A Conservative myth you really need to stop believing--and why

Conservatives argue that lower taxes for everyone--and, of course, esp. for big businesses--benefit all of us. It's called Trickle Down Economics, and the general argument says that when corporations make profits, they will invest those profits, create more jobs, hire more people, etc., etc. It sounds rational, but if you look at just 3 things, you will see that the historical evidence demonstrates just the opposite . From 1950 to the present, as capital gains and corporate tax rates declined, so too did the health of the American economy. The evidence is really pretty indisputable--and before anyone starts yelling, "but correlation isn't causation," you need to (a) carefully read the article published at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/correlation_does_not_imply_causation_how_the_internet_fell_in_love_with_a_stats_class_clich_.html ; and (b) read the argument that follows the presentation of the evidence.

Between the two graphs, we see three things with a common trend line (that is, if you drew a line through each graph, the trend over time would be the same: a decrease from roughly 1970 to the present). So we can see that as capital gains taxes and effective corporate tax rates declined, so too did the state of the American economy. In fact, the conclusion of the author who created the first graph is that there is simply no evidence to support the assertion that low capital gains taxes correlate in any way to higher economic growth, nor do higher capital gains taxes correlate in any way to lower economic growth. What his evidence does show is that higher capital gains taxes correlate to higher economic growth, and lower capital gains taxes correlate to lower economic growth.

I'm not the first to notice or point out that Trickle Down Economics simply does not work. But too often, the argument gets bogged down into a lot of technical garbage, and the average person's eyes just gloat over. Really, we need to get back to the basics and accept that the simplest argument is usually right. In fact, anyone who has ever been in academics will know that after an initial argument/counter-argument (ok, maybe after a first round of rebuttal), the degree to which any additional tweaking of an argument or re-examination of evidence makes a difference is really, really minimal. It's fun and engaging to those trained in the language of the debate, but it is more-or-less meaningless in any real world sense. It is quibbling, to put it more bluntly. Until someone finally comes along to recast the discussion entirely, it really is just quibbling.

Let us return, then, to the two "Big Arguments" that frame American economic discussions: Trickle Down or Pump-Priming. As just demonstrated, we know that Trickle Down simply does not work: lower taxes on wealthy individuals and companies effectively depress the economy.

The real question, then, is, why? The answer lies in the behavior of wealthy individuals and corporations. To put it simply, they begin to hoard their profits. When the expectation of "safe" profits (meaning, safe from tax "losses") arises, companies use strategies that will limit the number of new employees needed by raising wages somewhat for existing workers while demanding ever more work from them ("work smarter, not harder"). They look for investment opportunities overseas, where they can get more for less--by exploiting foreign workers. They view the decrease in tax burden as a bonanza for themselves--executives, stock holders, surving employees--and hoard the profits for these groups. They have no interest in the commonweal, and they behave accordingly.

What conservatives do not tell you, then, is the ugly truth: that corporations and wealthy individuals will throw over the nation that puts its trust in them. They feel no loyalty to the country because they believe that they owe all their loyalty to themselves, to the company, to the stock holders. Under corporate law, it is actually illegal to "do the right thing," if that action would cut into profits--you can't go green unless it helps you make a buck, you can't "give back" unless it's going to make you more money in the long run. Furthermore, because the "corporate good" is defined by the bottom line on a quarterly basis, the short-term strategy trumps the long-term strategy almost every time. The idea of investing in America and Americans--because over the course of several years, that investment will pay off well--gives way to the plan to invest in China, because that plan will pay off tomorrow.

What is lost in all of this is the potential of the American economy--an economy that has proven extraordinary when it was primarily a consumer-driven economy (vs. a corporate profits economy, as it has become since the 1980s). What is lost is the distinction between "more workers" vs. "working more hours." When companies squeeze more work out of people, they increase their profits but decrease consumption by keeping a new worker out of a job. The net effect is that fewer things are needed/wanted, fewer things are purchased, fewer things need to be replaced by new items, and everything starts to slow down again.

