Here is a simple question that I find useful in evaluating the political rhetoric coming out of Washington.
What is the root of our current economic problems:
1. Are there not enough products or services for people to buy?
Or
2. Is there not enough money in peoples pockets to buy products?
Each time some politician floats some notion about how to "create jobs and get our economy going" you should ask which (if either) of these two problems that solution will address.
For example -
1. Cutting Corporate taxes - Relevant data - American Corporations have been making record profits the last couple years and are sitting on big piles of money. Will giving them another tax cut cause them to suddenly start hiring? Is it possible the reason they aren't hiring is because they know there aren't enough consumers to buy more products?
2. Cutting the deficit by cutting the size of Government - The same data as above that suggests companies aren't hiring because there aren't enough consumers with money to spend also seems to undermine any claim cutting government is going to somehow boost the economy. Common sense says what this will do for sure is take more money out of the pockets of more potential buyers - from private company employees who get laid off because the company lost a Government contract, to Government workers laid off because their agencies budget got axed. A balanced budget is a goal we should strive for, but doing it right now would be like tearing out an "extra" wall in your house in the middle of an earthquake.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Rush Limbaugh is Amazing
He was disdainful of those who objected to the 1997 changes to the Capital Gains tax that turned the housing market in a casino for speculators and helped bring down the economy within a decade.
He dismissed those who opposed the repeal of Garn-St Germain, the banking law enacted after the 1929 stock market crash to keep banks from mixing their banking functions with their investing function. Within a decade taxpayers were laying out hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks whose stupid investments had undermined their ability to function as banks.
He riduculed the people who suggested that invading Iraq might not be a good idea.
He was a big cheerleader for the Bush era tax cuts that played a big part in our current deficit and continued the ongoing process of lining rich peoples pockets with money that otherwise would have reduced the government debt.
Rush has consistently been on the wrong side of every major policy decision in the last twenty years, and he still has millions of devoted followers. He is an amazing entertainer.
He dismissed those who opposed the repeal of Garn-St Germain, the banking law enacted after the 1929 stock market crash to keep banks from mixing their banking functions with their investing function. Within a decade taxpayers were laying out hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks whose stupid investments had undermined their ability to function as banks.
He riduculed the people who suggested that invading Iraq might not be a good idea.
He was a big cheerleader for the Bush era tax cuts that played a big part in our current deficit and continued the ongoing process of lining rich peoples pockets with money that otherwise would have reduced the government debt.
Rush has consistently been on the wrong side of every major policy decision in the last twenty years, and he still has millions of devoted followers. He is an amazing entertainer.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Nature v. Nurture
My entire adult life all of social and biological science has been engaged in the dispute that either DNA or Socialization can explain everything about human behavior. The biologists can explain a lot at one end of the spectrum with DNA. The Social Sciences can explain a lot at the other end of the spectrum with learned experience. But for all of my life it has been equally apparent that neither, nor both, explanations can begin to account for the richness and diversity of humanity.
It drives me crazy. The data is out there to fill in the gap between nature and nurture, and, to me, has been for years, decades in some cases.
When I was in college nearly 40 years ago I learned that our brain has lots of different systems for processing data that all overlap in the mass of wiring in our head. Different systems use different chemicals (nuerotransmitters) to differentiate their communications from the overlapping systems communications. At that time people had known for decades the many of these neurotransmitters were cyclical. Some would be more prevalent in the spring or fall, whereas others might be more prevalent in the summer and the winter. Some of the cycles were complementary, other of the cycles seem unconnected to other cycles. For some neurotransmitters there are daily and yearly cycles, for others there are monthly and yearly cycles.
Being a non-scientist I was free to leap to the conclusion this sounded like astrology to me. The fluctuations of these chemicals in the first year of developing life would be different for every person, as we would all start from a slightly different mix than anyone else. I wasn't the only one to see this intriguing connection. In the early 1980's a researcher reporting on a study at the National Institute of Health on nuerotransmitter cycles was quoted as saying something like ...this sort of sounds like astrology - isn't that amusing, we aren't of course taking that seriously - I knew at the time he couldn't say there might actually be some core truth to astrology because that would have ended his career.
