Monthly Archives: November 2011

Progressive Logic

Posted on by
Reply

This would be funny if it weren’t so sad.  The Daily Caller reports that the ProgressivesDemocrats of South Carolina are complaining that Republicans are attacking women.  The only racists are those who play the race card where racism is absent, as with the Democrats’ constant attempts to play the race card these last three years against anyone who dared criticize their meme.

So it is with sexism.  The only sexists are those who cry “waging a war on women” where no such thing is occurring.  Here’s the plaint.  As a result of census-driven redistricting in South Carolina, three (count ’em) of six Democratic Party State Senators were double-bunked—put into redrawn districts that will require them to run for re-election in another incumbent’s district or in a new district that combines two incumbents’ districts in some way (as if a district belongs to a particular incumbent at all), and six of twenty Democratic Party State Representatives were similarly double-bunked.

Now, one might make a case for reducing the number of Democrat-held districts out of proportion to changes in the number of Republican districts, but that’s not the complaint here.  It seems that the real beef, the one Democrats are loathe explicitly to articulate, is that Democrats don’t think women can run against men with any success; women need to be able to retain their special-for-women districts.

A Bipartisan Government?

Posted on by
Reply

In yesterday’s The Wall Street Journal, pollsters Doug Schoen and Patrick Caddell had an editorial that urged President Obama to do the honorable thing and withdraw from the Presidential campaign in the manner of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson.  Although interesting in its own right, it was another remark of theirs that caught my eye.  “[Hillary Clinton] is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy[,]” they wrote.

To have a bipartisan government, though, there must be fundamental agreement on the nature of American values and on the role of government in protecting those values.

To have a bipartisan government within the present framework of partisans, modern Conservatives—Americans—must accept into their governing principles elements of the empirically demonstrated destructiveness of Progressives’ ever-rising taxes and Keynesian spending.  Americans must accept the legitimacy of the destruction wrought by the Progressives’ 2009 Stimulus Bill.  Americans must accept as legitimate that government need not be responsive to its American employers, as it was unresponsive with the passage of Obamacare.  Americans must accept the Progressive attacks on business, large and small, of Dodd-Frank and its wholly unaccountable Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the latter with an unlimited budget.  Americans must accept the legitimacy of the Progressives’ Stimulus Light, which masquerades as a jobs bill.  Americans must accept the blowup of the Supercommittee from the Progressives’ demand for a $1 trillion tax hike, coupled with their refusal to cut spending or reform entitlement programs in any way, or there can be no agreement—more of that rising taxes and profligate spending.

To have a bipartisan government within the present framework of the partisans, modern Conservatives—Americans—must accept into their governing principles elements of the empirically demonstrated destructiveness of a foreign policy of apology and retreat.  Americans must accept the premise that there’s nothing special, nothing exceptional, about the United States or our values, and we must apologize for our having touted them in the past.  Americans must accept the legitimacy of the Progressive insistence that we have no right to defend ourselves, and so we must forego a missile defense system—because Russian feelings might be hurt.  Americans must accept the Progressive view that Russia and China must have veto authority over our foreign policy and so, given Russian and Chinese objections, we do nothing serious to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons.

In short, to have a bipartisan government Americans must accept into their governing principles elements of an ever-expanding and intrusive central government, abandonment of the primacy of individual liberty and of Federalism, and a retreat from our global responsibilities to our friends and allies.  How can there be compromise, how can there be bipartisanship, when one of the partisans so plainly does not share the values of limited Federal government and individual responsibility, or does not see the importance of American global leadership?

How is such “bipartisanship” possible, and the United States to survive as an independent political entity in today’s world of an active, militarily strengthening and increasingly aggressive People’s Republic of China that does not at all have the interests of a strong America at its heart?  How is such “bipartisanship” possible, and the United States to survive as an independent political entity in today’s world of an active, soon-to-be-nuclear armed Iran, whose sole purpose in obtaining nuclear weapons is to obliterate Israel and to give nuclear warheads to terrorists so the latter can use them in American cities—and European cities?

