Category Archives: culture

YGTBSM

Posted on by
Reply

In the aftermath of “Jackie’s” claim of being a gang-rape victim at the University of Virginia (has the school reinstated the fraternities, by the way?) falling apart under the weight of her lies, we get this from Zerlina Maxwell, of The Washington Post, a woman who represents herself as an actual lawyer, as well as a writer of newspaper articles.

This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players.

In important ways, this is wrong. We should always believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.

So, I guess all those black men who were lynched—without even the nicety of a trial before an all-white jury, mind you—on a woman’s mere accusation of rape were correctly hung.

She says,

This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system.

Because women are outside our legal system. Because it’s the moral thing to do to string someone up—literally or figuratively—and get around to an investigation afterward. Never mind that that’s just going to spring-load the investigation to justify the lynching regardless of any actual facts. Which is what Maxwell and her ilk are trying to do with “Jackie.”

The victimization of the accused, apparently, has no importance. After all, he can’t be a worthwhile human being, else a woman wouldn’t have accused him in the first place.

Never mind that, to alter this lawyer’s closing argument just a touch,

The cost of disbelieving [the accused man], on the other hand, is far steeper. It signals that that [men] don’t matter and that they are disposable….

Thoughts on European Inflation and Tax Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Michael Heise, Chief Economist at Allianz SE, had some in his op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, but I want to focus on just a couple, for the mindset implied as he—and Europe’s politicians—address inflation and tax policy.

They [tax and ultralow-interest rate policies] encourage risk taking among investors searching for yield, potentially leading to malinvestment. They affect the distribution of income and wealth between the less affluent, who are most affected by low returns on bank deposits, and the wealthier, who tend to benefit most from rising share prices. Finally, perhaps most important, ultralow interest rates discourage savings for retirement and slow down the growth of existing pension assets.

“Ultralow rates encourage risk taking.” Yeah? And? That’s a business decision; no government need be—no government should be—involved in that. A free market will do a far better, far more efficient, with far prompter sanction application job of regulating risk taking businesses.

“Affect the distribution of income and wealth.” Yeah? And? To the extent such distributions can ever be bad, a free market is the best way to raise the prosperity of the least, and if the wealthy get wealthier, so what? The poor still are less poor. No government mandates or regulations can hope to match the prosperity creation that is freedom in the market.

“Ultralow interest rates discourage savings for….” This is true, and the ECB’s decision to artificially depress interest rates is negligently harmful to the poor, the retired, and those trying to save for retirement. Further, ECB and sovereign nation interferences in the market for debt instruments is purely political, and so it’s wholly unpredictable (who can tell when a politician will decide it’s in his interest to do something different?). That unpredictability seriously damages the ability of anyone to save for their future.

Tax policy shouldn’t be used for social engineering; optimally, it should be used only to fund basic government. The free market is a better place—more efficient, and faster acting—than government from which to regulate interest rates and risk. Even in social democrat Europe.

EU Immigration

Posted on by
1

British Prime Minister David Cameron may be starting to stand strong on the matter of immigration into Great Britain. It sounds like he’s beginning to agree with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said four years ago

We kidded ourselves a while, we said: “They won’t stay, sometime they will be gone”, but this isn’t reality.

And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other…has failed, utterly failed.

Cameron announced measures Friday:

[M]igrants from the EU should have to wait at least four years before receiving benefits such as tax credits or access to state-subsidized housing. EU migrants also no longer would be eligible to receive state child welfare payments unless their children have moved with them to Britain, a measure which he said is designed to stop the practice of using handouts to support family in their home countries.

He also said that his proposals would be “an absolute requirement” in any renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s continued EU membership that he’s promised to conduct with the EU if he wins a second term in the elections next spring.

Britain isn’t alone in starting to take such a firm position, either. Apart from Germany, the conservative parties of France (despite President François Hollande’s words to the contrary), the Netherlands, even Sweden, are starting to demur from easy border crossing and easy access to government-funded welfare.

If it gets hard for immigrants to go there, though, where else might they go? What other western nation has notoriously porous borders?

Hmm….

The PRC and Language

Posted on by
1

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

So says the People’s Republic of China government, too. Here’s the State Administration for Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television, on banning puns from news media, other programming, even advertising:

Radio and television authorities at all levels must tighten up their regulations and crack down on the irregular and inaccurate use of the Chinese language, especially the misuse of idioms[.]

After all, puns and idioms could lead to “culture and linguistic chaos.” Can’t have that. Order, dammit. Especially the government’s definition of order. The PRC government’s incumbents do clearly understand that language is thought.

Collective Social Action

Posted on by
1

A practical lesson from the People’s Republic of China on societal collective action.

When a fabric company called Jiangyin Xueyuan Textile Co collapsed, the troubles soon cascaded through other firms in this mill town.

A machinery maker, paper producer, manufacturer of faux-wood flooring and textile maker had one thing in common. They had promised, in the event of default, to repay the loans taken on by Xueyuan.

Indeed, they had all guaranteed each other’s loans, promising to pay the lender should one of them fail. Yet in the PRC’s current economy, they’re all having trouble making their own payments, and some have, as a result, refused to honor their guarantees of the others’.

Xueyuan’s court-appointed bankruptcy administrator, Zhang Fuliang, had this to say on the general practice:

[T]he big problem among private firms is that you owe me, I owe you, and in the end, if something goes wrong, then everyone gets tangled up together[.]

A policy outcome likely will look like this one: The People’s Bank of China, the PRC’s central bank, has lowered its benchmark lending rates, in the expectation that “private” and “commercial” banks will lower theirs commensurately and thereby stimulate the PRC’s economy. However,

banks likely will hesitate to lower the cost of loans for fear of hurting their profits.

Those profits aren’t only tied to the spread between the banks’ deposit interest paid and loan interest collected. They’re also tied to the likelihood the loans will be repaid at all. When an individual firm fails, the loan is lost, but the loss is limited to the single firm. When an individual firm fails, and the network of fellow firm guarantors default on their guaranty, the single loan still is lost, but now the bank must worry about the credit worthiness of each member of that network of guarantors. That’s going to hold up interest rates for the entire network as a hedge against the loan’s default—and as a hedge against default on more of the loans the network is guaranteeing for each other. And as a hedge against the loans made to other networks. And….

Hmm….