40 years later DNA or learned experience are still the only options on the table for explaining personality for the social and hard sciences. This despite the fact biologists have discovered that women born in the spring reach menopause well before women born in the fall. Recent studies have found humans exhibit three different mixes of bacteria that live in our gut, the variation between people doesn't seem to be related to DNA, upbringing or life style. Your blood type can't really be explained with DNA, upbringing or lifestyle.
Business has not been so timid. Auto insurers have done studies and discovered that Gemini's are the worst drivers, Capricorns the best. A fact that was floated out into the media land then disappeared.
I'ts unfortunate that science has ceded astrology to commerce. Astrology predated modern science by hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Commerce in astrology by folks quite willing to go far beyond what traditional astrology is capable of doing was established long before science came on the scene. The folks willing to say whatever you need to say to make the sale are still profiting in the little books in the supermarket checkout line, the blurbs about your daily horoscope in the newspaper, even the charts done by professional astrologers. If science could get beyond its disdain for rampant commercial hucksterism the underlying body of observational data could be a road map toward research delineating how variations in nuerotransmitter cycles impact our development and personality.
It drives me crazy. The data is out there to fill in the gap between nature and nurture, and, to me, has been for years, decades in some cases.
When I was in college nearly 40 years ago I learned that our brain has lots of different systems for processing data that all overlap in the mass of wiring in our head. Different systems use different chemicals (nuerotransmitters) to differentiate their communications from the overlapping systems communications. At that time people had known for decades the many of these neurotransmitters were cyclical. Some would be more prevalent in the spring or fall, whereas others might be more prevalent in the summer and the winter. Some of the cycles were complementary, other of the cycles seem unconnected to other cycles. For some neurotransmitters there are daily and yearly cycles, for others there are monthly and yearly cycles.
Being a non-scientist I was free to leap to the conclusion this sounded like astrology to me. The fluctuations of these chemicals in the first year of developing life would be different for every person, as we would all start from a slightly different mix than anyone else. I wasn't the only one to see this intriguing connection. In the early 1980's a researcher reporting on a study at the National Institute of Health on nuerotransmitter cycles was quoted as saying something like ...this sort of sounds like astrology - isn't that amusing, we aren't of course taking that seriously - I knew at the time he couldn't say there might actually be some core truth to astrology because that would have ended his career.
40 years later DNA or learned experience are still the only options on the table for explaining personality for the social and hard sciences. This despite the fact biologists have discovered that women born in the spring reach menopause well before women born in the fall. Recent studies have found humans exhibit three different mixes of bacteria that live in our gut, the variation between people doesn't seem to be related to DNA, upbringing or life style. Your blood type can't really be explained with DNA, upbringing or lifestyle.
Business has not been so timid. Auto insurers have done studies and discovered that Gemini's are the worst drivers, Capricorns the best. A fact that was floated out into the media land then disappeared.
I'ts unfortunate that science has ceded astrology to commerce. Astrology predated modern science by hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Commerce in astrology by folks quite willing to go far beyond what traditional astrology is capable of doing was established long before science came on the scene. The folks willing to say whatever you need to say to make the sale are still profiting in the little books in the supermarket checkout line, the blurbs about your daily horoscope in the newspaper, even the charts done by professional astrologers. If science could get beyond its disdain for rampant commercial hucksterism the underlying body of observational data could be a road map toward research delineating how variations in nuerotransmitter cycles impact our development and personality.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Red State / Blue State - The odd case of biting the hand that feeds you
I have previously alluded to the curious fact that Republicans, who are seeking to cut government spending get their greatest support in States who actually receive more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in taxes, while the Democrats who defend government spending generally represent the states that pay more than the get back.