No.  The destructive policies of the Progressives, however heartfelt or well-intended, have led our nation to the brink of oblivion.  These policies must be utterly, completely repudiated; only then can we begin to repair the horrendous damage done by them.  Indeed, I wrote earlier how our President had made himself a laughingstock on the world’s stage.  After three years, he’s made our entire nation a laughingstock on the world’s stage.

What is Mr Transparency Covering Up?

Posted on by
Reply

What lies under the broad reluctance of the Obama administration to cooperate with the information requests that several Congressional committees have been making of the administration as these committees seek to investigate various events?  If there’s no there there, why not provide everything requested, without delay?  If these requests—if the investigations themselves—are just foolish and venal Republican fishing expeditions, why not let the very lack of issue in the requested documents or in the requested witness testimony demonstrate that?  There is no question of defending Executive Branch prerogative against Legislative Branch overreach here; the administration has raised none.

Instead we have reflexive Obama stonewalling.

On Operation Fast and Furious, Mr Obama’s chief attorney, his Attorney General, steadily resists releasing information the Congress requests.  Eric Holder’s automatic withholding of information about who knew what, and when it was known, concerning a February letter to Congress about OF&F that contained several factual errors and that was drafted by Mr Holder’s staff come to mind, as does his continued refusal to provide 11 witnesses who were subpoenaed for formal Congressional interviews.

On the matter of Boeing’s use of a factory in South Carolina, Mr Obama’s NLRB Acting General Council Lafe Solomon is actively withholding documents and NLRB personnel (including the acting deputy general counsel, the special counsel for congressional and intergovernmental affairs, a trial attorney and a public affairs official) that Congress has requested in its investigation of an apparent NLRB bias and overreach.

On the Solyndra failure, White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler openly refuses to satisfy a Congressional subpoena for documents related to this government intervention into the green energy industry.  Instead, Mr Obama’s representative is obfuscating the matter by calling the subpoenas “unprecedented and unnecessary.”  As if that, even if true, makes the subpoena illegitimate.

I just don’t understand: in the Age of Transparency, of what is Mr Obama so terrified?  What is Mr Transparency afraid will be exposed?

Insurance, Bonds, Risk, and Welfare

Posted on by
Reply

Insurance policies and bonds are quite similar in an important respect: they both are instruments used by industries that are founded on the transfer of risk from one person or entity to another in return for a fee of some sort, a fee which most often is characterized by an ongoing transfer payments from the one transferring the risk to the other accepting the risk.  The policies and bonds are the documents that represent these exchanges of risk and fee.

In essence, insurance transfers both the risk—the likelihood—of an undesirable event happening (vis., a person getting sick or dying, or one’s house burning down) and the cost of that event, to another entity, an insurance company.  In return for paying out that cost to an insuree, the insurer receives from the insuree a stream of premiums.  Notice that: the exchange is solely between the two parties; no one else is involved.

It’s quite similar with bonds.  A lender transfers a sum of money to a borrower in return for a stream of payments from the borrower back to the lender.  Here the risk  transferred from the borrower to the lender—the undesirable event—is the risk that the borrower won’t repay the principle transferred at the start.  In return for accepting this risk, the lender charges a premium to the borrower—the interest to be charged that represents an additional amount included in each payment beyond simply a prorated repayment of the principle.  Notice here, too: the exchange is solely between the two parties; no one else is involved.

The insurer makes its money by insuring lots of people so that the cost of having to pay out on any particular policy is covered by the totality of the stream of premium payments from all of the company’s customers, and the expectation that those customers will not suffer their loss simultaneously.  Similarly, the lender makes its money by pooling borrowers so that the cost to the lender due to default of a particular borrower is covered by the totality of the stream of bond repayments from all of the lender’s customers, and the expectation that those borrowers will not all default simultaneously.