The fact is, while self-interest drives a lot of things, it drives corporate policies in more and more myopic ways as the potential to retain profits increases. It is not unlike the way wealthier individuals may become more miserly as they become even wealthier. Perhaps this is a freak of nature. More likely, however, it is a learned behavior--one connected to another conservative myth, the primacy of the individual. When we take our nation's history out of its proper context--where the fight to protect individual rights was needed to balance out the lopsided emphasis on the common good (defined quite narrowly as the good of the State and those attached most closely to it)--we see an adoration of individualism, unfettered by the very real concerns for--and attention to--the common good, that characterized the world of our Founders. Self-interest, unleased, given no responsibility toward the Commonwealth that protects and promotes it, will and has betrayed that Commonwealth and proves undeserving of the freedom and opportunity it has been given.

So, what's a Country to do?

This is where "pump-priming" comes in--that is, fueling the conomy by redistributing wealth into more consumers' hands through tax policies. If companies will not share their wealth with the American people directly by paying better wages and hiring more people (and let's not forget that the only reason they are wealthy is because they are in America, where Americans do the work, and Americans buy the goods and services, and American tax dollars help pay for the infrastructure that allows business to go on), then they can do it indirectly--through the intervention of the government. There is simply nothing to replace the economic benefit of having well-paid Americans with suitable leisure time. We are a fun and generous people. When we have the time and money, we spend it on things we want and on those we love. We even invest some--saving for college and retirement, thus allowing companies to have or use our money too. Our individual wealth contributes to the national wealth--there is really no "downside" to having more people working, and more working in good paying jobs with reasonable hours.

Short-term self-interest is simply incompatible with long-term national interest. We need to restore the balance between the individual and the common good, and make every American citizen and every American company accept the responsibilities that have always--until modern times--been understood to co-exist with having rights. Only then will we be truly honoring the gift of freedom that our Founders endowed upon us, and only then will we begin to pay that gift forward to the generations that follow us.

The Sky hasn't fallen!

I'm just sitting here, shaking my head, wondering why people do not stop and think. The sky has NOT fallen, despite the claims of the GOP since at least the days of Reagan. The proudly-brandished lies of the great mis-leader (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/14/welfare-queen-myth-must-die/ gives a brief summary of the story of how Reagan created this particular myth) and the fears he flamed have proven . . . meaningless. Despite the decades of political sputum against the people who need the most help, despite warnings of national disintegration at the hands of feminists, minorities, "liberals," etc., we have had only one significant crisis, the Great Recession--and we all know who was responsible for that. As difficult as 9-11 was--and has been--on all Americans, it has had no where near the economic impact of the Mortgage Crisis.  (We could quibble about whether or not entering 2 wars at the same time--Afghanistan and Iraq--have a more significant impact b/c of what they have done to the national deficit, but let's not, at least not right now).

Reagan's policies, of course, led to the then-biggest crisis since the Great Depression, the economic collapse of 1987. Funny how no one seems to remember that. But then, we look at the Clinton years--and the balanced budgets of his 4 (I think; I'm too lazy to look it up again right now) final years. So then Obama inherits the Great Depression and all the deficit-expanding decisions of the Bush Administration, and people are again arguing that our tax dollars cannot support the sick, the young, the elderly, and the unemployed? I'm sorry to be crude, but where the fuck is the logic in that?

Sure, everyone--including the elderly--understands that social security can't continue at the current way it is designed; change will have to come, or we all have to agree to die younger. But that is a situation we can plan for, something most of us have some control over, if we fall (blessedly) into the middle class or above. How can anyone, however, justify taking tax dollars away from children, from their health or educational care? How can you talk about leaving people to watch their own children or parents die of treatable diseases because they are earning just enough not to qualify for healthcare?

Flying and Guns: The Common Link

The fear of flying (and I'm talking about flying as in an airplane) is irrational. People who fear flying believe that because they are not in control, the situation is out of control. Facts do not tend to sway them--desensitization does. So despite the incredibly safe record of flying as a means of transportation and the much higher risk of being involved in an accident in your own car, people somehow continue to believe that as a driver, they are safer than flying in a plane. Most people also say they are good drivers while describing most other drivers as less reliable--something like 80% say they are good and will say only about 20% of others are good. Talk about a disconnect.

