When I was young I had a big extended family in the Los Angeles area. In the 1980's, as my parents generation moved into retirement virtually all of that generation took advantage of the high price of housing in Los Angeles by selling their house and moving to less expensive places to live (Washington and Oregon). There they could buy a comfortable house and use the extra money from the sale of their LA house to fund a more comfortable retirement.
I suspect a big part of the reason for the recent spate of hyperbolic headlines about New York and California losing people that have appeared in publications as varied as Fox news and the New York Times has nothing to do with partisan politics, and a lot to do with the fact my generation is now selling their houses in expensive New York and California markets to move to cheaper states for retirement.
California and New York are perhaps the two most economically dynamic states. As a result they are expensive places to live. They create lots of wealthy people who drive up prices, so regular folks, when no longer tied to a job and trying to live out their lives on what they have, leave for cheaper living situations.
It's a cyclical phenomena, not a sign of impending doom.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Monday, December 30, 2019
A News Years Fantasy - Vacations For Trump and Bernie Supporters
What if we could give all Trump supporters a months vacation in Turkey or Russia to see what life is like in those sort of Democracies run by leaders President Trump seems to feel a kinship with?
What if we could give all Bernie supporters a months vacation in Sweden as it existed a couple decades ago, so they could see what life was like before Sweden moved away from more traditional Socialism?
What if we could give all Bernie supporters a months vacation in Sweden as it existed a couple decades ago, so they could see what life was like before Sweden moved away from more traditional Socialism?
Sunday, December 22, 2019
What Does Being Partisan Mean?
The current political environment is overflowing with accusations of partisanship. It started me thinking about what constitutes partisanship.
It seems to me partisanship is one end of a spectrum of behaviors involving disagreements on how, as a country, we coexist in a manner that produces peace and prosperity.
As a democracy there are always going to be different viewpoints. People have different backgrounds, different life experiences, and, I believe, we are all endowed with slightly different brain organization that influences our perceptions. But to be a functioning and peaceful democracy we need ground rules on acceptable disagreement.
History suggest ground rules like civility, and formal procedures for resolving disagreements are useful, but ultimately the crucial value in making good public policy is respect for facts.
Disagreements over matters where there is no underlying factual context to provide guidance is not partisan - it's just having a different view of a problem. Those disagreement behaviors rely on civility and process to smooth over rough spots.
The other end of the spectrum of disagreement is where people use personal attacks, platitudes, misdirection or simply lies to distract from inconvenient facts that impact the view of the world the speaker wants to promote. To me that is the purest form of partisanship. Unfortunately that form of partisanship can thrive within the framework of civility and process if tolerated by voters.
It is difficult for any politician to resist partisanship. Their ambitions and livelihood rely on promoting a particular point of view. They invest years, and build a career, based on a particular point of view. If facts turn out to show their view is misguided, it is a rare politician that can acknowledge that they were promoting ideas that did not in fact turn out to be as beneficial as they represented.
Voters without political ambition may support a particular point of view for years and develop an emotional attachment to that view. But our careers and livelihood are not generally impacted if we change our view in light of facts. However, if we indulge emotionally comforting views by disregarding facts we as a country will make bad public policy choices. Those choices will affect our long term interests, and the interests of our children and grandchildren.
We as voters need to understand the difference between speaking different world views, and partisanship. If we are not clear on the differences between holding different political views and partisanship, and cannot distinguish between disagreement and partisanship, politicians certainly won't.
It seems to me partisanship is one end of a spectrum of behaviors involving disagreements on how, as a country, we coexist in a manner that produces peace and prosperity.
As a democracy there are always going to be different viewpoints. People have different backgrounds, different life experiences, and, I believe, we are all endowed with slightly different brain organization that influences our perceptions. But to be a functioning and peaceful democracy we need ground rules on acceptable disagreement.
History suggest ground rules like civility, and formal procedures for resolving disagreements are useful, but ultimately the crucial value in making good public policy is respect for facts.
Disagreements over matters where there is no underlying factual context to provide guidance is not partisan - it's just having a different view of a problem. Those disagreement behaviors rely on civility and process to smooth over rough spots.
The other end of the spectrum of disagreement is where people use personal attacks, platitudes, misdirection or simply lies to distract from inconvenient facts that impact the view of the world the speaker wants to promote. To me that is the purest form of partisanship. Unfortunately that form of partisanship can thrive within the framework of civility and process if tolerated by voters.
It is difficult for any politician to resist partisanship. Their ambitions and livelihood rely on promoting a particular point of view. They invest years, and build a career, based on a particular point of view. If facts turn out to show their view is misguided, it is a rare politician that can acknowledge that they were promoting ideas that did not in fact turn out to be as beneficial as they represented.
Voters without political ambition may support a particular point of view for years and develop an emotional attachment to that view. But our careers and livelihood are not generally impacted if we change our view in light of facts. However, if we indulge emotionally comforting views by disregarding facts we as a country will make bad public policy choices. Those choices will affect our long term interests, and the interests of our children and grandchildren.
We as voters need to understand the difference between speaking different world views, and partisanship. If we are not clear on the differences between holding different political views and partisanship, and cannot distinguish between disagreement and partisanship, politicians certainly won't.
Friday, December 20, 2019
Measuring our 21st Century Economy with 19th Century Metrics
Politicians and Journalists all seem to accept the assertion we have a "good" economy because unemployment is hovering around historic lows, about 4%.
In the 19th Century the unemployment rate really meant something. People who didn't have jobs had no income, so when folks lost their jobs there was an immediate impact on consumption based demand, which would in turn cause other folks to lose their jobs. In the 1800's and early 1900's our economy flipped back and forth between spurts of rapid growth and depressions on average about every seven years. The unemployment rate was the perfect canary in a coal mine to warn of an impending recession or depression.
But we don't live in the 19th Century, we live in the 21st Century. In the early 20th century labor organizations started to make progress on job security for workers, so employers couldn't start firing people the second they saw an advantage to their bottom line. Then mandatory unemployment insurance spread across country. During the Great Depression In the 1930's Social Security and further worker protections were enacted.
Those changes ended Depressions. After generations of our ancestors experiencing depressions every seven years or so we have not had a depression since the Great Depression in the 1930's.
The events that caused the Great Recession, if they had happened in the 19th century, would have sparked a horrendous depression. But they didn't, because the drop in consumer demand was minimized since laid off folks had income from unemployment checks, and then many older workers dropped out of the job market to receive pension and Social Security checks. We have stumbled along with mediocre growth since the Great Recession.
Our 4% unemployment rate is not a sign of economic health, it is a sign of economic stagnation. Our 4% unemployment rate masks the fact that the number of people actually working as a percentage of the population, has dropped from 64% of the population before the Great Recesssion, to around 60% of the population today. Because the population has grown by 30 or 40 million people growth hasn't completely collapsed, but where I live in the Bay Area employers tell me they have permanent help wanted signs because there are never enough workers to fill the available jobs (our foolish immigration policy doesn't help).
Wages are so historically low the 68 million people drawing social security see no reason to get a job. So their spending still provides a floor under consumption, but they are not capable of fueling growth because they live on a fixed income.
So if unemployment figures don't explain whats happening how do we understand our current economy?
Maybe stop ignoring debt? Levels of virtually every kind of debt are near historic highs. Consumer debt, lending on real estate, corporate debt - and most glaringly, our national debt.
Government debt didn't matter in the 19th century because the world ran on the gold standard, so governments that ran up debts hobbled their economy. We ran up debt during wars, then paid it down between wars. The Civil war ran the National debt up to about 40% of GDP, then it dropped down to about 5% of GDP right before jumping up near 40% of GDP in World War I. The debt dropped for a few years, then climbed to about 45% by the Great Depression, then up to 116% of GDP during World War II.
After World War II debt dropped from 116% down to about 30% by 1980.
Since 1980 it has gone from 30% to over 100%. Since 1980, as a percentage of GDP, we on average have incurred more debt each year than GDP growth. That change in economic trajectory can be traced directly to Republicans focusing on cutting taxes on the wealthy for the last 40 years. Since the Trump tax cuts our national debt has grown more than twice as fast as GDP growth.
But economists disregard government debt in computing GDP, so policitians hail GDP numbers as a badge of their competence and ignore the rising debt.
We have painted ourselves into a corner. We can't pay off our debt by taxing consumers without undermining consumption and growth. Only those with wealth beyond their needs can be taxed without undermining consumption. But that has been politically untouchable.
It is not a sustainable economic model. Unemployment as the canary warning impending short term economic problems no longer works. But the correlation of GDP growth to national debt growth is our modern canary warning us of long term economic stagnation.
In the 19th Century the unemployment rate really meant something. People who didn't have jobs had no income, so when folks lost their jobs there was an immediate impact on consumption based demand, which would in turn cause other folks to lose their jobs. In the 1800's and early 1900's our economy flipped back and forth between spurts of rapid growth and depressions on average about every seven years. The unemployment rate was the perfect canary in a coal mine to warn of an impending recession or depression.
But we don't live in the 19th Century, we live in the 21st Century. In the early 20th century labor organizations started to make progress on job security for workers, so employers couldn't start firing people the second they saw an advantage to their bottom line. Then mandatory unemployment insurance spread across country. During the Great Depression In the 1930's Social Security and further worker protections were enacted.
Those changes ended Depressions. After generations of our ancestors experiencing depressions every seven years or so we have not had a depression since the Great Depression in the 1930's.