A September 11 opinion piece by Robert Reich broke it down into detail, using statistics from the Tax Foundation. Mr. Reich did not specify which figures from the Tax Foundation he used but it appears he used the figures from 2005, the most recent data they have (see link to the study itself below).
Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, Alaska and Mississippi all get more than $1.50 back from the Government for every dollar they pay in taxes. The top beneficiary is Mississippi at $2.02 back for every dollar of taxes spent, followed closely by Alaska at $1.84 back per $1 paid. Pretty good return on investment I would say.
Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming and Kansas all get back between $1.10 and $1.50 per $1 paid.
The Red State exception is Texas who get only $.94 back for every dollar paid.
The largest Blue States on the other hand, are footing most of the bill. Californians get back 78 cents for every $1 paid. New York 79 cents, Massachusetts 82 cents and Oregon 92 cents.
Here is the link to the actual compiled data by State for the period from 1961 to 2005 (they say they are compiling more current data) http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
A September 11 opinion piece by Robert Reich broke it down into detail, using statistics from the Tax Foundation. Mr. Reich did not specify which figures from the Tax Foundation he used but it appears he used the figures from 2005, the most recent data they have (see link to the study itself below).
Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, Alaska and Mississippi all get more than $1.50 back from the Government for every dollar they pay in taxes. The top beneficiary is Mississippi at $2.02 back for every dollar of taxes spent, followed closely by Alaska at $1.84 back per $1 paid. Pretty good return on investment I would say.
Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming and Kansas all get back between $1.10 and $1.50 per $1 paid.
The Red State exception is Texas who get only $.94 back for every dollar paid.
The largest Blue States on the other hand, are footing most of the bill. Californians get back 78 cents for every $1 paid. New York 79 cents, Massachusetts 82 cents and Oregon 92 cents.
Here is the link to the actual compiled data by State for the period from 1961 to 2005 (they say they are compiling more current data) http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
Monday, September 12, 2011
A balanced budget amendment
Republicans in the House have been arguing for a balanced budget amendment. I believe this is a good idea and merits serious attention.
It is a simple truth about democracy that it is politically difficult to impose taxes and politically easy to spend money. We the voters pretty much all dislike paying taxes and we all like getting things from the government. History demonstrates the universality of the result from that basic truth. Democratic Governments around the world are saddled with pension and debt obligations they can no longer hide behind accounting tricks and rosy economic forecasts.
This is not a good time for the US to start trying to immediately balance its budget. In our current economic condition it would cause further economic weakness and higher unemployment. But it is an opportunity to begin the long process of having States adopt a balanced budget amendment that would take effect in the future. For example the amendment could be worded so it would not take effect until the US economy hit some specified targets in unemployment and GDP growth.
What else might we want in a balanced budget amendment package?
How about requiring Congress to index tax rates so they can't use inflation and the subsequent bracket creep to impose stealth taxes? In the same way benefits should be indexed to whatever assumptions they are based on. For example the life expectancy data that Social Security is based on should adjust automatically as our data about life expectancy changes.
How about we require Congress enact any appropriation, tax credit or other monetary benefit be enacted in a separate bill from substantive law provisions, and provide an item veto for the President to give voters one person to hold accountable for nonsensical earmarks? Congress currently passes thousands of little perks and tax cuts every year that almost nobody knows about until after the fact because they are buried in huge bills that are hundreds, or thousands of pages long.
I know that some argue a balanced budget amendment is unnecessary, that Congress could/should create rules to impose the necessary discipline on the process. But the historical reality is Congress won't. In the last thirty years the only time having a balanced budget became an important political issue is when Republicans are out of power and have used the issue to bully the Democrats into paying attention to the deficit. But the biggest deficits have been generated by the Republicans when they have taken over the Congressional agenda. All the rules the Republicans and Democrats imposed in the early 1990's that led to balanced budgets in the late 1990's have been repealed, sidestepped or ignored from 2002 to the present.
