Almost Classical

There are some tidbits in this column worth exploring when I have a bit more time. Rich America, Poor America - The Daily Beast Niall Ferguson uses the publication of Charles Murray's Coming Apart as a starting point for an analysis of the left-right divide on the causes and cures for income disparity in the United States. Ferguson begins with a clear summary of the problem. There is no question families are drifting further apart at the extremes of the income scale. This is not a 1 percent versus the 99 percent issue, it is most extreme at the top 0.01% and the bottom 10% according to most economists. The bottom is falling, skewing averages, and the top is… well, read for yourself: Adjusted for inflation, the income of the average American male has essentially flatlined since the 1970s, according to figures from the Census Bureau. The income of the bottom quarter of U.S. families has actually fallen. It’s been a different story for the rich.  According to rece...

One of the arguments I've advanced in various forums, including my classrooms, is that much of the rise America experienced during and after the Second World War was "luck" — we were spared the direct destruction experienced by every other global economic leader. It's hard to lose the war of economic dominance when you're the only player in the game for two to three decades. But what about the "end" of the Great Depression before the War? First, I'm not convinced we were truly out of the Depression; economists and historians debate this. (I've noticed historians are more inclined to embrace the "FDR saved us!" line, while economists are skeptical of simplified credit to a person or political party.) FDR was not a purist; he was a political pragmatist. He spent, or cut, as he saw fit, without any grand plan. I believe it is far too simple to accuse FDR of adhering to Keynes or any other economist's views. FDR bounced from idea to...

Today, the Pew Research Center released the following: The American-Western European Values Gap It should be no surprise that Americans value personal freedom more than they value a social safety net. The United States is a nation built by explorers who managed to survive frontiers. Even immigrants celebrate the rugged individualism of our national heros. A table of the survey findings: Notice that the data are mirror images. Europe has a different history, one shaped by two world wars and various upheavals. Neither approach is "right" or "wrong" — but I definitely fall in the personal freedom camp. I do not trust governments to solve problems and would rather be left alone to succeed or fail, as much as possible. Most Americans support a minimal safety net, but nothing comparable to the European welfare state. Individualism and the Role of the State In the U.S., Britain, France and Germany, views of the role of the state divide significantly acro...

For the last few years, I have found myself using the phrase "I am not a social conservative" before explaining my positions on a number issues. The last thing an academic within some disciplines wants is to be accused of being a conservative. It would be career suicide within some university humanities departments to be a self-identified Republican, and I cannot imagine being an outspoken "Tea Party" supporter within some fields. You might as well admit you also don't want publications, conference invitations, and the all-important tenure. I'm a free-market capitalist, vehemently opposed to both crony capitalism and overzealous central planning. We have allowed the elite to control both government and commerce, strangling the true free market. Big companies get the regulations they want, while pretending to oppose them. It costs pennies per customer for McDonald's to comply with laws regulating nutritional disclosures, but that same law costs dollars ...

Yesterday (June 22, 2011) on MSNBC's "Dylan Ratigan Show" David Stockman stood up to the nonsense of the left, in the person of Jonathan Alter. Read beyond my discussion of yesterday's debate for additional perspective on the debate participants. Alter's biases, in particular, were on fine display on MSNBC as he completely ignored facts and instead embraced the mythology of an Obama Miracle. (see http://vodpod.com/watch/11561241-david-stockman-on-the-dylan-ratigan-show ) My favorite moment was when Alter asked Stockman if he knew GE's business better than Jeffrey R. Immelt, friend and advisor to President Obama. "Yes," Stockman replied and proceeded to explain precisely how GE Capital was a financial mess, bailed out by the administration. Alter quoted Immelt as saying GE was near collapse. Well, duh? It was. But it was near collapse because of stupid choices made by Immelt and others within the company. GE was invested heavily in credit default swap...

There are changes for which unions claim credit, but that really started to change before unions became involved. Two issues I'll quickly address in this blog entry are civil service protections and early workplace safety. Many of the benefits attributed to unions were actually a result of the "Civil Service" reforms before the 20th Century meant to end the patronage systems nationally and in New York. In NYC, things were so bad the state took over Civil Service rules from 1870 to 1900. Unions helped push many reforms, definitely, especially in terms of safety, but not as many as commonly thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Act Disgusted by the "spoils go to the victors" approach of the Andrew Jackson Democrats, Republican President Chester A. Arthur pushed for the Pendleton Act. The public, outraged by the "Spoils System" of patronage, helped push President Arthur, once a supporter of patronage, to embrace public employee reforms. The Pen...

The following essay was one I read several times. It is interesting, regardless of one's particular biases because it does offer several important historical references to the nature of "progressive" political views. Obama and the Rhetoric of Progressivism December 10, 2010 By Peter Berkowitz It seems Berkowitz is associated with the Hoover Institute, as a foreign policy expert specializing in the Middle East. He is a political scientist, it appears, with an interest in Western democratic trends and history. His introduction, then, to progressive political rhetoric, correctly begins with an acknowledgment that the movement of the early twentieth century was in many ways a positive force for change. At their best, the original progressives responded to dramatic social and economic upheavals generated by the industrial revolution, opposed real Gilded Age abuses, and promoted salutary social and political reforms. They took the side of the exploited, the weak, and the wr...

I've heard a few comments this week that summarize why there are doubts about government's ability to "reform" health care. "Government does some things effectively, and a few things efficiently, but it never does one thing both efficiently and effectively." The examples cited included the military and U.S. Postal Service. Yes, they function, but no one can claim, at least not with any honesty, that the Pentagon is efficient. Procurement is a nightmare and waste is rampant. Mistakes, even on the battlefield, are common because innovative thinking is rare. War games are, sadly, rigged to support preconceived notions that "more is better" -- more soldiers, more information, more technology. (Malcolm Gladwell has written on this, documenting the changes made during simulations to assure outcomes!) "Any public option will either compete unfairly or end up needing a bailout. Look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." Yes, we also g...

The best I can do is be true to what I value. I value education, the mind, reading, writing, etc. I value my personal freedom -- and equal freedom for others. (Unfortunately, "freedom" can be "from" or "to" and I am a "from" sort of person. Freedom from people / authority matters to me.) Am I a "capitalist pig" in theory? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean I personally care about money, power, or anything material. I care about my family, my students, and my community. You don't teach at a university seeking wealth, and most freelance writers aren't wealthy either. My "fight" (when I have the energy) is against limits on my choices. It is the fight against the state of Minnesota telling doctors off-label uses of medication is illegal. I wrote a 50+ page paper on the subject after the doctors here informed me I couldn't take the same meds as in California due to state laws. It is the fight against federal...

As I understand it, the "federal" system in most countries has a lot of power -- such as a national sales tax, national education system, national health care, national law enforcement, national regulations (versus national "minumums" in the United States), and so on. For example, the GST or VAT is a national sales tax used for national programs. The United States could not have such a tax without a change to our Constitution, which requires approval of three-fourths of the states. (Switzerland has an "easier" two-thirds requirement for national referendums on Constitutional matters.) It was a long battle just to have a federal income tax in the United States. Even today, people debate if the Amendment was passed properly. I also believe a teaching certificate is good nation-wide in most countries. In the United States, my California credential was accepted by two states, as long as I took some additional courses. California accepts no other states...