The events that caused the Great Recession, if they had happened in the 19th century, would have sparked a horrendous depression. But they didn't, because the drop in consumer demand was minimized since laid off folks had income from unemployment checks, and then many older workers dropped out of the job market to receive pension and Social Security checks. We have stumbled along with mediocre growth since the Great Recession.
Our 4% unemployment rate is not a sign of economic health, it is a sign of economic stagnation. Our 4% unemployment rate masks the fact that the number of people actually working as a percentage of the population, has dropped from 64% of the population before the Great Recesssion, to around 60% of the population today. Because the population has grown by 30 or 40 million people growth hasn't completely collapsed, but where I live in the Bay Area employers tell me they have permanent help wanted signs because there are never enough workers to fill the available jobs (our foolish immigration policy doesn't help).
Wages are so historically low the 68 million people drawing social security see no reason to get a job. So their spending still provides a floor under consumption, but they are not capable of fueling growth because they live on a fixed income.
So if unemployment figures don't explain whats happening how do we understand our current economy?
Maybe stop ignoring debt? Levels of virtually every kind of debt are near historic highs. Consumer debt, lending on real estate, corporate debt - and most glaringly, our national debt.
Government debt didn't matter in the 19th century because the world ran on the gold standard, so governments that ran up debts hobbled their economy. We ran up debt during wars, then paid it down between wars. The Civil war ran the National debt up to about 40% of GDP, then it dropped down to about 5% of GDP right before jumping up near 40% of GDP in World War I. The debt dropped for a few years, then climbed to about 45% by the Great Depression, then up to 116% of GDP during World War II.
After World War II debt dropped from 116% down to about 30% by 1980.
Since 1980 it has gone from 30% to over 100%. Since 1980, as a percentage of GDP, we on average have incurred more debt each year than GDP growth. That change in economic trajectory can be traced directly to Republicans focusing on cutting taxes on the wealthy for the last 40 years. Since the Trump tax cuts our national debt has grown more than twice as fast as GDP growth.
But economists disregard government debt in computing GDP, so policitians hail GDP numbers as a badge of their competence and ignore the rising debt.
We have painted ourselves into a corner. We can't pay off our debt by taxing consumers without undermining consumption and growth. Only those with wealth beyond their needs can be taxed without undermining consumption. But that has been politically untouchable.
It is not a sustainable economic model. Unemployment as the canary warning impending short term economic problems no longer works. But the correlation of GDP growth to national debt growth is our modern canary warning us of long term economic stagnation.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Magical Thinking - US Economic Policies
An article at Marketwatch (link below) uses the words "magical thinking" to describe the economic policies that have dominated our economy for the last few decades. The phrase "magical thinking" is a perfect description of the myopia economic policymakers have engaged in for decades, as we pursued the incompatible goals of tax cuts and increased defense spending, and tolerated, or encouraged, people and government to take on debt.
Evidence of this "magical thinking" includes.
Since the Great Recession the Federal Reserve has, essentially, printed money to keep interest rates artificially low - and they voted December 11 to hold interest rates between 1.5% and 1.75%, stating our economic outlook "remains favorable". They make decisions based on short term inflation and unemployment figures, with little concern about the bigger picture.
The bigger picture is our National debt has been climbing consistently for the last 40 years as government spent more than it took in and printing money is aggravating that debt.
The stock market since the Great Recession has been driven by ever rising corporate profits per share. But profits per share have been pumped up by corporations buying back their own shares. Each time they buy their own stock they push the price of their stock up by creating fewer shareholders in the same pot, not necessarily gaining even a dollar of additional earnings. This has been encouraged by unnaturally low interest rates from the Federal Reserve making debt attractive so corporations could fund other activities with debt to free up funds to buy back stock. As a result corporate debt is at or near all time highs.
Corporations make their money, ultimately, by selling stuff to consumers, or to other corporations selling stuff to consumers. Consumer debt is also at record levels, over $13 Trillion, meaning a lot of consumer spending has been propped up with added debt.
A huge percentage of the population is retiring, no longer in the job market, so the number of people in the job market is lower than it was in the past, which makes the unemployment rate misleading as an indicator of overall economic health.
The misleading economic numbers wouldn't matter as much as long as retired folk are able to keep being consumers because social security and private pensions maintain their income.
Unfortunately State, local and private pensions are also hugely underfunded. The shortfall has been masked for years by pension fund accountants using unrealistic economic assumptions about future pension fund asset growth based on present debt fueled stock prices.
But when the debt overload can no longer be ignored some funds will not have the money to pay what the retiree's expected, so retiree's will not have the income they expect so will spend less and default on some consumer debt.
All these abnormal factors are not sustainable so at some point some combination of the following events will have to occur:
1. Retiree's have less money to spend, causing a drop in consumption that undermines the foundation our economy and stock market. The drop in consumption will cause defaults in corporate and personal debt, aggravating the economic downturn. Increased unemployment will add to the drop in consumption.
2. Government will raise taxes to bail out pension funds - again dinging consumption,
3. Government will add to their already massive debt to bail out pension funds, undermining the dollars status and making foreign goods more expensive.
This does not even consider the impact of the trade wars currently slowing the world economy. It is not easy to see a path toward unwinding all that debt without a serious economic downturn. Most rich folks will survive. They take on debt through their corporations so even if the corporations go bankrupt, the personal wealth they have stashed away will be untouched. It is regular folks who will suffer.
Economic policy makers, mostly rich folks with assets stashed away, have done well using debt and are insulated from its most negative consequences. They have a hard time viewing debt as a long term problem. They are also clueless to the fact protecting working folks,and thereby consumption, is the key to long term economic health and stability in a mature economy.
If you, like me, think it is important for voters to understand this magical thinking, please don't simply like this post. Share it.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/george-w-bushs-greatest-economic-statement-and-the-toxic-concoction-that-could-finally-crush-the-us-economy-2019-12-11?mod=home-page
Evidence of this "magical thinking" includes.
Since the Great Recession the Federal Reserve has, essentially, printed money to keep interest rates artificially low - and they voted December 11 to hold interest rates between 1.5% and 1.75%, stating our economic outlook "remains favorable". They make decisions based on short term inflation and unemployment figures, with little concern about the bigger picture.
The bigger picture is our National debt has been climbing consistently for the last 40 years as government spent more than it took in and printing money is aggravating that debt.
The stock market since the Great Recession has been driven by ever rising corporate profits per share. But profits per share have been pumped up by corporations buying back their own shares. Each time they buy their own stock they push the price of their stock up by creating fewer shareholders in the same pot, not necessarily gaining even a dollar of additional earnings. This has been encouraged by unnaturally low interest rates from the Federal Reserve making debt attractive so corporations could fund other activities with debt to free up funds to buy back stock. As a result corporate debt is at or near all time highs.
Corporations make their money, ultimately, by selling stuff to consumers, or to other corporations selling stuff to consumers. Consumer debt is also at record levels, over $13 Trillion, meaning a lot of consumer spending has been propped up with added debt.
A huge percentage of the population is retiring, no longer in the job market, so the number of people in the job market is lower than it was in the past, which makes the unemployment rate misleading as an indicator of overall economic health.
The misleading economic numbers wouldn't matter as much as long as retired folk are able to keep being consumers because social security and private pensions maintain their income.
Unfortunately State, local and private pensions are also hugely underfunded. The shortfall has been masked for years by pension fund accountants using unrealistic economic assumptions about future pension fund asset growth based on present debt fueled stock prices.
But when the debt overload can no longer be ignored some funds will not have the money to pay what the retiree's expected, so retiree's will not have the income they expect so will spend less and default on some consumer debt.
All these abnormal factors are not sustainable so at some point some combination of the following events will have to occur:
1. Retiree's have less money to spend, causing a drop in consumption that undermines the foundation our economy and stock market. The drop in consumption will cause defaults in corporate and personal debt, aggravating the economic downturn. Increased unemployment will add to the drop in consumption.
2. Government will raise taxes to bail out pension funds - again dinging consumption,
3. Government will add to their already massive debt to bail out pension funds, undermining the dollars status and making foreign goods more expensive.
This does not even consider the impact of the trade wars currently slowing the world economy. It is not easy to see a path toward unwinding all that debt without a serious economic downturn. Most rich folks will survive. They take on debt through their corporations so even if the corporations go bankrupt, the personal wealth they have stashed away will be untouched. It is regular folks who will suffer.
Economic policy makers, mostly rich folks with assets stashed away, have done well using debt and are insulated from its most negative consequences. They have a hard time viewing debt as a long term problem. They are also clueless to the fact protecting working folks,and thereby consumption, is the key to long term economic health and stability in a mature economy.
If you, like me, think it is important for voters to understand this magical thinking, please don't simply like this post. Share it.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/george-w-bushs-greatest-economic-statement-and-the-toxic-concoction-that-could-finally-crush-the-us-economy-2019-12-11?mod=home-page
Monday, December 9, 2019
Republicans are Living an Alternate Reality
I find it embarrassing to contemplate I was a Republican for most of the first twenty-five years of my voting life.
The evidence President Trump colluded with the Russians to get elected in the first place is at best circumstantial and speculative. But the evidence he welcomed Russian interference was overwhelming -because he invited it and celebrated it in tweets and speeches.
