential.
As a society we need to acknowledge the differences and encourage lifestyles and policies which allow both sexes to make optimal contributions to the rapidly changing needs of society in general. Men are largely fighting a rear-guard battle, trying to protect as much of their historical prerogatives. Just look at the arrogance with which male members of Congress treat their female colleagues, while at the same time the only two GOP Senators who showed guts and consistency during the Health Care debate were women, while the men proved to be cowering cowards, afraid to stand up to the super-bully McConnell.
The disadvantages women have are mostly due to the irresponsibility of men, in family planning/birth control, child care, household chores. So, since men will not share equally in these responsibilities, society needs to give women the tools to compensate for the male irresponsibilities - examples: Family Planning, guaranteed child care.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/opinion/google-women-memo.html?comments&_r=0#permid=23634653
As so often, Douthat misses his own point. Of course there are differences between the sexes. Societies, however, are changing such that in many, if not most, areas "female" qualities have advantages. We no longer live in a world where male physical strength and aggressiveness are needed for survival. Already an increasing number of "households" are supported primarily by females; including single-mother households, they probably dominate. There are already more female college graduates than male, and women now often have the better earning potential.
As a society we need to acknowledge the differences and encourage lifestyles and policies which allow both sexes to make optimal contributions to the rapidly changing needs of society in general. Men are largely fighting a rear-guard battle, trying to protect as much of their historical prerogatives. Just look at the arrogance with which male members of Congress treat their female colleagues, while at the same time the only two GOP Senators who showed guts and consistency during the Health Care debate were women, while the men proved to be cowering cowards, afraid to stand up to the super-bully McConnell.
The disadvantages women have are mostly due to the irresponsibility of men, in family planning/birth control, child care, household chores. So, since men will not share equally in these responsibilities, society needs to give women the tools to compensate for the male irresponsibilities - examples: Family Planning, guaranteed child care.
Monday, August 7, 2017
Comment on "Germany Joins the Resistance"
Ref.: "Germany Joins the Resistance" by Anna Sauerbrey
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/opinion/german-politicians-cool-merkel.html?comments#permid=23601960
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/opinion/german-politicians-cool-merkel.html?comments#permid=23601960
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Review of: Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle
This review is from: Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle (Hardcover)
To me, the title is an oxymoron. I can fully endorse Mr. Flake's introductory definition of "conservatism", but of course the devil is in the details. There is indeed a valid discussion to be had about the appropriate role of government vis-a-vis allowing "market forces" to determine what is and is not done in a society. The trust of conservatives in "free market forces" is often blinded by dogmatic ignorance. Take health care, which even most economist describe as a classic example of "market failure". Or take the conservatives railing against "income transfer" (from high to low), when in fact evidence shows that for decades now "income transfer" has been flowing dramatically from poor to rich.
But all that aside, the inherent incongruence between "conservative" and "conscience" can be most dramatically seen in the actions of our current Congress. Here we have a Senate which proposes a Bill which virtually no one in the Senate wants to see become law (the Skinny Repeal), in the completely unjustifiable hope that a "reconciliation" between the House and Senate will come up with a doable bill, when each house separately could not do so. This is truly unconscionable, and all but three GOP Senators voted for this FARCE; only TWO of those Senators can be given credit to have acted consistently and honorably, with a conscience, and both were women. John McCain's role was anything but consistent (with his own words), and a little dubious in his self-serving grandstanding.
But back to Mr Flake. In comparing his words with his actions, one can only come to the conclusion, that he is a complete flake (sorry, I just can't help myself). Only someone whose actions are reasonably in line with his words can be said to have a conscience and act honorably. Mr. Flake, however, has voted consistently with the GOP leadership and rank-and-file, which he himself criticizes vociferously. So, yes, Flake is a complete flake.
All that aside, I still felt the book was a worthwhile read, because, I believe, his tracing of the history of the degeneration of the conservative movement, embodied in the current GOP, is right on target.
But all that aside, the inherent incongruence between "conservative" and "conscience" can be most dramatically seen in the actions of our current Congress. Here we have a Senate which proposes a Bill which virtually no one in the Senate wants to see become law (the Skinny Repeal), in the completely unjustifiable hope that a "reconciliation" between the House and Senate will come up with a doable bill, when each house separately could not do so. This is truly unconscionable, and all but three GOP Senators voted for this FARCE; only TWO of those Senators can be given credit to have acted consistently and honorably, with a conscience, and both were women. John McCain's role was anything but consistent (with his own words), and a little dubious in his self-serving grandstanding.
But back to Mr Flake. In comparing his words with his actions, one can only come to the conclusion, that he is a complete flake (sorry, I just can't help myself). Only someone whose actions are reasonably in line with his words can be said to have a conscience and act honorably. Mr. Flake, however, has voted consistently with the GOP leadership and rank-and-file, which he himself criticizes vociferously. So, yes, Flake is a complete flake.
All that aside, I still felt the book was a worthwhile read, because, I believe, his tracing of the history of the degeneration of the conservative movement, embodied in the current GOP, is right on target.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This column, however, seems like a disjointed mishmash, intent on saying something "cool". I follow German news fairly closely, reading two to three of their daily papers every day, and watching "Heute" on ZDF more or less every day. And while there is quite a bit of coverage of Trump - who can blame them, the coverage here in the US on Cable is literally all day, with almost nothing else - the news in Germany does focus on issues relevant to Germany.
"Cool" is not something one would ever associate with Germany, especially not with German politicians, and to suggest that Merkel and Schultz are trying to be "cool" is just silly. Lindner is a different story, his Party, the FDP is fighting for relevance after disappearing from national politics for several years, and he will try anything.
Ms Merkel, in her very un-cool way, was absolutely right in warning that Europe and "The West" could not relay on Donald Trump, and that Europeans must concentrate on being masters of their own fate. That is not gratuitous Trump bashing, that is the unfortunate reality of a crazy person in the US White House. When Trump is gone, hopefully sooner than later, Europe/Germany and the US, and Germans and American will find back to their mutual trust and respect.