Mase: Political Commentary

Choosing or Supporting Presidents

2010-11-12T10:15:00.000-08:00

In my lifetime, at least during that time period when I have been very aware of the political process, I have come to the following two conclusions relating to the election of Presidents in the United States and to the support or lack of support they receive during their presidencies.

The first conclusion is that the United States has either a center or center-right bias in terms of politics. Most Americans want to live their lives in peace, pay their bills and taxes on time, be respected as human beings, be patriotic, support the less advantaged, and enjoy their families. To me the major reason the Tea Party arose over the past year or so is that a lot of people felt
that they had lived their lives following these behavior patterns and that, somehow, they were being penalized for acting that way.

In the same vein, populism has never won national elections. Even the Clintons realized this as is reported in Robert Rubin’s book “In An Uncertain World.” To me Al Gore lost the election of 2000 because his campaign for the presidency took a “populist” turn. Otherwise, he seemed to be a certainty.

The second conclusion I have reached is that presidents are elected more by who people vote against rather than who they vote for. I would contend that the last president who was voted into the White House on the basis of people voting “for” them was Dwight Eisenhower. Not only was Eisenhower extremely popular as an individual, he was the face of the World War II victory.

But, let me give you my reasoning. John F. Kennedy was elected because people voted against Richard Nixon. Lyndon Johnson was elected because people voted against Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon was elected because people voted against the very liberal and populist Hubert Humphrey. Richard Nixon was re-elected and re-elected by such a large majority because people voted against George McGovern. People voted against Gerald Ford because of the Nixon “thing” and elected Jimmy Carter.

Ronald Regan then became president as people voted against Jimmy Carter. Ronald Regan was re-elected and won by such a large margin because the electorate voted against the liberal Walter Mondale and the very liberal Geraldine Ferraro. George H. W. Bush was elected because people voted against the very liberal Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis.

Bill Clinton won over George H. W. Bush because people were tired of Republicans and voted against Bush. Clinton was also centrist enough to not frighten anyone (I had a good Republican friend tell be before the election that Bill Clinton would be the best “Republican” Democratic President we would ever see…and he was right!) Clinton was re-elected and re-elected by a large margin because people voted against Bob Dole.

Above, I gave you the reason why I believe that George W. Bush was elected in 2000: people voted against the “populist” Al Gore. Bush was re-elected because people voted against the very liberal John Kerry. And, the obvious conclusion one can draw from this is that in 2008 people voted against George W. Bush and what he and the Republicans had come to stand for. Obama was neither threatening enough to prevent his election, nor the election of a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives.

Where do we stand after the mid-term elections which took place recently? My interpretation: people perceive President Obama and the Democratic Congress as too far away from their center or center-right leanings. They seem too “populist”. Second, they voters voted against the Democratic President and the Democratic Congress.

To me, this second point is very, very important. When people believe that they are “elected in” because of either who they are or who their party is, they develop a hubris that almost immediately plants the seeds of their downfall.

If someone from the “left”, or from the “right”, gets elected and takes the position that “The public overwhelmingly gave me a mandate to carry out my program”…they are in trouble. Early on they discover that the “centrist” electorate didn’t really give them a “mandate” they just voted the other “guys” out. As the new president then tries to get his program enacted he runs into quite a bit of difficulty and he also finds his popularity rating declining. These are tendencies are tough to overcome in the next election.

Failure occurs, not because of the president’s inability to popularize his program. It is not the president’s inability to be more political. It is not because the president had been “too substantive” or “too serious”. It is not because the American people are under stress and don’t think clearly.

It is because the American electorate is center to center-right in its political leanings and that the new president is in office, not because he and his program were elected overwhelming by the people, but because they voted against the other guy.

Rather than carrying the election-day hubris into the Oval Office, maybe a new president needs be a little more humble about the reason he was elected in the first place.

Ages: Part II

2010-10-13T13:36:00.000-07:00

Sara Robinson presented us with a thought-provoking piece in the New Republic this week. (See “Building the Progressive Brand”: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/78278/building-the-progressive-brand.)

She starts off with, “Every American over the age of ten knows what the GOP and the conservative movement stand for.” Then she lists four items: low taxes, small government, strong defense and traditional families.

Robinson then asks, “OK, now: What do Democrats and progressives stand for?”

Then, “Take your time. It’s a tough question.”

When I was growing up, the tables were turned. People seemed to know what the Democrats and liberals stood for. The Republicans did not have a brand, at least one that was credible. This was developed in the 1960s and 1970s leading up to the election of Ronald Reagan.

Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot.

This is my first “crack” at trying to go back and see what it was that the Democrats stood for and comment on what happened to this “branding.”

My initial list of the four things I think about when I go back and reflect on what the Democrats stood for I come up with the following list: freedom, equal opportunity, economic security and anti-discrimination.

Expanding on these I would argue that freedom meant more than just free speech and free movement. It meant freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of lifestyles and so forth, at least if people living these freedoms did not act in a way that interfered with the ability of others to also enjoy these freedoms.

Equal opportunity could be translated into the possibility that anyone could achieve any outcome available to those in the society. Anyone, for example, could become President of the United States, or, President of General Motors, or, anything they set their mind on.

Economic security related to the goal to secure individuals the minimum standard of living and a job that one could achieve a degree of self-respect in.

Anti-discrimination meant that every individual should be treated in a similar fashion; that it did not matter whether one was black or brown, or, Roman Catholic or Jewish, or, a woman, or whatever. All people were human beings and they should be treated as human beings.

What happened to these beliefs? To the “liberal” brand?

One could say that, over time, the Democrats and liberals didn’t maintain their brand. They either abused the brand or lost control of its content or allowed others to define what their brand was.

For example, freedom morphed into the “me” generation, “my way or the highway”, or “doin’ your own thing.” Freedom became “license”. This movement has been dissected in Jonathan Franzen’s recent bestseller carrying the title of “Freedom”.

The second of these, equal opportunity for everyone has evolved into the idea that everyone has a right to equal outcomes. Rather than have a chance to become anything in this society, a lot of people believe that many people think that it is their right to positions or wealth or attention.

This may not be what “the Democrats and liberals” are saying, but it has gotten to the point where many believe this is what they mean.

Third, economic security has been translated into the belief that government is to provide “entitlements” to everyone. People are entitled to a job, people are entitled to own a home, people are entitled to have a car, and so on and so on. The government must almost constantly stimulate the economy through budget deficits and credit growth in order to provide the jobs and income so that all economic insecurity is banished. This philosophy, of course, is said to lead to “big” government.

Again, that may not be what “the Democrats and liberals” are saying, but this is how many see the consequences of their objectives and programs.

Finally, the aim to reduce bias and discrimination in society has been seen as allowing people to claim “victim-hood”. Thus, rather than looking at this effort in a positive context, the attempt has been seen as giving people an “excuse” for their psychological problems, their failures, and their exclusion. They can now claim that they are “victims” indicating that their problems are the result of someone else, something which they have no responsibility for and should be compensated in some way for this treatment.

Personally, I can relate to the brand of “the Democrats and liberals” and progressives that I have defined above. Not, of course, as they have been converted to, but in terms of their original intent.

To me, it is not so much a question of developing a new brand for the Democrats and progressives, it is a matter of converting these basic ideas into terms and concepts that people in the 21st century relate to. In this respect, I know what I stand for. People just are not expressing it in a way that I can say…”Yes, I stand for that!”

This has been what the Republicans and conservatives have strived for. This is what the Republicans and conservatives, to a great extent, have achieved.

I believe that these fundamental “liberal” ideas still resonate…just not in the way they are being presented.

Ages: Part I

2010-09-13T11:58:00.000-07:00

Maybe we need to be a little more cognizant of what might be called “the Age of the Times.” That is, the dominating forces that seem to be at work during a particular period of time that, in a real sense, help to define what is going on.

There was a column in the New York Times yesterday, September 12, 2010, titled “The Presidency, Chained to the World” that set me off thinking in this way. To quote: “The farther we get from presidencies, after all, the more we tend to view them as belonging to periods rather than individuals, as sometimes overlapping clusters along the country’s historical continuum.”

The specific concern of this piece was this: “When historians look back 50 years from now, in what era will they place Mr. Obama’s presidency, and what does it say about the challenges he faces?”

I have been trying to put the major issues of my lifetime into a perspective to help me define what went on.

Of course, one of the major things to take place in my lifetime was the Viet Nam war and the events of the 1960s. My daughter asked me one time, several years ago, what was the big deal about the 1960s.

I had the chance to talk with Andrew Young one time when he visited the campus on which I was teaching. After discussing several other things, I mentioned to him the question that my daughter had asked me. And, I then asked him: “You were there. You were on the front lines. You faced smoke bombs and dogs attacking you. What do your children ask you about that period of time?”

His answer: “The same question that your daughter ask you.”

I was taken aback by this answer.