The more recent evidence President Trump threatened to withhold Military aid already approved for Ukraine as a lever to buy a Ukrainian investigation into corruption centered on his political rivals son, Hunter Biden has become overwhelming.
The President views this all as just another partisan fight, he is blind to the implications for the institutions that have made our democracy special among the worlds democracies. The ethics of our President are not uncharacteristic of those money and power obsessed business people who think their ends justify their means.
But sadly, the President is not the only one who has bought into his view. The vast majority of the elected and appointed Republicans seem more concerned about the Republican party, and their own re-election, than the law, the Constitution and the future of our democracy.
Attorney General Barr following up on the Presidents theory that the Democrats are behind it all, authorized an investigation into the underlying process that brought the Russia meddling to light, thinking it would show illegal Democratic involvement. Apparently somehow Trump's enthusiasm for Russian involvement would be justified because the Democrats were playing dirty politics?
The investigator found that although there were mistakes made by over-zealous agents and bureaucrats, the process was lawful and justified. When it became clear the first report was not going to prove the conspiracy theories Attorney General Barr authorized a second, criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia Investigation with a broader scope and powers
But by the time the first report came out it had been overshadowed by the Presidents subsequent attempt to sell our military aid in exchange for an investigation into his political rivals son. To President Trump the aid approved by Congress to help Democratic Ukraine avoid being absorbed into not so Democratic Russia was a bargaining chip he could use to his political advantage.
Republicans have adopted the second investigation as a crutch to avoid facing the reality of the President's conduct. Now their talking points are how the new investigation will prove their conspiracy theories about "deep state" crimes. Never mind that even if the investigation produces some sort of evidence or wrongdoing, it doesn't excuse the President's conduct in telling the world he wanted Russia to meddle in our election, and using Military aid for Ukraine as a bargaining chip to try to gain a domestic political advantage.
The most insane thing about this whole process is what actually happened before the 2016 election. Shortly before election day Hillary Clinton had a comfortable lead over President Trump in the polls. Then the FBI director, Republican James Comey, ignoring FBI traditions to avoid statements that might affect an election, announced the FBI was reopening an investigation into Hilary Clinton. The announcements implication of wrongdoing caused an immediate loss of support for Clinton and Trump won by a whisker. After the election the "new investigation" into Clinton, was quietly wrapped up after producing no evidence of wrongdoing.
Trump would not be President were it not for a lapse in judgement by the FBI director who is a registered Republican. Yet elected and appointed Republican's are sure this next investigation will prove some "deep state" exists that is bent on "framing" Trump. It's just all to weird to be reality.
The evidence President Trump colluded with the Russians to get elected in the first place is at best circumstantial and speculative. But the evidence he welcomed Russian interference was overwhelming -because he invited it and celebrated it in tweets and speeches.
The more recent evidence President Trump threatened to withhold Military aid already approved for Ukraine as a lever to buy a Ukrainian investigation into corruption centered on his political rivals son, Hunter Biden has become overwhelming.
The President views this all as just another partisan fight, he is blind to the implications for the institutions that have made our democracy special among the worlds democracies. The ethics of our President are not uncharacteristic of those money and power obsessed business people who think their ends justify their means.
But sadly, the President is not the only one who has bought into his view. The vast majority of the elected and appointed Republicans seem more concerned about the Republican party, and their own re-election, than the law, the Constitution and the future of our democracy.
Attorney General Barr following up on the Presidents theory that the Democrats are behind it all, authorized an investigation into the underlying process that brought the Russia meddling to light, thinking it would show illegal Democratic involvement. Apparently somehow Trump's enthusiasm for Russian involvement would be justified because the Democrats were playing dirty politics?
The investigator found that although there were mistakes made by over-zealous agents and bureaucrats, the process was lawful and justified. When it became clear the first report was not going to prove the conspiracy theories Attorney General Barr authorized a second, criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia Investigation with a broader scope and powers
But by the time the first report came out it had been overshadowed by the Presidents subsequent attempt to sell our military aid in exchange for an investigation into his political rivals son. To President Trump the aid approved by Congress to help Democratic Ukraine avoid being absorbed into not so Democratic Russia was a bargaining chip he could use to his political advantage.
Republicans have adopted the second investigation as a crutch to avoid facing the reality of the President's conduct. Now their talking points are how the new investigation will prove their conspiracy theories about "deep state" crimes. Never mind that even if the investigation produces some sort of evidence or wrongdoing, it doesn't excuse the President's conduct in telling the world he wanted Russia to meddle in our election, and using Military aid for Ukraine as a bargaining chip to try to gain a domestic political advantage.
The most insane thing about this whole process is what actually happened before the 2016 election. Shortly before election day Hillary Clinton had a comfortable lead over President Trump in the polls. Then the FBI director, Republican James Comey, ignoring FBI traditions to avoid statements that might affect an election, announced the FBI was reopening an investigation into Hilary Clinton. The announcements implication of wrongdoing caused an immediate loss of support for Clinton and Trump won by a whisker. After the election the "new investigation" into Clinton, was quietly wrapped up after producing no evidence of wrongdoing.
Trump would not be President were it not for a lapse in judgement by the FBI director who is a registered Republican. Yet elected and appointed Republican's are sure this next investigation will prove some "deep state" exists that is bent on "framing" Trump. It's just all to weird to be reality.
Saturday, December 7, 2019
The Curse of Conventional Wisdom
Conventional wisdom, understandings about life and the world developed by past generations, has always been with us. Hundreds of years ago Galileo experienced the downside of conventional wisdom when he had the temerity to suggest the earth was round and ended up imprisoned.
Our education is rooted in teaching conventional wisdom. We go to school (or church) to memorize facts and ideas that our elders deem important. Ideally it is a starting point for understanding life. But our increasing sophistication and rapid growth of technology makes one suspect conventional wisdom is becoming ever more of a drag on society.
Biologically our brains seem to be hardwired to suck in information through our teens but our brain begins to become less flexible as we become an adult. In prior ages formal education ended very young for most people, so they were out in the world being forced to problem solve to survive very early in life.
Today conventional wisdom says if you want to do well in life you need at least a college education, which means continuing to memorize conventional wisdom into early adulthood, where we begin to approach the point where our brain is already losing some of its ability to be flexible in our thinking.
Education can help one learn to cultivate flexibility, but often to do that requires rejecting conventional wisdom the instructor is attempting to impart. That often means you end up getting a lower grade than those who just figure out what the instructor wants to hear and regurgitate it.
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg didn't care about building a resume so they could get get a good job, they were interested in solving problems. So they dropped out of college to avoid having to regurgitate conventional wisdom and started solving problems. That approach can work in a career founded on advancing technology because you can physically demonstrate your understanding by building a better machine. But it doesn't work so well in social sciences, economics or politics as they are rooted in more abstract ideas.
So social sciences, economics and politics end up being dominated by the folks who did the best job of absorbing conventional wisdom. They got great grades, great first jobs and go from there. But they are often limited in their problem solving ability by mistakes in the conventional wisdom their thinking is rooted in. They have a hard time figuring out how to deal with data that contradicts conventional wisdom and find it emotionally difficult to contradict the conventional wisdom they spent years learning.
Our education is rooted in teaching conventional wisdom. We go to school (or church) to memorize facts and ideas that our elders deem important. Ideally it is a starting point for understanding life. But our increasing sophistication and rapid growth of technology makes one suspect conventional wisdom is becoming ever more of a drag on society.
Biologically our brains seem to be hardwired to suck in information through our teens but our brain begins to become less flexible as we become an adult. In prior ages formal education ended very young for most people, so they were out in the world being forced to problem solve to survive very early in life.
Today conventional wisdom says if you want to do well in life you need at least a college education, which means continuing to memorize conventional wisdom into early adulthood, where we begin to approach the point where our brain is already losing some of its ability to be flexible in our thinking.
Education can help one learn to cultivate flexibility, but often to do that requires rejecting conventional wisdom the instructor is attempting to impart. That often means you end up getting a lower grade than those who just figure out what the instructor wants to hear and regurgitate it.
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg didn't care about building a resume so they could get get a good job, they were interested in solving problems. So they dropped out of college to avoid having to regurgitate conventional wisdom and started solving problems. That approach can work in a career founded on advancing technology because you can physically demonstrate your understanding by building a better machine. But it doesn't work so well in social sciences, economics or politics as they are rooted in more abstract ideas.
So social sciences, economics and politics end up being dominated by the folks who did the best job of absorbing conventional wisdom. They got great grades, great first jobs and go from there. But they are often limited in their problem solving ability by mistakes in the conventional wisdom their thinking is rooted in. They have a hard time figuring out how to deal with data that contradicts conventional wisdom and find it emotionally difficult to contradict the conventional wisdom they spent years learning.
Politics of today presents perhaps a perfect example. Economic data covering the last 100 years shows a vast gap in the economic health of the country between the half century when the US imposed income taxes at rates of over 50% on the wealthiest taxpayers and the half century when the highest tax rate paid by the wealthy was under 40%. In the high tax years growth averaged nearly 3% per year, while the National debt was stable. In the low tax years debt exceeded growth.
Conventional wisdom says high income taxes limit growth. As a result neither political party seems capable of accepting that fact the data contradicts conventional wisdom.
Accepting the truth the data suggests may fall to generations to come who are exposed to the data before their thinking loses flexibility. We don't seem currently capable of dealing with it.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
The Deep State
Republicans, and particularly President Trump, have spoken frequently over the last few years about this mysterious, malignant Deep State that is undermining our countries greatness.