The aspects of these two risk transfer industries that are of interest here are the sizes of those premiums and the relationships of the risks from one insuree/borrower to another.  In both cases, the risk transfer fees must be commensurate with the risk being accepted.  If an event—dying, or defaulting on a loan—is highly likely, than the fee must approximate the cost of the event, else the risk acceptor quickly will go bankrupt from routinely paying out more than it receives in return for taking on the risk.  If the event is not very likely at all, than the risk transfer fee similarly can be quite small.

Note, though, that insurance only works if the risks being pooled are similar.  Forcing into a pool people of significantly different risks—mixing a healthy, exercising young women into the same pool as octogenarian, heavily smoking men, for instance—artificially inflates the cost of that insurance to those young women, who won’t benefit from the insurance; it artificially deflates the premiums for those geriatrics who would benefit from the (relatively high risk) insurance; and it distorts the measures of risk for the pool insured, making it difficult for the risk acceptor to accurately price the cost of that risk transfer.

Bonds, also, only work only if the risks being pooled are similar.  Forcing fiscally sound, low borrowing entities to pay the same interest rates as unstable, heavily spending (with little income to cover the spending) borrowers makes such bonds similarly riskier: the risk is pooled on artificial criteria and so the interest required can have nothing to do with the condition of the borrowers in the pool.  This makes it next to impossible for a lender accurately to price this risk transfer.

This arbitrariness also makes it difficult for investors to evaluate the efficacy of a bond or an insurance company investment.

Wealth transfer schema, welfare payment plans, on the other hand, make no pretense of transferring risk, nor should they—that’s not their purpose.  Wealth transfer programs have only one purpose—to subsidize those whom the relevant government has determined should be subsidized.

That’s a long-winded introduction for my briefly stated thesis.  Only when the concepts of risk transfer and welfare are understood to be separate, and kept that way, can we have serious discussions of the utility of providing health cost welfare for some in the form of tax payments from all, or of  the utility of providing debt cost national welfare for some nations (their citizens) in the form of tax payments from all nations (their citizens).  Both Progressives and modern Conservatives (and social philosophies in between) routinely ignore these differences.  Instead, the insurance industry gets treated as a privately funded, government controlled welfare program, and the bond industry (of which the proposed Eurobond is an example) gets treated as a privately funded, meta-government controlled national welfare program.  This conflation invalidates argument on both sides of the question.

America’s Future—Foreign Policy Principles, Part III

Posted on by
Reply

I have written earlier on this subject here, here, and here.  In this post, I’d like to address the remaining two principles that give substance to our national interest: protection of American citizens while they are abroad and assured access to the resources we need for our economy.

One of the purposes of our government, within our social compact, is to see to the safety of our citizens: to protect each of us from the others of us and from those outside our compact.  This protection, of course, cannot stop at our national borders; it must be extended to our citizens wherever they might be.  All that changes with location is the means by which that safety is effected.   It remains as important to protect our citizens while they are in foreign lands as it is while our citizens are home, and this is so for a number of reasons.

The Romans used the citizenship status of Roman citizens as an instrument of power projection.  Rome operated under the modus that even if a Roman citizen, within another nation’s borders, violated that nation’s law, punishment of that citizen by the host nation would be taken as an attack on Rome itself, with appropriate Roman response.  Further, this attitude that only the nation of citizenship could prosecute a citizen’s violation of host nation law persisted into the 20th century, primarily as a tool of colonialism.

While the United States does not use our people’s citizenship status as a means of power projection, the safety of our citizens abroad is a manifestation of American power.  Attacking Americans with impunity demonstrates that the United States is a paper tiger and that we can be manipulated according to the imperatives of our competitors and our enemies.

There is a practical reason for protecting the safety of our citizens, also.  Beside tourism, our citizens travel to third world nations on goodwill missions and to provide concrete assistance to their citizens, often in dangerous conditions.  That personal foreign aid (the Peace Corps, for instance) not only does concrete good for these nations; by doing so, it helps spread American influence, and the interaction exposes those people to American values, also to our mutual benefit.