Gun owners are under a similar delusion, as far as I can tell. The information is quite clear: gun owners are more likely to be involved in crime and that crime is going to involve a gun; they--or someone in their household--are more likely to be injured by a gun (something like 42 times more likely, in fact) than those who do not keep guns.

So because of these irrational fears, the rest of us are forced to live in a society that is significantly more dangerous for all of us. The proliferation of guns makes it just too easy for the bad guys to have guns. We all know that and it would be silly to dispute because no one would need to fear being the victim of a gun-related crime if the criminals didn't have access to weapons. Thanks, gun lobby. Me, my children, and everyone I love is now more at risk because of you.

I am bitter about this, because I can see the paranoia in the postings on many sites of those who are scared enough to think that they need a gun to be safe--and who then also jump to the conclusion--despite all the evidence to the contrary--that owning a gun will make them safer. They cling to this irrational belief. Each one of them is convinced, individually, that THEY will be the exception to the rule. And all the while, the people of many other countries can live without fear of being accosted by an unanswerable weapon.

So let's address the mental health issues of gun fanatics. Talk about killing two birds with one stone--increasing mental health services and reducing gun proliferation. Yes, it will take time. Yes, the proliferation of guns and ammunition will mean that until guns are rare--a rifle or shotgun at home, in the event of an intruder, and everything else removed--we may see the paranoid a bit more paranoid. But as a society, it would be a small price to pay to get the guns out of the hands of the criminals, because future generations would be so much safer.

 And if only outlaws had guns, it would be a whole lot easier for the police to identify whom to arrest. Keeping your doors and windows locked, using safe habits in public--these are enough to keep those of us who don't walk around with guns safe. All the guns in the world won't protect you if you have unsafe habits, and you know that too. You don't need a gun: you just need common sense.

Another take on gender issues

"[T]the only difference between you and I is that you think by making a man wait a "few weeks" that he will somehow be invested in a relationship."

"Most women say they know almost immediately whether or not they would sleep with someone and certainly by the first kiss. Let's assume that's true... you're in your mid 50's... you know you want to ... so why not?"

I’m not trying to attack the person who made those statements. I’m quoting him because I find these comments representative of misunderstandings and/or differences in thinking that seem to be clouding the waters in discussions about relationships between men and women of a certain age. (The French say that so much better).

Let’s take the first quote—and anyone who is a fan of Pride and Prejudice will understand where I am coming from. I do not know a single mature woman who would “hold back” because she wants to try to get the guy committed. That would be manipulative and unkind, frankly, not to mention risky (for the reason you say—men will just fake it to get what they want). Please note that I say “mature” woman, which means someone who has good self-esteem and feels confident about her ability to stand on her own two feet and does not make relationship decisions based on fear of her own inadequacy. People who are still responding to their own fears and insecurities are just not mature—and this is also not a criticism of them; it’s an observation. Maturity is the ability to think and decide rationally for one’s self, something that insecurity prevents in most young people and a fair number of older people. (My opinion based on observation, life experience, research, etc).

Now, so “why not,” then? Because actions have consequences, first and foremost. Having sex with someone based on attraction is not wrong, but it is higher risk. A rational assessment of that risk leads one to the understanding that STDs may be transmitted without any external evidence of their existence and in places not covered by condoms. A rational conclusion is that one should reduce one’s exposure to said risks.

Second, let’s consider the cost: benefit ratio from a different perspective (risk is in the “cost” column already, of course). What is the benefit of “why not?” In theory, it is a sexually satisfying experience. I’m guessing that most men would consider most sexual experiences satisfying enough if they experience orgasm, which they generally do. So from a male perspective, the cost: benefit analysis may appear rather even-some risk, almost certain benefit.