It was kind of mysterious since they never really explained what, or who, the Deep State was, much less offered any proof that it actually existed. It was a great sound bite though.
President Trump has provided clarification. The Deep State he speaks of is in fact the institutions and laws that create the checks and balances our political system is built on. Those checks, balances and processes do not allow him to use tax payer money as a carrot to entice other countries to investigate his political rivals. They hinder his efforts to team up with like minded folks like Vladimir Putin, Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia or Turkey's Recep Erdogan to forward his personal power and influence. They make it difficult to funnel all Federal employee overnight stays into his properties. They expose the folly of his impulsive decision making in matters of grave importance to the country, and his tendency to mistake developing personal relationships with world leaders with representing the interests of this country.
Voters need to start challenging any politician that starts talking about the "Deep State" to be specific and offer some evidence.
It was kind of mysterious since they never really explained what, or who, the Deep State was, much less offered any proof that it actually existed. It was a great sound bite though.
President Trump has provided clarification. The Deep State he speaks of is in fact the institutions and laws that create the checks and balances our political system is built on. Those checks, balances and processes do not allow him to use tax payer money as a carrot to entice other countries to investigate his political rivals. They hinder his efforts to team up with like minded folks like Vladimir Putin, Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia or Turkey's Recep Erdogan to forward his personal power and influence. They make it difficult to funnel all Federal employee overnight stays into his properties. They expose the folly of his impulsive decision making in matters of grave importance to the country, and his tendency to mistake developing personal relationships with world leaders with representing the interests of this country.
Voters need to start challenging any politician that starts talking about the "Deep State" to be specific and offer some evidence.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
Attorney General Barr - A 21st Century Royalist
During the Revolutionary war the residents of what became the United States were divided into two camps. The Revolutionaries who prosecuted the war and the Royalists who supported the King.
Even after the Revolutionaries won the war there was still an undercurrent of support among the folks that were well situated in life for the concept of a King, and many urged George Washington to become King. The Royalist view is fundamentally if you can scramble your way to the top, or hang out with someone who has, you are untouchable.
Washington rejected the the notion the King of England, who was above the law, would be replaced by a King of the United States who was above the law. One of our Constitutional Conventions most fundamental goals was to establish the no one in government is above the law.
Attorney General Barr seems to have failed to grasp this basic purpose of the revolutionary war and the subsequent adoption of the Constitution. He regularly dismisses the investigations in President Trump's behavior, even though the pile of evidence continues to build that the President ignores the law, seeks to circumvent the law or simply outright lies about his behavior to hide illegal activities. The Attorney General bases his notions on vague ambiguities in the Constitution that he believes prevent the President from being subject to the laws the rest of the Citizens of the United States are bound by. He ignores one of the primary principles our nation is build on.
Mr. Trump is willful and runs on instinct, so he is not a good judge of character and as a result his administration has been marked by chaos and constant turnover in critical government positions. The chaos has infected our foreign policy, and our economy
But in terms of protecting President Trump for the consequences of acting illegally the President hit a home run in appointing Attorney General Barr, a modern day Royalist who thinks King Trump is above the law.
Even after the Revolutionaries won the war there was still an undercurrent of support among the folks that were well situated in life for the concept of a King, and many urged George Washington to become King. The Royalist view is fundamentally if you can scramble your way to the top, or hang out with someone who has, you are untouchable.
Washington rejected the the notion the King of England, who was above the law, would be replaced by a King of the United States who was above the law. One of our Constitutional Conventions most fundamental goals was to establish the no one in government is above the law.
Attorney General Barr seems to have failed to grasp this basic purpose of the revolutionary war and the subsequent adoption of the Constitution. He regularly dismisses the investigations in President Trump's behavior, even though the pile of evidence continues to build that the President ignores the law, seeks to circumvent the law or simply outright lies about his behavior to hide illegal activities. The Attorney General bases his notions on vague ambiguities in the Constitution that he believes prevent the President from being subject to the laws the rest of the Citizens of the United States are bound by. He ignores one of the primary principles our nation is build on.
Mr. Trump is willful and runs on instinct, so he is not a good judge of character and as a result his administration has been marked by chaos and constant turnover in critical government positions. The chaos has infected our foreign policy, and our economy
But in terms of protecting President Trump for the consequences of acting illegally the President hit a home run in appointing Attorney General Barr, a modern day Royalist who thinks King Trump is above the law.
Monday, November 4, 2019
Bernie, Elizabeth and Joe
From 1933 to 1980 the wealth of this country grew twice as fast as it has grown from 1981 to today.
From 1933 to 1980 we averaged 2.7% growth per year and our National debt ended where it started at 30% of GDP. Since 1981 total GDP growth is 105%. But the National debt has grown from 30% to 105% of GDP, a 75% increase. Subtract the 75% debt growth from the 105% output growth and our actual wealth as a country only increased about 1.4% of GDP per year.
The difference between 47 years of growing wealthier by 2.7% per year and 37 years where we have grown wealthier by 1.4%? Trickle down economics.
From 1933 to 1980 the highest income tax rate averaged around 80%. Since 1981 the highest tax rate has averaged under 40%. The robust debt free growth from 1933 to 1980 flies in the face of the notion taxing the rich hurts the economy. In fact it appears high tax rates changed rich folks behavior - they kept more money in productive activity instead of pulling it out to stash in safe wealth storage. The result was from 1933 to 1980 the rich got richer even as the middle class experienced a growth in income that today contrasts with the stagnant incomes of their children.
If we want to turn our economy around and enjoy real growth rather than just piling up debt this coming election should be about major structural change to our tax laws. Who can best accomplish that goal?
Probably no Republican. Tax cuts for the rich have always come from Republicans and have been the primary Republican accomplishment over the last 37 years.
So that leaves the Democrats.
So far, though, the Democratic candidates seem stuck in 20th century Capitalism v. Socialism thinking. Thinking the solution to stagnant middle class incomes is in using the law to extract money from wealthy folk without giving any thought to economic efficiency or the impact on productivity and growth. 21st century thinking should be bringing more carrots into the tax code instead of relying on regulatory sticks. Incentivizing productive activity and discouraging speculation and exploitation. But no Democratic candidate seems to care about what happened from 1933 to 1980.
Joe doesn't even seem interested in major structural change. He seems like he just wants to captain the ship, making slight changes in course. Amy also seems to be in the Joe mold. Don't rock the boat.
Bernie promotes structural change, but his touchstone seems to be a modified form of Socialism, heavily reliant on the 20th century regulatory sticks oblivious to market forces. He does not seem flexible enough to start thinking about carrots.
Elizabeth also seems stuck in the 20 century, but does seem to be a more flexible problem solver. However since she has taken regulatory stick based positions (wealth tax for example) during the campaign she may be reluctant to give her detractors ammunition by changing her mind.
Pete? Kamala? It's not clear either of them have any economic plan, nor is it clear they perceive any need for structural change.
I think voters are going to have to figure this out first and start asking why we can't have the consistent 2.7% debt free growth that spread wealth all though the economy that characterized US life between 1933 to 1980.
From 1933 to 1980 we averaged 2.7% growth per year and our National debt ended where it started at 30% of GDP. Since 1981 total GDP growth is 105%. But the National debt has grown from 30% to 105% of GDP, a 75% increase. Subtract the 75% debt growth from the 105% output growth and our actual wealth as a country only increased about 1.4% of GDP per year.
The difference between 47 years of growing wealthier by 2.7% per year and 37 years where we have grown wealthier by 1.4%? Trickle down economics.
From 1933 to 1980 the highest income tax rate averaged around 80%. Since 1981 the highest tax rate has averaged under 40%. The robust debt free growth from 1933 to 1980 flies in the face of the notion taxing the rich hurts the economy. In fact it appears high tax rates changed rich folks behavior - they kept more money in productive activity instead of pulling it out to stash in safe wealth storage. The result was from 1933 to 1980 the rich got richer even as the middle class experienced a growth in income that today contrasts with the stagnant incomes of their children.
If we want to turn our economy around and enjoy real growth rather than just piling up debt this coming election should be about major structural change to our tax laws. Who can best accomplish that goal?
Probably no Republican. Tax cuts for the rich have always come from Republicans and have been the primary Republican accomplishment over the last 37 years.
So that leaves the Democrats.
So far, though, the Democratic candidates seem stuck in 20th century Capitalism v. Socialism thinking. Thinking the solution to stagnant middle class incomes is in using the law to extract money from wealthy folk without giving any thought to economic efficiency or the impact on productivity and growth. 21st century thinking should be bringing more carrots into the tax code instead of relying on regulatory sticks. Incentivizing productive activity and discouraging speculation and exploitation. But no Democratic candidate seems to care about what happened from 1933 to 1980.
Joe doesn't even seem interested in major structural change. He seems like he just wants to captain the ship, making slight changes in course. Amy also seems to be in the Joe mold. Don't rock the boat.
Bernie promotes structural change, but his touchstone seems to be a modified form of Socialism, heavily reliant on the 20th century regulatory sticks oblivious to market forces. He does not seem flexible enough to start thinking about carrots.
Elizabeth also seems stuck in the 20 century, but does seem to be a more flexible problem solver. However since she has taken regulatory stick based positions (wealth tax for example) during the campaign she may be reluctant to give her detractors ammunition by changing her mind.