Certainly, a person that went through this period could honestly say that the person they were entering the 1960s was entirely different from the person they were beginning the decade of the 1970s. But, what was the difference? What defines the era?

Or, does this period have to be put into a larger picture?

Going into the 1960s, America was a country that became the predominant economy in the world during the 1930s. The country emerged from World War II as the unquestioned military power in the world. We were at the top!

Within this context, maybe the 1960s saw how the hubris built up over the past 30 years or so got applied to a little, insignificant war over in Southeast Asia. And, this war channeled feelings that were growing in the 1950s relating to civil rights and equality for women. And, these were all “hot buttons” for the young growing up during this time.

The young had been raised on becoming individuals, individual authenticity, and ideas about freedom and rebellion from the stuffing old society and norms of their fathers and mothers. Marlon Brando, James Dean, and others were our role models. There were also the Beat Generation…and there was the war!

I saw some of the effects of this war in my teaching at Lansing Community College in the 1963-1964 period. I had grown up with the expectation that I would go to college and graduate, get a job, and work for the next forty-some years and then retire and play golf. The “kids” I taught at this time…they saw themselves as getting out of community college, getting drafted, and getting killed…all within the next two to three years. Their future collapsed into a very short horizon and they believed that with such a future…what was wrong getting drunk on a regular basis…taking drugs…having sex where ever one could…and so on and so on.

Attitudes like this began to permeate the culture…at least to the younger folk.

But, this also got tied into civil rights. We were talking about freedom. And, then there was the women’s movement. Note that this came along with the “pill” giving women the opportunity to have casual sex on a regular basis…just like the guys. Of course “the guys” supported this liberation, this freedom…what a gift…girls became readily available when it used to be so hard to have sex with any of them on a regular basis!

This was not all, but the future was never the same.

Was this a part of something still bigger? Information technology was advancing and information was spreading in a way and at a speed it had never advanced before. I remember seeing the war in Korea on television and George Wallace fight integration in the south. I saw John F. Kennedy speak to the 1956 Democratic convention. I saw a Vietnamese general shoot someone in the side of the head on national television. And, there was, of course, a lot more. But, many people were a lot more aware of the world…in real time!

Let me put this in another context. Going back to the New York Times article: “What historians are suggesting is that the modern president may simply not be able to exercise that same firm grasp—or at least not most of the time.” The reason is that we have moved into an age of global interdependence.

“With global interdependence comes a certain lack of control, a vulnerability to disparate influences beyond our territorial borders that are less obvious and less easily answered than the launch of a Soviet satellite. And those influences, perhaps, directly undermine our ideal of what a president should be.”

In the 1950s, the United States was at the “top of the heap.” It was Number One. In the 2010s, the United States is one among many…at least in a lot of things.

I was growing up in the 1950s. I am near the end of my career in the 2010s. What took place during this time period? How can one define this age?

Something happened after the 1950s. I feel that something else is happening now, something that is moving us on to the next “Age”.

I saw a movie a week ago Friday. The movie was called “Going the Distance” and starred Drew Barrymore, Justin Long, and Christina Applegate (the daughter on TV’s Married with Children). The movie, seemed to me, to present a glimpse of what young people are facing today…few jobs, no leaders to provide role-models, no direction, nothing to believe in, and basically searching for something to latch onto, to hold onto, and such. No one is confident about the future. The main characters seemed adrift in a way I didn’t recognize, in a way I didn’t feel a part of.

So my quest in these posts is to try and add some definition to the last sixty years. To interpret how this time period led up to where we are now. And, to try and get a hold of where things are going. Thus, this commentary will consist of a number of parts. Of course, it is just my interpretation.

The Two Sides of the Coin

2009-02-10T13:44:00.000-08:00

Well, three weeks into the Obama administration and we are getting a real lesson in the two major alternative approaches to macroeconomic analysis that exist within the profession of economics today. The first approach, generally favored by those supporting President Obama, is Keynesian in nature. The second approach, generally favored by those not supporting President Obama, but not necessarily Conservative in their leanings, nor do these people necessarily believe that they are of the Republican Party, tend to work with a different model of the macroeconomy.

The Keynesian approach, developed in the post-World War I era, contends there is a problem in how the macroeconomy works itself out if there is insufficient demand coming from the private sector. This initiating factor in this model is that business expectations about the future drop off considerably…there is a decline in “animal spirits”…and as a consequence investment expenditures collapse. The normal response to this when the economy has not fallen apart is to have the monetary authorities lower interest rates and this action will stimulate investment demand and re-charge the economy.