From a woman’s perspective, however, the cost: benefit ratio is quite different. From my personal experience and talking with other women (and I am open to more input on this-ha, no pun intended), the “benefit” of a sexually satisfying experience with a virtual stranger is by no means guaranteed. Many women can feel a very strong attraction to a man and also find the early sexual experiences quite unsatisfying. So the cost: benefit analysis has a very different outcome.

A mature woman making this calculation has learned, through her life experience, that most men need to be taught how to make love to her, what appeals to her, etc. The act of teaching a stranger about one’s body generally involves more emphasis on teaching than enjoying (yes, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions to the general rule), and one “lesson” is likely to involve more work than reward.

Bottom line: many women conclude that having sex with a stranger generally isn’t worth it. She needs to feel the attachment, the interest, to make it worth investing her time and energy. She’s not trying to “make” him feel attachment—that’s impossible. She is making choices for herself. Hell, for some of us, it isn’t even about needing to be “comfortable,” although for others, that is part of the equation too.

So, imagine you are the one who won’t be reaching orgasm or, in the course of getting there, will experience a lot of unpleasant sensations on some of your most sensitive body parts. Imagine that the person touching you is bigger and stronger and you do not really know anything about them, other than that they seem to be a lot of fun, seem to be stable, and you have a strong attraction to them. You are in a vulnerable position (just the two of you, but the other is stronger), you are taking a risk with your sexual health, some or much of the encounter won’t feel all that good, and chances are even you will either walk away frustrated or have to satisfy yourself in the end. That’s “why not.”

 We can satisfy ourselves without subjecting ourselves to the risk of STDs, weirdos, or unpleasant touches. If getting to know someone leads us to find they aren’t weird and they don’t have an STD I can catch, and we really like them, then we reach a point where we will take pleasure in their pleasure as we teach them, where the effort of teaching will be worth it (because we intend to see them again—we know we can’t determine if he will want to see us again).  From this perspective, I hope it is much easier to see why a lot of women think “Why would I have sex with a virtual stranger,” rather than “why not.”

Paranoia: An "Aha!" Moment

I was reading some more "government conspiracy" posts on FB and got wondering about why there is so much hysteria out there about Obama planning to take over the government. Then I remembered the "PATRIOT" Act. Of course!

In the post 9-11 days and weeks where fear drove many people to behave uncharacteristically, including giving up many of their civil liberties, many supported the PATRIOT Act, which gave the Bush White House unprecedented access to our private thoughts and even words. Now Obama's White House has access to that same information.

I guess if I were an uneducated person, I might not have anticipated that the wide-open access I gave a conservative administration would quite likely transfer to a more liberal administration. 

A Simple Solution

In this contentious time of deep partisanship, I have a proposal that will solve many of our national woes. It requires some citizens to make small sacrifices of their civil liberties, but in the interest of national unity, such a sacrifice will be considered heroic. I guarantee that my proposal will address the problems most often mentioned by the right: the large and ever-growing number of lazy Americans and the continuing murder of innocent fetuses. I promise that my proposal will satisfy the concerns of the left, by making sure that every American in need has a sufficient and reliable safety net, in keeping with the standards of human dignity. So, if you are interested in real and specific proposals that will both reduce the number of lazy Americans and the number of abortions while preserving the dignity of each American, read on.

The objective of my solution is to make sure that every single child born in America has two deeply involved and committed parents who, between them, can earn enough money to supply the child's every need. At the same time, we must be careful to protect the fertility of American women, in the event that some unforeseen disaster might require higher birth rates than we have right now.

So, we must immediately plan to follow what I call the Couvade policy. To begin, we create a national database with the DNA of every male person--infant through adult--residing in the United States. This small sacrifice of civil liberty will, of course, not be felt as burdensome by American men once they understand the purpose. And that purpose is to make sure that each and every American man can father only one child in his lifetime. The reason for this is obvious: men who can only father one child will be deeply committed to that child, providing whatever it needs to guarantee that it, too, can reach adulthood, reproduce, and pass on the family genes.