Pete? Kamala? It's not clear either of them have any economic plan, nor is it clear they perceive any need for structural change.
I think voters are going to have to figure this out first and start asking why we can't have the consistent 2.7% debt free growth that spread wealth all though the economy that characterized US life between 1933 to 1980.
For data spreadsheets about the data cited above link to
For a broader discussion of historical economic performance see the volume "Curious Correlations: Party Politics and Economics" available at Amazon books.
Saturday, November 2, 2019
Fox News Has Become Obsessed With California
Almost every day these days my news feed pops up with stories from Fox News how bad things are in California.
Part of the Fox News business model for decades has been to promote a brand of conservatism that focuses on keeping taxes on wealthy folk as low as possible - maximizing the power and influence of the folks that own Fox News. Even though low taxes on the wealthy are not beneficial to working folks Fox News has been very adept at cultivating voting support for their political goals with a divide and conquer strategy.
They exploit the natural human tendency to note physical or cultural differences by vilifying politically weak minorities then convincing folk they need to vote conservative to keep those bad people from ruining everything.
Now that strategy is threatening to blow up in their face. We have a President whose knowledge of public policy seems to have been shaped by Fox News, who is almost joined at the hip with Fox News. A President who, in three years, has effectively abandoned Asia to despots, undermined the world economy with his ill conceived and poorly executed tariffs, destroyed arms control agreements without offering an alternative, exploded our national debt and demonstrated a constant lack of any heart or compassion. A President on his way to becoming the first President in history to repeatedly collude with foreign governments to help his business and personal political agenda.
On top of the Trump problem Fox News has lost gay rights as an issue as gays have moved mainstream, Pro-lifers are creating their own party with socialist leanings and vilification of immigrants is effective on fewer and fewer voters as noisy immigrant bashing is causing many to realize immigrants are not bad people and maybe deserve a little compassion.
So evidently Fox News new plan to is in part vilify California. It is California politicians that are leading the impeachment probe of our truthfulness-challenged President. Republicans controlled California in the 1980's and 1990's but folks got so sick of them they are virtually an endangered species in modern California. Of course a State of 40 million people has some problems (many of which are leftovers from the days Republicans ran the state)., but the reality is California has a budget surplus, is the wealthy, happy and provides decent health care to a bigger percentage of folks that any Red State. The success of Democratic California is a thumb in the eye of the conservative ideology Fox News peddles.
So they seem to be seizing the opportunity to try to undermine the impeachment effort by convincing red state groupies that California is not to be trusted. Unfortunately for them, Donald Trump has left so much evidence scattered in the chaos that follows him through life it is becoming clear to all but the most blindly partisan groupies that he is undermining the traditions and government of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for 2.4 centuries.
I thought, as I was living through the Nixon years, I was witnessing something the likes of which would not repeat in my lifetime. But now it appears even Watergate is being Trumped.
Part of the Fox News business model for decades has been to promote a brand of conservatism that focuses on keeping taxes on wealthy folk as low as possible - maximizing the power and influence of the folks that own Fox News. Even though low taxes on the wealthy are not beneficial to working folks Fox News has been very adept at cultivating voting support for their political goals with a divide and conquer strategy.
They exploit the natural human tendency to note physical or cultural differences by vilifying politically weak minorities then convincing folk they need to vote conservative to keep those bad people from ruining everything.
Now that strategy is threatening to blow up in their face. We have a President whose knowledge of public policy seems to have been shaped by Fox News, who is almost joined at the hip with Fox News. A President who, in three years, has effectively abandoned Asia to despots, undermined the world economy with his ill conceived and poorly executed tariffs, destroyed arms control agreements without offering an alternative, exploded our national debt and demonstrated a constant lack of any heart or compassion. A President on his way to becoming the first President in history to repeatedly collude with foreign governments to help his business and personal political agenda.
On top of the Trump problem Fox News has lost gay rights as an issue as gays have moved mainstream, Pro-lifers are creating their own party with socialist leanings and vilification of immigrants is effective on fewer and fewer voters as noisy immigrant bashing is causing many to realize immigrants are not bad people and maybe deserve a little compassion.
So evidently Fox News new plan to is in part vilify California. It is California politicians that are leading the impeachment probe of our truthfulness-challenged President. Republicans controlled California in the 1980's and 1990's but folks got so sick of them they are virtually an endangered species in modern California. Of course a State of 40 million people has some problems (many of which are leftovers from the days Republicans ran the state)., but the reality is California has a budget surplus, is the wealthy, happy and provides decent health care to a bigger percentage of folks that any Red State. The success of Democratic California is a thumb in the eye of the conservative ideology Fox News peddles.
So they seem to be seizing the opportunity to try to undermine the impeachment effort by convincing red state groupies that California is not to be trusted. Unfortunately for them, Donald Trump has left so much evidence scattered in the chaos that follows him through life it is becoming clear to all but the most blindly partisan groupies that he is undermining the traditions and government of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for 2.4 centuries.
I thought, as I was living through the Nixon years, I was witnessing something the likes of which would not repeat in my lifetime. But now it appears even Watergate is being Trumped.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
How Can We Prevent California Wildfires?
The conditions that cause enormously destructive wind/fire storms - lack of rain and dry winds - occur virtually every year, and may be getting worse. We can't stop wildfires from occurring but we can fix the problems that turn a wild fire into a firestorm.
PG&E is where a lot of fingers are pointing. There is no question PG&E, like all corporations, and many people, finds it hard to spend money on long term public safety in the face of short term desires to maximize profits and executive bonuses. PG&E is justifiably in bankruptcy for their negligent practices and are not be be excused.
But we shouldn't lose sight of all the other factors that play as big a part, or perhaps a bigger part in these disasters.
The fires generate massive fires storms because big parts of the State are undeveloped land. Over the decades they develop huge "fuel loads" - overgrown forests and underbrush that are ideal incubators for a fire storm.
Who owns all this land? Why don't we require landowners to reduce the fuel load regularly? It could cost a lot less to create a mechanism to enforce fuel load reduction than it does to fight and then clean up the mess after one of these huge fires.
Probably a lot of the land is owned by investors who are essentially parking wealth in an asset that is indestructible and costs them little. Their will be objections about intrusive government and personal freedom. But I submit this is an area where the tension between individual rights and community safety should tilt heavily towards community protection.
By letting these landowners ignore fuel overloads on their land we are allowing them to impose enormous costs in fire fighting, loss of life and property destruction on other people and government while they wait to reap a profit from selling their land.
Reducing fuel overload doesn't have to be a huge expense, some local governments have taken to hiring goat herds to graze off the underbrush.
What is foreseeable can be mitigated We need to be willing to spend some money on fuel load reduction and enforcement if we want to reduce the size and destructive power to these fall firestorms.
PG&E is where a lot of fingers are pointing. There is no question PG&E, like all corporations, and many people, finds it hard to spend money on long term public safety in the face of short term desires to maximize profits and executive bonuses. PG&E is justifiably in bankruptcy for their negligent practices and are not be be excused.
But we shouldn't lose sight of all the other factors that play as big a part, or perhaps a bigger part in these disasters.
The fires generate massive fires storms because big parts of the State are undeveloped land. Over the decades they develop huge "fuel loads" - overgrown forests and underbrush that are ideal incubators for a fire storm.
Who owns all this land? Why don't we require landowners to reduce the fuel load regularly? It could cost a lot less to create a mechanism to enforce fuel load reduction than it does to fight and then clean up the mess after one of these huge fires.
Probably a lot of the land is owned by investors who are essentially parking wealth in an asset that is indestructible and costs them little. Their will be objections about intrusive government and personal freedom. But I submit this is an area where the tension between individual rights and community safety should tilt heavily towards community protection.
By letting these landowners ignore fuel overloads on their land we are allowing them to impose enormous costs in fire fighting, loss of life and property destruction on other people and government while they wait to reap a profit from selling their land.
Reducing fuel overload doesn't have to be a huge expense, some local governments have taken to hiring goat herds to graze off the underbrush.
What is foreseeable can be mitigated We need to be willing to spend some money on fuel load reduction and enforcement if we want to reduce the size and destructive power to these fall firestorms.
Monday, October 21, 2019
Corporations Are Not People*
The 2010 Supreme Court decision that found corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals is built on a foundation of logic divorced from reality.
Corporations in the United States are created under State law. Without State legislation creating rules for them to exist and regulating their conduct they do not exist. Modern Corporations effectively did not exist when the Constitution was written and were not mentioned in the Constitution.(footnote 1). Yet somehow Conservative Supreme Courts miraculously divined that the founding fathers intended the first amendment to give Corporations the same free speech rights people enjoy.
As a result corporations have an almost unfettered right to seek to influence government policy and can do so behind a dizzying array of shell corporations hiding who is really behind the message. We now have campaigns that never end and spend more money on political advertising than our forefathers could have imagined in their wildest fantasies. Income inequality and our National Debt have exploded.
To protect this gift from the Supreme Court Corporations have funded organizations whose entire purpose is to protect the ability of Corporations to use the massive money they generate to influence elections.
There are also organizations seeking to amend the constitution to clarify that corporations are not people. Here is a link to one. https://www.americanpromise.net/5-reasons-we-need-an-amendment-to-say-corporations-arent-people/? But a Constitutional amendment is difficult because Corporations are willing to spend so much money to undermine those efforts. So the people who reject the notion corporations have the same constitutional rights as people have been sadly ineffective.
