Almost Classical

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...

I have several broader topics on the "to-do" list for this blog, but this week a colleague's observation reminded me that too many people see issues from stark, all-or-nothing, positions. Since joining the faculty at a private, non-profit, university, I've been publicly stating that the union isn't starting its negotiations for a new three-year contract from a position of power and authority. That bothers me. "How can you be in a union? You've detailed union corruption, negative effects on employment, and complained about public employee unions. I thought you hated unions?" I do not "hate" all unions. I dislike many unions, definitely, primarily because of their leadership. But that does not mean that I am opposed to all unions. If anything, I want to reform unions and help guide change to make them relevant. Unions, as they are, represent the past — a romanticized past that often overlooks the problems of unions. I am opposed to th...

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...

This is a bad idea on just too many levels: Office of Management and Budget Employees to Push to Unionize - Political Punch Asked for comment, Kenneth Baer, OMB communications director, told ABC News that the Obama administration “is a strong supporter of the right of workers to organize. It is up to the people working at any bargaining unit to decide if they want to join a union or not. Whatever the decision of these employees may be, we are committed to working together to serve the President and the American people.” Public sector unions are unlike unions in private industry. Union employees would be analyzing federal expenditures, which often involve unionized employees. The potential conflicts are numerous. Federal unions donate to political campaigns, electing the very men and women the unions then "bargain" with -- not a good system. At the turn of the last century, New York state had to limit the power of New York City politicians because union bosses and politician...

Based on the media coverage of the last few weeks, one might imagine unions are on the rise in public opinion. Actually, I've found three polls since Friday showing quite the opposite is true. I've also found data that Democrats have dropped a percentage point or two on a general congressional ballot, while Republicans have remained steady. Republicans are about 1.5 percent ahead of Democrats, which doesn't mean much since some districts are very lopsided. So, how bad are the perceptions of unions in general? According to Gallup this weekend: Republicans Negative, Democrats Positive in Describing Unions Among all Americans, 38% have a negative image, 34% positive, and 17% neutral Americans are slightly more likely to say something negative rather than positive when asked what word or phrase comes to mind when they think of "labor unions." By about a 3-to-1 ratio, Republicans have negative rather than positive things to say about labor unions. By better than 2 to 1...

In a previous entry, The 90% Tax Rate Myth , I promised to discuss income inequality and offer actual solutions that don't involve merely "redistributing wealth" via taxes. Michael Moore recently attempted to rally support for unions in Wisconsin with the following: "Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks -- most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 -- now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined." If you want one examination of this claim, which is accurate statistically, you can read PolitiFact's analysis. The story is posted as Michael Moore: 400 Americans Have the Wealth Now, I want to go beyond the nonsense of Moore and some of his misleading implications. You want shocking? Most of the super-rich were not born that way. According to a 2005 New York Times analysis, 60 percent of Americans move up or down one full income "quintile...

Is President Obama worse than Wisconsin's Gov. Walker? Far from seeking to strengthen the hand of federal-employee unions, Barack Obama has sought to impose a two-year wage freeze on federal workers through the budget process. If the federal government had a bargaining law like the one Wisconsin has today, he would be unable to do that. Also consider this fact: [D]espite the howls coming from the left, Wisconsin’s new policies on public-employee relations will not be especially unusual. Only 26 states have laws that grant collective-bargaining privileges to substantially all public employees. For more, read: What’s Next in Wisconsin - By Josh Barro - The Corner - National Review Online Economic reality doesn't seem to apply to government or public sector employees right now. Government (and government jobs) only exists with businesses, especially their owners and their employees. Without tax revenues from businesses, there are no government jobs. None. It's time for govern...

I recommend: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/middle-class_stagnation While the above is primarily a short summary of other columns and blogs, it makes a great point: Western nations with a widely unionized workforce are still experiencing increases in wage disparity between the top 20 and bottom 20 percent (upper and lower classes). The middle class (usually defined as the middle 40-60 percent) is stagnating, as well. I've written on this blog about the "Superstar Effect" and income. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/business/26excerpt.html Also: http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/01/skills-and-value-concentration.html The reality is that the marketplace is constantly changing. Technology has, for centuries, eliminated jobs and reduced the "value" of the lowest-level, least-specialized workers. Unions are not going to be able to offset the loss in value within some jobs. Quite bluntly, if there is any chance your job can be a...

