Afghanistan

 

Shelter From the Storm

I've heard newborn babies wailin' like a mournin' dove
And old men with broken teeth stranded without love
Do I understand your question, man, is it hopeless and forlorn
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm

The greatest gift we can offer is to give shelter from the storm.

The images from Afghanistan are tragic, but they are hardly surprising.  Is it any different than a domestic violence situation?  We can provide shelters and support for victims of domestic violence. But those victims need to leave the sovereignty of their home, which they may share with their abuser, and enter spaces over which the rest of society has sovereignty, standing.  If the victim refuses to leave their abusers, welcomes their abuser into their home, there is little that we can do that is proactive.  We can punish domestic violence after it has occurred, but we can only be reactive. Unfortunately we can’t know the future.  We can react to events that have happened, but we can’t react to events that have not yet happened, even if we have an abiding fear that they will happen.

Afghanistan is very similar to a domestic violence situation.  Are women, children and innocents being abused?  Can we stop this abuse? 20 years have told us that in their country, over which we have no sovereignty, we can hope that violence will not occur, we can provide an example, we can provide institutions to try and prevent the worst, but we can only lead that horse to water, we can not make him drink.

What we can do is provide relief from disasters, whether it is physical, natural, economic, etc.  Should we have negotiated with the abusers without the victims and given those abusers status and recognition? If we lie down with dogs won’t we get fleas?  What should our response to those fleeing disasters be?  Should it be, “Stay away, no more room here” or should it be “Come in, I’ll give you shelter from the storm”.

 

Economics II

 

You’re The Man

Don't give us no peace sign
Turn around, rob the people blind
Ah, economics, who is the issue
Do you have a plan with you?
'Cause, if you've got a master plan
(Got the vote for you)
You're the man.

Is economics the key to the master plan?

Economics is often called the dismal science.  This is a reflection that economics often throws cold water, reality, on what we want to do, because we can’t afford it.  This is true of ALL sciences.  Science is about discovering rules on how things actually work, which is often not how we wish they would work.  “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” 

The three laws of thermodynamics can be humorously,  but dismally, expressed as:

You can’t win.  (energy can not be created or destroyed in an isolated system.)

You can’t break even. (the entropy of any isolated system always increases.)

You can’t quit the game. (the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.)

Economics is often interpreted as setting a price so that there is a profit.  It actually is much more than that.  It is about setting a price that allocates resources, even when there is no profit.  Hear that Postmaster General DeJoy?  The US Post Office is a government SERVICE that is not supposed to make a profit.  Minimizing a loss is NOT the same as ensuring a profit.  If you want to be the man, learn the rules.

Certainty II

 

Rock Of Ages

Rock of ages cleft for me
Let me hide myself in Thee
Let the water and the blood
From Thy wounded side which fload
Thee of sin the double cure
Save from raft and make me pure.

Why can’t scientists be pure, i.e. 100% certain?

Ivory Soap is 99 and 44/100 percent pure.  The best test result in science is 5-sigma, (99.99994% confidence).  The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is reported by the CDC to be 94.1% effective.  These are considered to be standards that are good, but why can’t science ever be pure, i.e. 100% certain.

A portion of the population prefers purity.  It interprets science as being 100% certain, rounding a 99.99994% certainty to 100%.  No scientist will ever say that he is 100% certain. ( if someone claiming to be a scientist does say that he is 100% certain, you can be certain that he is not a scientist).  A vaccination can’t be 100% effective, but we can say that it is better than being 0% effective.  Saying that a vaccine is 94.1% effective also means that it is 5.9% ineffective.  This means that if exposed to the corona virus, there is a 5.9% chance that a person vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine will be infected with the corona virus. This should be applied to whatever the chance that an unvaccinated person will be infected with the virus.  Which is why even those who are vaccinated do not wish to be exposed to the virus. The odds can be increased, but that is all that can be done.  There is a difference between improbable and impossible.