The supporters of a Constitutional amendment seem unaware, or unwilling to use the leverage they have to push Corporate interests to the table to develop a more acceptable view of Corporate rights.
Since Corporations are created under State law, states have a lot of leverage not available to Congress. If enough big urban States linked limited liability to consent to regulation of political spending for all corporations formed or operating within their state no big corporation would give up those markets to protect their right to spend bundles of money influencing national elections.
Just saying - if we want to make progress on overturning this crazy decision we can't let Corporations define the playing field.
* The title for this blog is borrowed from a book by the same title that is a great source for in depth discussion of the topic - "Corporations Are Not People" by Jeffrey D. Clements.
Monday, September 30, 2019
Warren Kumley's Comments - What Are Corporations For?
A recent article in the Economist discussed the current buzz in the business/academic world about big corporations changing their stated goal to encompass the interest of all stakeholders (shareholders, workers and the public). Since the Reagan years the prevailing view ideological view was the only thing a CEO had to be concerned with was maximizing value to shareholders.
I was discussing the article with Warren Kumley (who has many years experience in corporate management). He made some very cogent observations about the article, so I reproduce his comments below with some edits to fit this format and explain some things that he wrote responding to my comments.
I was discussing the article with Warren Kumley (who has many years experience in corporate management). He made some very cogent observations about the article, so I reproduce his comments below with some edits to fit this format and explain some things that he wrote responding to my comments.
...I thought starting a discussion on this topic was solid, but the analysis is very weak. Two significant factors I did not see raised:
1. Capitalism does not equal competition. Capitalism..(can progresses from) .. competition to oligarchies, and monopolies. (Thus)..discussions comparing socialism to capitalism are theoretical not realistic. The time it takes to move to evolve ...(from competition to oligarchies or monopolies) has shrunk significantly during the last two hundred years.
2. The other key discussion involves short term vs long term objectives, asset allocations, and costs. The list of companies that are booming for 10-20 years and then are gone is very long. They fail for many reasons, but most have to do with compromising the long term to maximize short term profits for share holder, especially favoring the largest shareholders. Many (most) equity firms run on this principle.
... (the) third significant factor is governments role in the marketplace. Who provides the oversight and market regulations if not the government?
(The Economist Article chided Theodore Roosevelt for interfering with the free market by stepping into labor negotiations - Warren's response: Theodore Roosevelt was absolutely correct to step in and negotiate between management and labor. The only other option from history is revolution that leads to a period of anarchy then to a monarchy, mostly, or more recently to democracy. These transitions have enormous costs.
(The Economist Article chided Theodore Roosevelt for interfering with the free market by stepping into labor negotiations - Warren's response: Theodore Roosevelt was absolutely correct to step in and negotiate between management and labor. The only other option from history is revolution that leads to a period of anarchy then to a monarchy, mostly, or more recently to democracy. These transitions have enormous costs.
Only recently has a fourth factor arisen - consumers. This arena is still evolving. It might become the glue or beacon that can better focus the actions of the other three.
Capitalism is very messy. There is a built in advantage for short term cheating, fraud, and all forms of chicanery. Government responses (recognizing there is a problem and resulting investigations followed by court cases) to new business areas is usually much slower than the markets and profits. This allows companies to obfuscate their illegal activities in many ways. Of course, buying off government action may remain the most popular strategy...
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Gun Control - A Non-partisan Solution
The sheer number of recent mass shootings has created an environment where Congress might actually do something. I fear Congress will just slap a band aid on a fundamentally flawed law and then continue fighting about it for the foreseeable future.
We can make the problem go away with a Constitutional amendment that lets each State control deadly weapons within their state. Gun possession is a uniquely local concern. Everyone has a legitimate interest in whether angry, careless or mentally unstable people in the geographic area where they spend their life have access to firearms and ammunition. Or whether their neighbor keeps a loaded handgun in his bedside table that could be accessible to a thief or a curious child.
On the other hand as a resident of California I have very little stake in whether people in Colorado walk around with a handgun strapped to their belt, or possess assault rifles. Or if people in Wyoming drive around with loaded rifles in a rack in their pick up, or if people in Montana manufacture their own assault weapons.
Our 50 states are vastly different in geography, population density and culture. The Federal Government should not be making gun laws applicable to every state, each state should be setting their own rules.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The second amendment was written when we were 13 sparsely populated colonies on the eastern seaboard still engaged in periodic conflict with other colonial powers and native populations on the northern, western and southern borders of the country. It does not make sense today. State Militias, citizens keeping weapons in their home so they could respond to danger to the community, effectively no longer exist. Instead every state has a National Guard and multiple highly trained and armed law enforcement agencies, many with SWAT teams.
A revised second amendment could read:
"Control of deadly weapons being a uniquely local concern, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by the Federal Government. The right of the States to control deadly weapons shall not be limited by the commerce clause.
Some will argue they still need their weapons to protect themselves from an over-reaching State government. But the ability of the State to deprive citizens of their rights as citizens will be limited by the Federal Constitution and Federal courts.
This should be an eminently politically feasible amendment based on current polls that show overwhelming support for gun control. Instead of a Red State / Blue State battle to impose nationwide rules, each states voters could determine the status of firearms in their state, or could let each county or city within the state decide for themselves how they wanted to treat deadly weapons. In 1918 when Congress sent the proposed 21st amendment out to the states to ban alcohol nationwide many experts predicted it would not get adopted by enough states for many years, in fact it happened in months.
The NRA and the gun lobby will not like this solution so will oppose it, but most Americans will recognize it as a fair minded solution.
The sentence about the commerce clause is to limit the ability of those with an interest in selling lots of guns to use the courts to limit a State's right to control deadly weapons.
The resolution of our national disagreement over the second amendment should not be driven by all or nothing partisans on the two opposing sides. The sensible middle must take the lead.
We can make the problem go away with a Constitutional amendment that lets each State control deadly weapons within their state. Gun possession is a uniquely local concern. Everyone has a legitimate interest in whether angry, careless or mentally unstable people in the geographic area where they spend their life have access to firearms and ammunition. Or whether their neighbor keeps a loaded handgun in his bedside table that could be accessible to a thief or a curious child.
On the other hand as a resident of California I have very little stake in whether people in Colorado walk around with a handgun strapped to their belt, or possess assault rifles. Or if people in Wyoming drive around with loaded rifles in a rack in their pick up, or if people in Montana manufacture their own assault weapons.
Our 50 states are vastly different in geography, population density and culture. The Federal Government should not be making gun laws applicable to every state, each state should be setting their own rules.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The second amendment was written when we were 13 sparsely populated colonies on the eastern seaboard still engaged in periodic conflict with other colonial powers and native populations on the northern, western and southern borders of the country. It does not make sense today. State Militias, citizens keeping weapons in their home so they could respond to danger to the community, effectively no longer exist. Instead every state has a National Guard and multiple highly trained and armed law enforcement agencies, many with SWAT teams.
A revised second amendment could read:
"Control of deadly weapons being a uniquely local concern, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by the Federal Government. The right of the States to control deadly weapons shall not be limited by the commerce clause.
Some will argue they still need their weapons to protect themselves from an over-reaching State government. But the ability of the State to deprive citizens of their rights as citizens will be limited by the Federal Constitution and Federal courts.
This should be an eminently politically feasible amendment based on current polls that show overwhelming support for gun control. Instead of a Red State / Blue State battle to impose nationwide rules, each states voters could determine the status of firearms in their state, or could let each county or city within the state decide for themselves how they wanted to treat deadly weapons. In 1918 when Congress sent the proposed 21st amendment out to the states to ban alcohol nationwide many experts predicted it would not get adopted by enough states for many years, in fact it happened in months.
The NRA and the gun lobby will not like this solution so will oppose it, but most Americans will recognize it as a fair minded solution.
The sentence about the commerce clause is to limit the ability of those with an interest in selling lots of guns to use the courts to limit a State's right to control deadly weapons.
The resolution of our national disagreement over the second amendment should not be driven by all or nothing partisans on the two opposing sides. The sensible middle must take the lead.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Gun Control - September 4, 2019
One of the lead stories was the latest in the regular string of bombings of weddings and other public events by the Taliban in Afghanistan. I thought to myself, as I have for most of my life when I hear about violence in the "backwards" parts of the world, how blessed we are to live in a country where folks rarely go around killing people for no apparent reason, or to make a political statement.
But almost the next story covered the shooting in Odessa Texas. It was like having a bucket of ice water dumped on my head as I realized we are becoming Afghanistan. We may have had more crazy or politically motivated mass murder events this summer than Afghanistan.
Deep down I always had a little bit of a feeling it could never happen to here because our dominant religions are rooted in the teachings of Jesus. Yet the proliferation of mass murder events are a direct result of the most noisily Christian folk in this country supporting, or tolerating, the Gun Lobby dictating policies to Republicans for 40 years.
In their zeal to have a veto power over women's reproductive decisions they have sought appointment of conservative Supreme Court justices. Those justices have twisted the words of the second amendment to the point their decisions preclude the state from stopping angry or crazy or politically unstable people from walking into stores, or churches or other public places with assault weapons and opening fire.
Not a legacy Jesus would be happy with.
But almost the next story covered the shooting in Odessa Texas. It was like having a bucket of ice water dumped on my head as I realized we are becoming Afghanistan. We may have had more crazy or politically motivated mass murder events this summer than Afghanistan.