Being the thoughtful and sympathetic nation we are, we will of course provide a bank where each man can provide a sperm donation to allow him to reproduce again in the event that his infant or child dies before it has the chance to pass on those genes. But as soon as a woman's pregnancy is confirmed, the Couvade policy would kick into high gear. A DNA sample of the fetal person would be taken by amniocentesis, and the paternity of the child confirmed by matching through the National Male Database (NMD). Once confirmed, the mother would know that the father would have an overriding interest in helping nurture and support the child, so she would have no reason to want an abortion. She could carry the child to term knowing that daddy will stay home with the baby when she does not want to; that daddy will provide the money for extras; that daddy will pass up the promotion which requires travel because he knows he needs to watch out for his child, so she might take such a job. The burdens of parenthood historically borne by women could now be divided between mon and dad!

But how, you might ask, can we guarantee that each man will take his fatherhood so seriously? This is where the simple beauty of the Couvade policy becomes clear. At the time paternity is confirmed, an expectant father will undergo the Couvade Procedure. Officers of the CPA (Couvade Policy Agency) will locate the expectant father and escort him to a Couvade Clinic (funded by private insurance, which of course all Americans will have because no father will want his one and only child to be without insurance!) At the clinic, a small, unobtrusive device known as the Couvade ring, will be placed around the top of the scrotum. Tempered from a metal alloy that activates the device into a tightening spiral, the Couvade ring will, over the course of 40 weeks, gradually shrink and compress the vas deferens, (the same organ severed if a man undergoes a vasectomy). This procedure, reportedly uncomfortable but not painful, reaches its climax in a period known as the travail. This period can last anywhere from several hours to a couple of days, during which the expectant father may need support. He arrives at the clinic when pain begins and might be encouraged to walk up and down the clinic hallways to facilitate the process by increasing his body heat, thus increasing the rate at which the Couvade shrinks. At the very last, the Couvade severs the connection between the scrotum and the body, effectively terminating ability of the patient to father any more children.

We can only imagine what a happy place the future will be, when every child has exclusive access to the man who is his father! Women, of course, must be allowed to retain their fertility for obvious reasons. For one thing, a man might wish to have a specific woman father his child, and since he is the one who only gets one chance (and assuming she agrees with him), he must be allowed to choose whatever woman he wishes. So women might have more than one child. Also, in the event of some unforeseeable crisis, such as a devastating epidemic, it will be the number of fertile women surviving which determines whether or not we can rebuild our population; a relatively few men could father children and sperm banks could be opened, but the women must be able to give birth, perhaps mulitple times!

Absent such a crisis, however, we would have a society in which every child has the financial support of a parent with no other children. Abortion would disappear. Women would have no incentive; the daunting reality that an unplanned pregnancy will completely limit a woman's choices will no longer exist; daddy will always be there to make sure little Johnny or little Janie is safe and well-cared for; he will drop everything to nurse the sick child, and will willingly accept the little darling in his home if mom wants to leave hers for a night of fun and adventure! Why, mom and dad might even be--or get--married, b/c daddy will know that his child's future depends on a happy mommy, too, and he will want to be around to ensure that mommy is happy!

The heavy tax burden of social services would likewise disappear,  and yet because of the parental commitment,each child will be raised with the dignity of sufficient resources to guarantee it becomes a productive member of society. Finally, "no child left behind" will be a reality, not a fantasy. All it takes is the willingness of a part of our society to make a small sacrifice, a sacrifice which pales in comparison to the rewards it will reap. Can there be any argument? No; no one could possibly object to losing the right to control what happens to one's own body when the results are so brilliant! Join with me, today, and demand "Couvade now!"

The Myth of the Free Market

You might think that by now, EVERYONE has figured out that there is pretty much zero direct connection between hard work and financial reward.

But the Ignorance Party--which calls itself "Tea" Party but is apparently ignorant of the actual meaning of the Boston Tea Party, hence the "new" name--continues to harp on and on and on how it is their high taxes, paying for the luxurious lifestyle of those who receive Federal support, that are their only impediment to greater financial success. According to their logic, if they didn't have to pay such high taxes for slackers, the whole economy would be so much better and they, themselves, would be climbing into the ranks of the well-to-do.