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...

This story from Politico.com indicates the real problem isn't money in politics. Over the course of the campaign, the report found, Democratic committees and candidates outspent their GOP foes $159 million to $112 million – more than enough to compensate for the money outside GOP-leaning groups contributed toward airtime. Democrats spent more, and lost a lot more at local, state, and national levels. What happened to the huge affect we were told to expect from Citizens United? It didn't happen. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision didn't seem to change spending by more than two, yes two percent . Of course, we also had several multi-millionaires wasting their own fortunes running for offices that pay under $250,000 a year. My personal theory is that problem of "revolving doors" — politicians go into lobbying, business executives go into politics, media consultants become reporters, and every now and then they rotate positions on the chess board. S...

The political terminology of the United States is often at odds with the terms used in Europe and the U.K. When corresponding with colleagues, I've had to recognize terms such as "neo-liberal," "Anglo-capitalist," and several others. The greatest confusion, though, is the simple "liberal" — which is seldom a compliment in European commentaries. What I consider "libertarian" might be close to "liberal" in European usage, but not quite a perfect equivalent. Regardless, this is an interesting column on the word "liberal." Can The L-word Be Saved?    WALTER RUSSELL MEAD Politically speaking, America may be the most confused country in the world.  Millions of people in this country are conservatives and even reactionaries who think they are liberals; we have millions more liberals and radicals who call themselves conservative. It is an unholy mess and it needs to be cleared up.  It’s time for a language intervention. Despite...

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...

While the Citizens United case has ignited righteous indignation on the political left, the Supreme Court ruling last week removing most caps on campaign advertising was not only the correct decision but represents a return to how our founders approached politics. Every newspaper, magazine, and "news" outlet was exempted from corporate finance restrictions even before this ruling. Why? Because you cannot limit the free press. But why should that logic apply to businesses? When our nation was founded the political parties, various organizations, the wealthy, and even many in the merchant class set about publishing "newspapers" that were little more than campaign ads. Printing was a huge business as a result. A single sheet newspaper could be prepared simply and distributed for a reasonable cost. Newspapers were named the "Middletown Press Democrat" or the "Anyville Republican Gazette" for a reason. Media bias was a given. Even small towns ha...

CNN and other news outlets are reporting that Europeans prefer Obama to McCain by a 5:1 ratio. CNN: Cafferty File Why do we care do much about European opinions? These people don't have a single popular leader in their own nations. France's president is below 30% in the polls, Number 10 is (ironically) between 10 and 20% favorable, and even Germany, with a decent economy, doesn't give majority approval to the chancellor. So, these are relatively unhappy people, politically. They are beyond cynical — they're just plain unhappy. Part of the problem is that when you have a parliamentary system, the leaders in power seldom win leadership posts with a clear majority. You can cobble a parliamentary majority together with a 30% plurality and a dozen smaller, usually more radical, political parties. The end result is that no one is content. But, there is a larger reason: their systems, which they resoundingly claim are better than the U.S. system and our economic mode...

Regardless, calling something "direct democracy" does make it sound, to the public, as if they are in control. On this matter, I must admit Chomsky is correct (gasp!) -- you can tell people they have rights and powers, yet make them so difficult to exercise as to render those rights almost meaningless. Sartre and Camus claimed words were both meaningless and all we have. We can manipulate them to control people, or to free ourselves. If women could not vote until 1971, and men (the voters) made the decision to allow them power, it's almost laughable. That's like saying "All men are created equal" then making Africans count as only a portion of a man (which the United States did). French-speaking Catholics were restricted in Switzerland until 1978, when public protests (phrasing it nicely) resulting in full rights and even a Catholic state. You can call yourself a democracy, but is it democracy when only certain people get to decide the rules and laws f...