Deep down I always had a little bit of a feeling it could never happen to here because our dominant religions are rooted in the teachings of Jesus. Yet the proliferation of mass murder events are a direct result of the most noisily Christian folk in this country supporting, or tolerating, the Gun Lobby dictating policies to Republicans for 40 years.
In their zeal to have a veto power over women's reproductive decisions they have sought appointment of conservative Supreme Court justices. Those justices have twisted the words of the second amendment to the point their decisions preclude the state from stopping angry or crazy or politically unstable people from walking into stores, or churches or other public places with assault weapons and opening fire.
Not a legacy Jesus would be happy with.
Friday, July 5, 2019
Proud to be an American?
The fourth of July always includes lots of speeches about being proud to be an American. It bothers me. To me we should be grateful to be citizens of the United States, not proud.
Pride is about feeling special. If you achieve something that others have not achieved a bit of pride is a natural, and justified, response, but should not be indulged. It ultimately is about boosting your own ego. But it is a fine balance between boosting your ego enough to maintain your self esteem and leaning on pride to give you false confidence.
We all have heard the old saying "Pride Goes before a fall", a bit of wisdom from ancient ancestors. The biblical verse Proverbs 16-18 says "pride goes before destruction and haughtiness before a fall." Ancient wisdom recognized pride easily slides into a negative emotion, leading to unwise decision making.
So why would those of us born in this country seek to take pride about our birthright? We had nothing to do with arranging to be born in this country.
Perhaps a Veteran, particularly a Veteran who served in a war zone is entitled to a little of pride. But often the people who are most vocal about being proud to be an American seem to be politicians born in this country who did not serve in the military. Our last four Presidents did not serve in the military, three of them planned carefully to avoid the inconvenience of military service back when there was a military draft.
Gratitude is humble. In my experience humble people make far better life decisions than proud people. Gratitude for having the privilege of living in this country seems a far more positive emotion.
Pride is about feeling special. If you achieve something that others have not achieved a bit of pride is a natural, and justified, response, but should not be indulged. It ultimately is about boosting your own ego. But it is a fine balance between boosting your ego enough to maintain your self esteem and leaning on pride to give you false confidence.
We all have heard the old saying "Pride Goes before a fall", a bit of wisdom from ancient ancestors. The biblical verse Proverbs 16-18 says "pride goes before destruction and haughtiness before a fall." Ancient wisdom recognized pride easily slides into a negative emotion, leading to unwise decision making.
So why would those of us born in this country seek to take pride about our birthright? We had nothing to do with arranging to be born in this country.
Perhaps a Veteran, particularly a Veteran who served in a war zone is entitled to a little of pride. But often the people who are most vocal about being proud to be an American seem to be politicians born in this country who did not serve in the military. Our last four Presidents did not serve in the military, three of them planned carefully to avoid the inconvenience of military service back when there was a military draft.
Gratitude is humble. In my experience humble people make far better life decisions than proud people. Gratitude for having the privilege of living in this country seems a far more positive emotion.
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
What's a "Good Economy" Mean?
Our President and the Republican pundit world are promoting the idea we have a great economy. Oddly, although Democrats grump about specific issues related to the economy they don't directly challenge the notion we have a "great economy".
Let's apply a little common sense to test the state of our economy.
Is it a great economy when our national debt is increasing twice as fast as our economy is growing?
According to the Treasury Department the National debt increased by 2 Trillion dollars in the first two years of the Trump administration, as a percentage of GDP an increase of 10%. Total GDP growth for the Trump years equals 4.5% of GDP. So the National debt has grown more than twice as fast as GDP during the Trump years. Looked at from another perspective the Trump administration borrowed 2 Trillion to hand out tax cuts to benefit mostly rich folks which increased GDP by a little less than 1 Trillion.
The unemployment rate isn't low because we have been engaging in wise economic policies, its low because a lot of people left the job market. Baby boomers near retirement age who got laid off when the Great Recession hit retired or became unemployable due to age and health. Probably part of the reason the Great Recession did not turn into a Great Depression is because many of those people were old enough to turn to retirement accounts or Social Security after their unemployment insurance payments ran out, so the consumer base of the economy did not collapse.
Wages have stagnated for nearly 40 years. Economists have hailed modest rises in wages in the last couple years as a sign the free market is working and we are on our way back. But they ignore the fact that much of the rise in wage growth is probably related to governments in the biggest commercial States and cities nearly doubling the minimum wage in their jurisdictions.
Let's apply a little common sense to test the state of our economy.
Is it a great economy when our national debt is increasing twice as fast as our economy is growing?
According to the Treasury Department the National debt increased by 2 Trillion dollars in the first two years of the Trump administration, as a percentage of GDP an increase of 10%. Total GDP growth for the Trump years equals 4.5% of GDP. So the National debt has grown more than twice as fast as GDP during the Trump years. Looked at from another perspective the Trump administration borrowed 2 Trillion to hand out tax cuts to benefit mostly rich folks which increased GDP by a little less than 1 Trillion.
Is it a great economy when nearly fewer people, as a percentage of the population, are employed than were employed before the Great Recession? The administration and many economists and pundits tout statistics about job growth and low unemployment as proving we have a "great economy". A closer look shows the statistics are misleading.
If you google the wikipedia article on Job Growth by President, which compares job growth by month since 1976 job growth during the Trump administration to date has been modest when compared to job growth in other years since 1976.
We have an unemployment rate down pretty low, around 4%. But 4% of what? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see the link below) in late 2006 about 63.5% of the population was working. Today that figure is below 60%.
We have an unemployment rate down pretty low, around 4%. But 4% of what? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see the link below) in late 2006 about 63.5% of the population was working. Today that figure is below 60%.
The unemployment rate isn't low because we have been engaging in wise economic policies, its low because a lot of people left the job market. Baby boomers near retirement age who got laid off when the Great Recession hit retired or became unemployable due to age and health. Probably part of the reason the Great Recession did not turn into a Great Depression is because many of those people were old enough to turn to retirement accounts or Social Security after their unemployment insurance payments ran out, so the consumer base of the economy did not collapse.
Wages have stagnated for nearly 40 years. Economists have hailed modest rises in wages in the last couple years as a sign the free market is working and we are on our way back. But they ignore the fact that much of the rise in wage growth is probably related to governments in the biggest commercial States and cities nearly doubling the minimum wage in their jurisdictions.
The low unemployment numbers are not a sign of a strong economy, it is a function of a lack of workers, further aggravated by the Trump administration immigrant policies that have chased folks out of the country.
Is it a great economy when homelessness and poverty has increased? After the Great Recession homelessness declined each year - until President Trump took office. Since 2016 the number of homeless people has gone up. Beyond official statistics it appears to me that the homelessness figures are the tip of the iceberg. Here in California I see many people living in poverty. Living in decrepit old trailers or motorhomes parked wherever they can find a place to land. They can't afford an apartment or a house but they aren't technically homeless.
Sunday, May 26, 2019
Thinking About Abortion - Postscript
The thought of an abortion has always been emotionally upsetting to me. But so is seeing a cat pounce on a baby bird that has fallen from the nest. So is the image on a nature program of a polar bear trapping a baby seal on the ice before the seal can make it back to the water. So is the idea of a Coyote catching a baby bunny. Death is an unpleasant reality, and is particularly disturbing when it cuts short a life just beginning.
In my life I have rescued baby birds who have fallen out of the nest - it made me feel better for a moment but then what? Have I accomplished anything other than frustrating a cat and making myself feel better? Am I willing to take responsibility for that baby bird? Or capable of not botching the job? It has taught me to have a certain humility about indulging my emotional desire to defeat death.
To me God gave us free will to follow our emotional inclinations, even if that means making mistakes. The gift of being allowed to learn from our mistakes has led us to a world of unprecedented abundance and growing worldwide freedom. The genius of Jesus is about humility - about not trying to change the rest of the world, but focusing on how we behave. Focusing on treating others as I would like to be treated. To me that means I need to exercise a little humility when I do not like another person's life choices - to be cautious about trying to force others to behave in a manner that that would make me more emotionally comfortable.
In responding to one of the comments to an earlier blog in this series I suggested one of the keys to what Jesus taught was the distinction between man's law and god's law. That was a revolutionary idea at that time - an idea later incorporated into the DNA of the United States in our Constitution. Man's law covers behaviors we engage in that directly impact other persons. We make agreements about the limits of our conduct to protect our individual freedom from the actions of others. So we punish assault, murder, robbery, theft etc.
But when we extend that protection to a fetus and ban abortion we are not creating rules to protect ourselves from the behavior of our neighbors so we can live free. A woman having an abortion has no direct impact on the life of any family member, friend, neighbor or stranger. To me, exercising the humility inherent in the golden rule means we accept that she answers to God for that decision, not man.
The genius of the United States is linking the separation of church and state with a commitment to individual freedom. Both values are undermined by banning abortion.
Saturday, May 25, 2019
Thinking about Abortion - Part 5 - Abortion, Politics and Economics
This blog series was inspired by the news Alabama just enacted a law that would prohibit abortion almost completely.
It is not surprising this comes from Alabama, or that other southern states are competing to see who can be the toughest on abortion. For many generations the Christian south had no problem going home from Church to live comfortably off the slaves they bought and sold like cattle. They were so outraged when the North wanted to free their slaves they precipitated a bitter civil war with enormous casualties. They lost the war but when the Federal government lost interest in monitoring their behavior, they replaced slavery with segregation, reincarnating the institutional subjugation of a people because of their race. Eventually segregation also got struck down by the Federal Government.