Einstein famously opposed quantum theory and its Heisenberg Uncertainty principle with his phrase “God does not play dice with the universe”.  A person of faith might say that his God constructed the universe so that no human, including the most educated scientist, could ever be 100% certain.  Purity is reserved for the divine.  We can seek to increase our certainty and act accordingly, but it does not appear that we can ever be 100% certain, pure.

Reaganomics

 

Won’t Get Fooled Again

Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again.

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore had the nerve to publish an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on August 13, 2021 with the subtitle “Forty years after the 1981 tax cuts, America needs to relearn the lessons of the supply-side revolution.” Really? Really?  I hope that we don't have to relearn anything, that we have wised up, learned our lessons well, and will never forget. 

In 1981 America embarked on an economic experiment by changing its tax code to lower taxes, especially for upper incomes, and cut government spending on common resources.  It was sold as a supply side stimulus, which was an alternative to a Keynesian demand side stimulus. We were told that those increases to the investment class would trickle down to benefit all through increased growth.

After 40 years, the growth has been much lower than the period before those tax cuts.  Very little has trickled down.  In fact the US has been one of only two countries, the other being the United Kingdom, where difference between mean and median income increased since the 1980s.  The United Kingdom wised up and stopped the destructive practices of Margaret Thatcher and has at least reached stability, but the US experiment has continued to this day. 

Government spending increases common resources and regulates those common resources so that we won’t have a Tragedy of the Commons. Stimulating labor may increase production.  What was sold as supply side stimulus was really only an investment stimulus.  What is particularly ironic is that the reason to adopt these draconian measures was “stagflation” that in retrospect was most probably caused by the Nixon Shock of 1971.  So Republican Ronald Reagan  “saved” the US  from the problem caused by Republican Richard Nixon.  Talk about killing your parents and appealing for mercy because you are now an orphan.  It took Sam Brownback only five years to ruin the economy of Kansas with "supply side" economics, so there is some small advantage that voodoo economics was not totally embraced and it could have been worse.  But we won’t get fooled again.

Filibusters II

 

Everybody’s Talkin' 

Everybody's talking at me.
I don't hear a word they're saying,
Only the echoes of my mind.

Can the filibuster be preserved without it just being talking at me?

If the infrastructure bill had been defeated by a filibuster, given the support for infrastructure improvements, it would have probably doomed the filibuster.  Thus if the infrastructure bill passes, one of the consequences is that the filibuster may also be retained.  The filibuster was originally intended as a process to preserve debate.  A super majority of US Senators ( which is currently 60 Senators) is needed to end debate and bring a bill to the floor for a vote.  Before the 1970s, Senate rules required talking filibusters, e.g. debate could continue but that debate had to be active.  This led to the talking filibusters made famous in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but filibusters have also been used by Southern Senators to stop civil rights legislation.  That led to “debate” being reading from the phone book or reading recipes that had nothing to contribute to the bill being offered, but merely delayed  ending debate and bringing a bill to a vote.  As the self-styled World’s Greatest Deliberative Body, the Senate was justifiably embarrassed by such behavior, feared for its members health, ended the taking filibuster and instituted today's version of the filibuster.

A vote to end debate, to bring a bill to the floor, is currently a public vote.  Thus it is also publicly known whether you voted with, or against, your party.  If your party choses to retaliate, then it is probable that some votes to continue debate are made only out of fear of retaliation. Thus a multiplayer game of 100 Senators devolves into a two-player game of Democrats versus Republicans

Fear of reprisal because of a vote is why general elections are by secret ballot.   If secret ballots were required to end debate and advance a bill, it could preserve the filibuster, but make the filibuster follow its original intent, to preserve debate and let the minority be heard, without letting that minority block any action that does not also have 60 senate votes. Then talking serves a purpose and is not just talking at me.

America's Pastime

 

Take Me Out to the Ballgame

Take me out to the ball game,
Take me out with the crowd;
Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack.
I don't care if I never get back.

Is football America’s pastime?