This argument, however, does not stand up to historical analysis. And any philosophical or logical analysis that ignores the evidence from history does so for purely political purposes--because such arguments cannot reference history for evidence.

First, though, let us put to rest the myth that it was the free-market system of early America that accounted for our astonishing economic growth from almost the day Europeans first settled here (those guys at Jamestown actually nearly ruined it, and were literally on a boat heading home when they were rescued, and a few years later, the discovery of a marketable corp--tobacco--saved the experimental colony). What truly accounted for America's fabulous wealth and growth was the fact that it could supply natural and renewable  resources to the world at exceptionally low cost because its forests and land were virtually untouched by previous human development. The yields of crops due to fertile soils and the tsunami of lumber, for example, had nothing to do with a free-market. The producers of Europe and Asia could not compete because their soils were worn out with millenia of production and harvesting. Cheap American products filled the breadbaskets of Europe, and the spread of resources and wealth was like the Biblical flood.

The abundance of the "new" continents was so vast that it not only produced fabulously fortunes for Americans, but also for the Europeans connected by trans-Atlantic trade. A quick survey of history finds that even in societies without free-markets, merchants could gain significant wealth through the limited trade available to them (and we must consider Asia and the Middle East in this analysis, not just Europe). The difference America made was that the resources were so vast that the number of people needed to facilitate the movement of these resources grew exponentially. Merchants needed more people to help them, and those people became wealthy. The availability of marketable goods now meant that even those "new" merchants needed more help--and so on, and so on. The "rising tide" that shaped America wasn't built on free-markets--it was built on the flood of goods that provided work for so many more hands. Economic systems designed to benefit the crown and elites did not go away--they also grew wealthier. But their wealth depended on taking full advantage of the opportunities available, and that meant encouraging the growth of the middle-class. No single political economy existed--diverse types co-existed. But all grew in wealth at a rate that seemed unprecedented in history.

The folks who did not grow wealthy during this bonanza were, largely, those doing most of the physical hard work. The enslaved in America, whose labor built the biggest and most persistent fortunes, those of the landed elite in the South, did not eat better or live better for their efforts. Of course, that's no proof of the failure of the free-market. So what about the American working class? How did they benefit from the "rising tide" of the free-market?

In two words: they didn't. The life and lifestyle of an American factory worker did not improve improve because of the free-market. It took labor union, Progressive-era reformers, and the New Deal to bring the working class up to middle-class living standards. Despite the enormous wealth America generated, the hardest working people failed to benefit until they and others stood up to the myth of the free-market.

These workers worked longer hours, in unpleasant and even treacherous conditions, than others. They went home to places that were equally unpleasant and treacherous. Their exposure to disease was not addressed for their sake; it was the risk their epidemics created for everyone that made efforts to improve sewers and other systems imperative.

What people miss in touting the free-market is that it was not the free-market that gave America its greatness. By raising wages for working-class people, this deviation from free-market thinking created vast numbers of new consumers. The demand that these new consumers made for more "stuff" drove the American economy so rapidly that we emerged from the crisis of World War I as a world power.

Of course, the business-minded leaders of the 1920s felt that the Progressives and unions had led the country from its true free-market path. They undid much of the legislation that preceded the growth of the 1890s, 1900s, and 1910s. Curiously, in the 1920s, the gap between rich and poor began to widen at a rate that hadn't been seen since before the Civil War. And, not surprisingly, as companies built stuff for consumers who no longer had the money to buy it, inventories rose. Factories slowed their production. Workers were laid off. Production slowed again. And, as we all know, the economy fell into the greatest Depression it had seen before or since.

It is, of course, ahistorical to assume that America might have weathered the world-wide Depression better had our leaders not made those changes in the 1920s. But it is hard to believe that, knowing the post-war condition of most of Europe, leaders would not have figured out that demand would drop. How and why they could not foresee the compounding effect of taking money out of the hands of American consumers is simply a mystery. Perhaps they, too, were blinded by a myth repeated so oft that they began to see it as fact.