They can't seem to give up their self righteous belief they are entitled to judge and control the behavior of others. They went after Gays for awhile, and caused a lot of pain to a lot of people. Eventually they lost traction as the vast majority of Americans realized gays were people and the freedom we celebrate is fundamentally about letting folks make their own choices in life.
In this year besides Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky have passed or are near passing bills sharply limiting the right to abortion. Arkansas and Utah have passed bills somewhat limiting the right to abortion.
The six most stringent laws limit abortion almost from (or sometimes before) the moment the women knows she is pregnant. Those six states are , Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio.
Is it a coincidence that every one of those 6 states whose legislatures are busy passing bills limiting abortion are among the poorest states when measured by per capita income? The average per capita income in the United States comes in at about $47,000 per year. These 9 states average income ranges from $39,000 (Alabama) to $43,000 (Ohio).
21 States have set Abortion standards that are significantly below the current law that hinges on when a Fetus is viable. 15 of the 21 have incomes below the National average.
Those 21 states include 8 of the 10 most dangerous states to live in, according to Wallethub.com, a website that figures out which states are the safest places to live.
Of the 6 states with the most restrictive laws all are in the bottom 20 of the list of safe states to live in except Ohio who is 21st from the bottom
It is hard to escape the conclusion rich folks in those states don't want people thinking about what a lousy job their government does about providing decent wages, or better schools, or early childhood education - so they spend a lot of money whipping up a frenzy about evil women getting abortions.
Friday, May 24, 2019
Thinking About Abortion- Part 4 - The Ethics of Abortion
Why would a woman would want to terminate a pregnancy?
I think it is safe to assume it is not a spur of the moment decision. Some fear is at work. It might be fear of shame. Ironically shaming is a form of coercion that often grows out of some of the same institutional religions that seek to ban abortion.
The fear may often be fear of the responsibility. Maybe the woman is having a hard time supporting herself, and does not have parents or a partner she can rely on. How will she support a child. What will another mouth, and childcare responsibilities do to her life?
Even in those cases where the abortion is simply about not being tied down by a child - what kind of life can a child born to a mother who doesn't want the child expect? How much greater is the risk forcing women to bear the child will doom that child to a life of neglect, or poverty, or drugs, or gangs? Was it just a coincidence that a generation after abortion restrictions were struck down in 1972 crime rates starting dropping?
It is understandable for a Christian motivated by the teachings of Jesus to be distressed by a woman wanting an abortion. But don't Jesus's teachings suggest the response should be about alleviating the concerns that would cause a woman to not want the child, so the woman would choose to be a mother?
The real irony is that politicians seeking to prohibit abortion are almost always hostile to social programs that might help a woman avoid pregnancy in the first place, or make a woman more comfortable with taking on the responsibility of a child. That hostility is often linked to cutting taxes. As the anti abortion movement has developed momentum in the last couple decades we have seen a simultaneous reduction in social programs aimed at assisting those with financial or emotional difficulties - to fund tax cuts. Doesn't sound like Jesus to me.
A justification for cutting government programs often offered is that religious organizations do it better than government - i.e government is incompetent. But since the 1980's when that justification became dominant, institutional religious have generally not exhibited the capability or willingness to undertake the financial obligations required.
Further, help from institutional religion almost always comes with strings attached. You buy into their view of the world or you don't get help. In essence the religions pre-judge sins and help only those whom they deem will not sin, and cast others out. More coercion. I never read a word from Jesus that suggests he approves of coercion.
Part 5 will look at the political economics of abortion.
I think it is safe to assume it is not a spur of the moment decision. Some fear is at work. It might be fear of shame. Ironically shaming is a form of coercion that often grows out of some of the same institutional religions that seek to ban abortion.
The fear may often be fear of the responsibility. Maybe the woman is having a hard time supporting herself, and does not have parents or a partner she can rely on. How will she support a child. What will another mouth, and childcare responsibilities do to her life?
Even in those cases where the abortion is simply about not being tied down by a child - what kind of life can a child born to a mother who doesn't want the child expect? How much greater is the risk forcing women to bear the child will doom that child to a life of neglect, or poverty, or drugs, or gangs? Was it just a coincidence that a generation after abortion restrictions were struck down in 1972 crime rates starting dropping?
It is understandable for a Christian motivated by the teachings of Jesus to be distressed by a woman wanting an abortion. But don't Jesus's teachings suggest the response should be about alleviating the concerns that would cause a woman to not want the child, so the woman would choose to be a mother?
The real irony is that politicians seeking to prohibit abortion are almost always hostile to social programs that might help a woman avoid pregnancy in the first place, or make a woman more comfortable with taking on the responsibility of a child. That hostility is often linked to cutting taxes. As the anti abortion movement has developed momentum in the last couple decades we have seen a simultaneous reduction in social programs aimed at assisting those with financial or emotional difficulties - to fund tax cuts. Doesn't sound like Jesus to me.
A justification for cutting government programs often offered is that religious organizations do it better than government - i.e government is incompetent. But since the 1980's when that justification became dominant, institutional religious have generally not exhibited the capability or willingness to undertake the financial obligations required.
Further, help from institutional religion almost always comes with strings attached. You buy into their view of the world or you don't get help. In essence the religions pre-judge sins and help only those whom they deem will not sin, and cast others out. More coercion. I never read a word from Jesus that suggests he approves of coercion.
Part 5 will look at the political economics of abortion.
Thursday, May 23, 2019
Thinking about Abortion - Part 3 - The Sanctity of Life
Abortion opponents rely on the idea of the Sanctity of Life to justify taking away a woman's right to control her life.
As a country we drop bombs relatively indiscriminately in order to not put our troops at risk in war, killing and injuring civilians regularly. We spend lots of money on gear so we can hunt animals for sport. We farm animals jammed together in tiny spaces, animals with more ability to experience fear and pain than a fetus, then matter-a-factly kill them and eat them. Our most popular species of pets eat meat and are unabashed about killing smaller creatures - they are carnivores after all. Sanctity of Life is not a concern in these circumstances for most Americans. We recognize death is a part of life that may often leave us with regrets but must be accepted.
Why is a fetus so special it justifies allowing government to take control of a pregnant woman's body and life to protect the fetus? Abortion opponents often answer that humans are God's special creation because we have a soul.
1. Does a fetus have a soul?
Genesis (2:7) says that God forms man and then breathes in the breath of life. This would suggest that a fetus becomes a being separate from the mother, so gains a soul, at birth. That certainly makes sense with the physical process of birth - cutting the cord is a physical act that serves as a marker in our minds.
Nonetheless abortion opponents have taken to providing legislative definitions, in the extreme case that life as a separate being with a soul begins at conception. Suppose we accept that assumption that life begins at conception and examine the questions that raises?
2. Does an aborted fetus go to Heaven? Or Hell?
Christian belief is rooted in the notions of the afterlife - live a Godly life and you go to heaven, and a life of sin (without redemption) sends you to hell.
So if a unborn fetus has a soul, and the fetus is aborted, does that soul go to heaven or hell?
How can a fetus commit sin? So would not an aborted fetus go to heaven? If God judges the abortion as a sin, isn't the sin the mother's?
So what exactly is government intervention accomplishing? Creating an opportunity for the fetus to go to hell?
Perhaps an example of why the 10 Commandments don't say "..thou shalt not let others.."?
Part 4 will look at the ethics of abortion outside the context of religion.
As a country we drop bombs relatively indiscriminately in order to not put our troops at risk in war, killing and injuring civilians regularly. We spend lots of money on gear so we can hunt animals for sport. We farm animals jammed together in tiny spaces, animals with more ability to experience fear and pain than a fetus, then matter-a-factly kill them and eat them. Our most popular species of pets eat meat and are unabashed about killing smaller creatures - they are carnivores after all. Sanctity of Life is not a concern in these circumstances for most Americans. We recognize death is a part of life that may often leave us with regrets but must be accepted.
Why is a fetus so special it justifies allowing government to take control of a pregnant woman's body and life to protect the fetus? Abortion opponents often answer that humans are God's special creation because we have a soul.
1. Does a fetus have a soul?
Genesis (2:7) says that God forms man and then breathes in the breath of life. This would suggest that a fetus becomes a being separate from the mother, so gains a soul, at birth. That certainly makes sense with the physical process of birth - cutting the cord is a physical act that serves as a marker in our minds.
Nonetheless abortion opponents have taken to providing legislative definitions, in the extreme case that life as a separate being with a soul begins at conception. Suppose we accept that assumption that life begins at conception and examine the questions that raises?
2. Does an aborted fetus go to Heaven? Or Hell?
Christian belief is rooted in the notions of the afterlife - live a Godly life and you go to heaven, and a life of sin (without redemption) sends you to hell.
So if a unborn fetus has a soul, and the fetus is aborted, does that soul go to heaven or hell?
How can a fetus commit sin? So would not an aborted fetus go to heaven? If God judges the abortion as a sin, isn't the sin the mother's?
So what exactly is government intervention accomplishing? Creating an opportunity for the fetus to go to hell?
Perhaps an example of why the 10 Commandments don't say "..thou shalt not let others.."?
Part 4 will look at the ethics of abortion outside the context of religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)