As the work week ends, here are some quick observations on issues of SWNIDish concern.
Myanmar is once again cycling through protests against the military government followed by brutal crackdowns by the military government. We thank gentle reader ScottL for pointing us to the Guardian's compendium of coverage. This country, homeland of numerous CCU alumni who lead dynamic churches and colleges, is among the most politically and religiously un-free in the world.
In the past the Burmese government has let protests go on for a time and then crushed them relentlessly. It seems the same is happening again. We are reminded of the oft-made observation that Gandhi's tactics against the British in India would not have been effective against Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. So it is with Myanmar, whose rulers are at least as brutal as those.
Informed Christians will want to stay informed on developments.
Economics continues to mystify most Americans. SWNID's sunny disposition is mostly made sunny by things other than economics, but it isn't made any less sunny by an understanding of the economic realities contained in Bryan Caplan's article "The 4 Boneheaded Biases of Stupid Voters (and We're All Stupid Voters)" from Reason. If gentle readers wonder why our SWNIDish self is so content with Latin American immigrants, South Korean cars, closed factories, rising (and falling) prices, and rampant economic inequality, this article can supply much of the answer.
Presidential politics continues on the same mind-numbingly monotonous trajectory. John Podhoretz today notes the growing inevitability of Hillary v. Rudy. But each candidate seems capable of messing up in a grossly significant way. We believe that Hillary isn't managing to reach out to the independents and moderates she needs with moves like her voting against the Senate resolution condemning MoveOn's Joseph McCarthy-style pasting of General Petraeus, or with her Thomas-Dewey refusal to engage issues in the most recent Democratic debate, or her recent proposal to give every baby a $5000 bond at birth to use for college or a new home.* And Rudy must stop all the goofy stuff with his third wife, like taking phone calls from her while he's making speeches (as if we don't know it's all set up to begin with). It's not as bad as that embarrassing picture from February, but it's right up there.
Our advice to Rudy is this: just be Rudy and quit trying to impress us with what a great husband you are. We social conservatives--at least enough of us to nominate you--are giving you a pass on that. But if you don't knock it off, we'll be driven to Romney, ironically the only frontrunner without marital issues. And any move from Our Man will only serve to elect That Woman. Romney probably can't carry his home state of Massachusetts in the general election.
Meanwhile, we continue to make progress in Iraq. Our long pause in blogging on this issue only served to give gentle readers the opportunity to hear the same truth from a multitude of voices. But today we suggest making contact with the esteemed and influential Fred Kagan, who analyzes the success of the surge. Note well the point he makes: the Dems are now really calling for a return to the tactics employed by Bush before the surge, the very tactics that they once said were failing and that Bush came to see the same way. Dare we say that only the Democratic Party could do such a thing with a straight face?
________________
*Those who absorb Caplan's article will realize that such a move will more likely inflate the cost of college and homes than it will enfranchise more people to become graduates or homeowners.
4 comments:
How can you be so sure that Rudy isn't already "just be[ing] Rudy"--apart from the fact that you are "never in doubt?"
Right. I'll clarify. I want clear-eyed, bold, decisive Rudy, not I'm-in-junior-high-and-I've-got-a-girlfriend Rudy.
SWNID:
Despite the tireless efforts of economists like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, just to name a couple, the lack of understanding of economics is everpresent.
But I don't really believe it has to do with education or information per se.
For one, I believe the traditional economists are dishonest in that they act like it's pure mathematics, that there is no philosophical component. That isn't historically or philosophically true. Karl Marx was a philosopher and an amateur economist. The same can be said of Smith, Keynes, Friedman, etc. (in regard to the philosophy part).
Secondly, traditionally minded, modern day economists like Williams, Sowell, and apparently Caplan often ignore the manifold diversity of modern economics (especially in philosophy). There is no monolithic field of economics that government and the public routinely ignore to their own peril. There are conservative and liberal economists, and many that defy labels.
The economists usually don't fight over the math, except when it comes to advocating policy. Then they aren't fighting over the numbers, but using numbers to try to influence policy (what they want). The policy must fit the philosophy.
Do taxes on the rich increase or decrease tax revenues? It's not a math question. It's a philosohpy question posed as a math question in the context of policy.
At the liberal end of the spectrum the belief is that power structures manipulate markets. Power structures are those decision makers who are seeking profit and have the most to gain from profit (CEOs, corporate boards, and even small business owners). In a free market, governments must reign in these people, because they seek to exploit. Just read JB in CA's thoughts when you write about business and economic policy. This is his school of thought (in general).
The conservative side of the spectrum says, "The free market is reality." Governments can't change it, can't "fix" it. They can only distort it to somebody's benefit, to somebody else's detriment, and to the detriment of the economy as a whole.
Conservatives say governments are highly inefficient in command economies in allocating financial capital, human capital, and consumption (see Soviet Union, North Korea, China under Mao, Myanmar, pre-war Iraq, Iran, etc.).
The liberal says, "No, we can do better than the market." We can be fairer. We can be smarter. Public servants (without profit motive) can hold in check the exploiters.
The conservative says, "How elitist, arrogant, and ignorant can you possibly be?" The opposite is true. I make money by serving my fellow man. I give him what he wants and he pays me for it, and we are both happy (or should be). If you don't want or need what I am supplying, don't buy it. If you have come to depend on me, it 's only because I am a reliable supplier and you have adjusted your lifestyle to become more dependent on me (think gasoline for example).
There will never be a meeting of the minds on this. There will always be a battle. I personally fall (as do you) on the conservative side of the spectrum.
While there is far more regulation of American business than in the past, in comparison to other countries, we are doingly fairly well. France has 10% unemployment (25% unemployment for those under 30 years old) because France wants to have its cake and eat it to.
But the battle will rage on. The rich will get richer, and the poor will get richer too. But the philosophy and attitude of envy and victimhood will always be with us. The freedom and property rights that have created the wealth will always be threatened. We just have to get used to that.
Three notes for "Anonymous":
Yes, there's a philosophical component in what economists present. But the point of the article in Reason is that the philosophical differences occur on the margins of the discipline, not its core. If you noted how often Caplan could approvingly cite Paul Krugman, a liberal's liberal on policy, you get this point.
Second, you misjudge the philosophy of JB in CA. We suspect you don't actually know him. We do. The differences between him and us have to do with the margins, not the core.
Third, this isn't just left versus right. If so, then Caplan's article wouldn't constitute a devastating critique of the right's opposition to more open immigration laws. But it is all that.
Post a Comment