A balanced budget amendment would remove the issue from political football status. It would limit the ability of both Republicans and Democrats to buy votes ( - ooops, I mean "serve their constituents") by spending government money now and forcing voters of the future to deal with the paying the bill.
It is a simple truth about democracy that it is politically difficult to impose taxes and politically easy to spend money. We the voters pretty much all dislike paying taxes and we all like getting things from the government. History demonstrates the universality of the result from that basic truth. Democratic Governments around the world are saddled with pension and debt obligations they can no longer hide behind accounting tricks and rosy economic forecasts.
What else might we want in a balanced budget amendment package?
How about requiring Congress to index tax rates so they can't use inflation and the subsequent bracket creep to impose stealth taxes? In the same way benefits should be indexed to whatever assumptions they are based on. For example the life expectancy data that Social Security is based on should adjust automatically as our data about life expectancy changes.
How about we require Congress enact any appropriation, tax credit or other monetary benefit be enacted in a separate bill from substantive law provisions, and provide an item veto for the President to give voters one person to hold accountable for nonsensical earmarks? Congress currently passes thousands of little perks and tax cuts every year that almost nobody knows about until after the fact because they are buried in huge bills that are hundreds, or thousands of pages long.
I know that some argue a balanced budget amendment is unnecessary, that Congress could/should create rules to impose the necessary discipline on the process. But the historical reality is Congress won't. In the last thirty years the only time having a balanced budget became an important political issue is when Republicans are out of power and have used the issue to bully the Democrats into paying attention to the deficit. But the biggest deficits have been generated by the Republicans when they have taken over the Congressional agenda. All the rules the Republicans and Democrats imposed in the early 1990's that led to balanced budgets in the late 1990's have been repealed, sidestepped or ignored from 2002 to the present.
A balanced budget amendment would remove the issue from political football status. It would limit the ability of both Republicans and Democrats to buy votes ( - ooops, I mean "serve their constituents") by spending government money now and forcing voters of the future to deal with the paying the bill.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
"Friends" and "Others"
Brain research is revealing that we have have two different parts of our brain that we use to make decisions about people. People that are "friends" we treat as individuals, we keep a little file on them in our head with identifying characteristics and decide how it is appropriate to interact with them based on that information specific to them and we may be predisposed to trust them.
But the part of our brain that has this capability can only handle about 150 or so "friend" files. But we all, particularly in modern life, regularly encounter hundreds of people. To make decisions about how to interact with these other people we have another part of our brain were we deal with "others". The others catagory looks for distinguishing characteristics through which it can lump people together and draw conclusions about them. We may sort by color, ethnicity, religion, where they are from. The varieties are endless - black, white, Asian, Nordic, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Republican, Democrat, New Yorker, Texan, Mexican - or even Giants fan.
Brain research is also discovering that we cannot make decisions without a preference by our emotions. We couldn't buy underwear - we would stand at a department store frozen with indecision for days - in the absence of some emotional decision (I like black, or I like red, or - for me personally, the emotional decision that I don't care - it doesn't matter).
Historically the reason we have have a separate part of the brain for "other" categories is to create a link to our emotions to allow us to make a quick decision about someone or something. Through much of human history the unknown could be dangerous or deadly. Those who stood around contemplating how to react to an unknown could end up dead. So we create categories - if we can categorize we have a basis for reacting quickly. Then we build knowledge about the category. And if we have no category knowledge we are predisposed to be suspicious or cautious.
The science isn't there yet to confirm (to my knowledge) but I suspect one of the differences between the "friends" and "others" is the biochemistry and structural organization of our brains makes the "friends" area of the brain inclined more toward trust and cooperation and the "others" inclined more toward caution or suspicion.
Have you ever wondered how ordinary humans, with the same brain you have, can commit genocide? How could the people of Germany have stood by and often helped in the extermination of the jews? Or the people in Rwanda who slaughtered their neighbors because they were from a different tribe?