I love football. I give directions to my house, which is less than 10 miles from Gillette Stadium, the home of the New England Patriots, relative to that stadium.  My dog’s name is Brady, I wonder why?  But if I was asked what is America’s pastime, I would say it should be baseball.

There are 162 games in a baseball season.  Typically each team is expected to win or lose 60 games.  It is what happens in the other 42 games that determines the success of a season. The best teams are not the ones that achieves a plurality, over a .500 record, but the one that achieves a super majority, wins over 100 games.  Baseball playoffs are not one-and-done, but a series recognizing that losses will happen.  The sweetest victory I have even seen was in 2004 when the Red Sox overcame a 0-3 game deficit against the Yankees to win 4-3 and go on to win the World Series. The best batters are those who makes a hit 30% of the time.

I could go on but two clips say it best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SB16il97yw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIkqNiBASfI

Come home America.  Be safe.

Supply Side Economics?

 Break on Through

You know the day destroys the night

Night divides the day

Tried to run

Tried to hide

Break on through to the other side

So what is supply side economics?

Supply side economics assumes that increasing the supply of goods can stimulate the economy.  This is the opposite from a demand side economics, also known as Keynesian, stimulus which seeks to  increase  the demand for goods, by increasing the purchasing ability of buyers. 

To properly execute this supply side policy, it is necessary to properly define the production equation of suppliers.  The production  equation is traditionally thought to be a function of only capital and labor. However capital is not only investment but also supplying the raw materials, goods, needed to produce a product.  Economists classify goods not simply as free and priced.  Economists use an additional attribute besides price, exclusivity.  A good is exclusive if it can not be used by more than one person at a time. For example my eating a piece of bread means that you can not also eat that piece of bread, i.e. it is exclusive. By contrast, my watching a movie does not prevent you from also watching that same movie, i.e. it is Non-exclusive.

This leads to not just two classes of goods, Private and Public, but four classes of goods. These include Priced and Exclusive, which are Private goods, and  Non-priced and Non‑exclusive, which are Public goods. But it also includes Natural Monopolies: Priced and Non-exclusive; and Common Resources: Non-priced and Exclusive. Suppliers acknowledge natural monopolies, e.g. a cable TV company.  My watching cable TV does not prevent my neighbor from also watching cable TV, but both of us separately pay the cable TV provider.  ( if you have cut the cord like I have, substitute Disney+ or any streaming provider in this example.) The initial cost of Natural Monopolies  is often high, thus society offers protections, e.g. an exclusive franchise to offer cable, to industries to encourage then to make that initial investment.  Industry seems less inclined to acknowledge  Common Resources.  Fishing stocks are a common resource.  It is exclusive. If I eat a fish, then you can not eat that same fish. That fish might be free and the stock may seem vast but it is really has a limit.  Just as it is in society’s interest to encourage industries to invest in natural monopolies, society may spend to increase, or regulate in order to protect, those common resources.  Fishing stocks are regulated to prevent overfishing.  An educated workforce may be necessary for suppliers, but education is a common resource and society invests in education to provide this work force.  Just because a good does not have a price does not mean that society can’t regulate, or spend, to ensure that this common resource will continue to exist, and might even increase.

“Supply side” economics, as it is currently practiced, stimulates the economy by encouraging INVESTMENT.  If the production equation did not require any common resources, including public education and public highways, as raw materials, then neglecting measures to stimulate labor, encouraging investment should increase supply in the long run.  However if the production equation relies on common resources, eliminating regulations on, and decreasing expenditures for, common resources will in the long run DECREASE supply.  Thus the so-called “Supply side” policies have seemed to serve only to reward investment. It provides no reward for labor and reduced common resources.  Truly supply-side economics would also ensure that common goods, as regulated and/or provided by society, increase. Supply side stimulus might be an alternative to demand side stimulus, but what had been practiced has NOT been supply side economics, even if it is called supply side economics.  It is more properly “Investment”  economics at the  expense of Labor and Common Resources.