Our citizens also travel to other nations—friendly nations, competitor nations, and third world—on business matters.  This interaction, too, exposes others to American values, and the mutual benefit from the business and values interaction also contributes to the spread of American influence.

If our citizens are not protected in those environments, the aid cannot be provided efficiently, if at all.  The trade exchanges cannot be worked out, and the values learned are those of American timidity.

And there is a moral reason.  These are American citizens; they are entitled to the protection of our—their—government wherever they are.  This does not mean that, like a Roman citizen, an American can act with impunity and without regard to the host nation’s laws, but it does mean that while Americans are acting lawfully, they must be free from harassment or outright persecution, and our government must be prepared to step in—using all means necessary—to help our citizens leave or to extract them if they are not safe.  It does mean that our government must be prepared to ensure our citizens are treated lawfully and humanely—and yes, that means our definition of humane—when our citizens do violate local law, including extracting them by any means necessary here, too.  To be sure, it’s a fine line between this stricture and the Roman impunity, but it’s one we must have our government prepared to walk.

That trade, and the spreading influence from both trade and aid, lies at the heart of the third principle, assuring access to resources critical to our economy.  There are, in the end, three fundamental mechanisms for assuring access to critical resources that are outside our borders.  One is to seize the resources through force of arms, and another is to seize the people and, by making them a colony, bringing the resources within our borders.

Both of those mechanisms were extant well into the 20th century.  Quite aside from their moral deficiencies, these two mechanisms are economically suboptimal.  The moral deficiencies are illustrated by the principles of our Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal.  Flowing from this is the principle that all men have an ownership in their property, their labor, and the outcomes of their labor.  Taking resources, then, either by force of arms or by force of colonialism, violates our own moral tenets.

The third fundamental mechanism for assuring access to those critical resources is free trade.  Agreements freely entered into by both parties to the trade agreement are sound and durable for a number of reasons.  The first is fairness: the parties to the trade agreement are, by definition, getting goods satisfactory to one at prices satisfactory to the other.  From such an arrangement, both parties are better off than they were before the agreement: both parties have gained something which they wanted and did not have before the trading.

Another, closely related reason, is the wealth creation that such free trade generates.  As just noted, both parties have gained something of value to them that they did not have before: one has gained a good that it wanted, the other has gained wealth from the sale of that good, whether money, another good that it wanted and didn’t have, future considerations, and so on.

A third reason that free trade is mutually beneficial is the positive feedback loop that is generated, and this is one aspect of what makes free trade the optimal means of access.  We’ve seen that free trade increases wealth creation.  That increasing wealth facilitates further trade: more goods can be produced, development of new goods can be afforded, infrastructure for that development, and for the transportation, of tradable goods can be built.  All of this then leads to lower costs, yet more revenue, for the citizens of the nations involved.  With more readily available goods, more varied goods, more easily transported goods, and so on, prices to the buyer must inevitably come down, while that increasing volume and new good development maintain and increase total revenues to the seller.  In the end, nations don’t buy things from nations.  People buy things from people; businesses and nations simply act as intermediaries for these transactions.

And finally, the national good will between the nations engaged in free trade is greatly facilitated, and this is another aspect of what makes free trade the optimal means of access.  Free trade did not create the strong relationships the US has with Canada, Great Britain, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and so on, but it has helped maintain and strengthen those ties.  Free trade between the US and third world nations—as opposed to colonialism or naked resource seizure—has helped us to gain influence in those areas.  The US is a very powerful nation, militarily, but it was not only that strength that led Somalia to ask for US soldiers earlier this month, and it was not only that strength that led the Libyan rebels last spring to call out, “Bring Bush!”  The values for which we stand contributes to such requests, and those values are made apparent from the interactions inherent in the trade which we conduct that third world nations experience directly or that they see by observing their neighbors interact with us.