It appears the roots of genocide, and many other combative behaviors are found in this quirk in our brain organization. Angry people pick a category to direct their anger at - and if the conditions are right they can use emotionally charged language to manipulate large populations perceptions to dehumanize a category. In Rwanda, from what I have read, radio commentators played a big part in fueling the genocide with gossip and outright lies.
We are not immune in the United States. Timothy McVie, the Oklahoma City bomber was an angry guy who became obsessed with destroying evil as his brain categories saw it. Much of modern media is angry people railing against some category of "other" people. In its worst manifestations an other category designation can trump the friends category. Some sports fans will beat the daylights out of some other sports fan because he is wearing the wrong team colors.
If people understand the roots of our emotional tendency to create "others" categories for convenience will they strive to use the categories appropriately? Will it inoculate us a little bit from people who want to use other people for scapegoats or to forward their personal ambitions?
I don't know, but its worth a try. Spread the word.
But the part of our brain that has this capability can only handle about 150 or so "friend" files. But we all, particularly in modern life, regularly encounter hundreds of people. To make decisions about how to interact with these other people we have another part of our brain were we deal with "others". The others catagory looks for distinguishing characteristics through which it can lump people together and draw conclusions about them. We may sort by color, ethnicity, religion, where they are from. The varieties are endless - black, white, Asian, Nordic, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Republican, Democrat, New Yorker, Texan, Mexican - or even Giants fan.
Brain research is also discovering that we cannot make decisions without a preference by our emotions. We couldn't buy underwear - we would stand at a department store frozen with indecision for days - in the absence of some emotional decision (I like black, or I like red, or - for me personally, the emotional decision that I don't care - it doesn't matter).
Historically the reason we have have a separate part of the brain for "other" categories is to create a link to our emotions to allow us to make a quick decision about someone or something. Through much of human history the unknown could be dangerous or deadly. Those who stood around contemplating how to react to an unknown could end up dead. So we create categories - if we can categorize we have a basis for reacting quickly. Then we build knowledge about the category. And if we have no category knowledge we are predisposed to be suspicious or cautious.
The science isn't there yet to confirm (to my knowledge) but I suspect one of the differences between the "friends" and "others" is the biochemistry and structural organization of our brains makes the "friends" area of the brain inclined more toward trust and cooperation and the "others" inclined more toward caution or suspicion.
Have you ever wondered how ordinary humans, with the same brain you have, can commit genocide? How could the people of Germany have stood by and often helped in the extermination of the jews? Or the people in Rwanda who slaughtered their neighbors because they were from a different tribe?
It appears the roots of genocide, and many other combative behaviors are found in this quirk in our brain organization. Angry people pick a category to direct their anger at - and if the conditions are right they can use emotionally charged language to manipulate large populations perceptions to dehumanize a category. In Rwanda, from what I have read, radio commentators played a big part in fueling the genocide with gossip and outright lies.
We are not immune in the United States. Timothy McVie, the Oklahoma City bomber was an angry guy who became obsessed with destroying evil as his brain categories saw it. Much of modern media is angry people railing against some category of "other" people. In its worst manifestations an other category designation can trump the friends category. Some sports fans will beat the daylights out of some other sports fan because he is wearing the wrong team colors.
If people understand the roots of our emotional tendency to create "others" categories for convenience will they strive to use the categories appropriately? Will it inoculate us a little bit from people who want to use other people for scapegoats or to forward their personal ambitions?
I don't know, but its worth a try. Spread the word.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
America's Socialized Medicine system
One wouldn't know it from the health care debate last year but the United States has had a huge government run and payed for health system for decades. The Veterans Administration Hospitals are the largest single hospital system in the United States. According to a Fortune magazine article (May 11, 2006) the VA provides some of the best quality care in the United States at a cost of about $5000 per patient, whereas the private system the rest of us deal with costs about $6300 per patient per year. So our wonderful "free market" medical care system is about 20% more expensive than the government financed and run bureaucracy and the bureaucracy also provides top quality care.
Remind me again why we "solved" the problem of people without health insurance with "mandates" that people buy private health insurance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)