The problem with this is that when “animal spirits” really collapse and there seems to be a cumulative downward movement in the economy, the monetary authorities cannot stimulate business investment expenditures so that the central bank cannot stop and reverse the downward spiral. Keynes suggested that in such situations the only possible vehicle to stop the cumulative collapse is for the government to come into the picture and substitute government expenditures for the business expenditures that have gone away.

The government can either finance these expenditures by printing money or issuing debt. The idea here is that this spending, even if financed by printing money, will not have an impact on prices (inflation) because of the un-used resources in the economy. That is, the government expenditures will just pick up the slack in demand and then through the multiplier effect created by increasing incomes and consumption expenditures, aggregate economic activity will pick up.

The major question here is about the size of the multiplier. There is much speculation on this, but the figure most people feel that people in the Obama administration are using is 1.5. That is, if the stimulus bill totals about $850 billion, then the total impact on the economy of this program will be $1.275 trillion…a hefty boost to aggregate economic activity.

There are several attacks on this way of thinking that lead us into the conclusions presented by the second approach under review. The first one is that the Keynesian approach, as described above, does not take into account that Keynes constructed his model in a period in which international capital flows were severely limit. Thus, what was done in a sovereign country generally stayed in that country.

The international financial system broke down during World War I…this was the old gold standard system. Keynes fought hard at the Paris Peace Conference which followed the war for fixed currency exchange rates between countries and limited international flows of capital. One of the things that Keynes was most worried about was the Russian Revolution and the spread of the ideas connected with the uprising of the workers and the leadership of the Proletariat. This seemed to be a worldwide concern that lasted in the mid-thirties. The worst fears of many, many people were that economic collapse or depression would result in a movement in which the workers took over.

Economic nationalism was designed to prevent such an occurrence. Fixed exchange rates, restricted international capital flows, and protective tariffs were designed to achieve this result. This was why Keynes wanted countries to be independent of one another so that those that wanted to could follow they own stimulus program without having to worry about currency depreciation or an international loss of capital. His stimulus programs were designed to work in such a country.

This is not the world that we find ourselves…we have floating exchange rates…we have relatively open world capital markets and a free flow of capital to almost anywhere…and in recent years there has been great efforts to promote and expand free trade. The government expenditures promoted by those that support the Keynesian approach have not accounted for the difference between the construction of the world in the 1930s and the construction of the world in the 2000s. The modern argument is that the spending of the government will just be dissipated through open world markets and capital flows and will not be able to achieve the level of stimulus they hope for.

Furthermore, the Keynesian effort will just increase…by substantial amounts…the amount of debt that exists within the world. As I have reported in recent posts, Niall Ferguson has claimed that the proposals of these “born-again” Keynesians are treating a situation where too much debt exists by adding on major amounts of new debt. Or, in other words these proposals are attempting to solve the problem of too much leverage in the system by adding on more leverage. Ferguson, as reported, does not believe that this will work.

In terms of the alternative economic model we find two major editorials published in recent days that lay out some of the concerns of this other school of thought. These are the articles by Robert Barro, “Government Spending is No Free Lunch,” WSJ on January 22, 2009, (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html), and Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy, “There’s No Stimulus Free Lunch,” WSJ on February 10, 2009, (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423402552366409.html?mod=todays_us_opinion). They are not too optimistic that the Obama stimulus plan will be very effective.

This school of thought emphasizes more the supply side of the economy and is concerned that the appropriate incentives are set up. For one, both articles contend that the multiplier is substantially below 1.0…I have used 0.4 in my writing. If the multiplier is 0.4 then the $850 billion in government spending will only produce approximately $340 billion in additional output…not much bang for the buck. The reason why is that the spending part of the program will draw resources away from other, private spending so there will not be the add-on effect, but a substitution effect in which resources that would have been used in other areas of the economy are now drawn to these areas. In terms of tax cuts, they argue that the way the tax cuts are structured the additional funds available to consumers will go into savings or a “rainy day” fund to protect against future economic difficulties. Thus, in neither effort is the government getting much for its spending.

In terms of the “right” incentives, Barro would like to see a reduction or elimination of the corporate income tax. In this way Barro believes that the incentives would be right for businesses to spend and put resources to work for they would be getting that extra boost from the lower or non-existent tax rates. In this way the supply side of the economy is stimulated…which Barro contends will be much more effective than the spending and tax-reduction programs that have been proposed.

The differences are great and they are now starting to get full exposure. We will talk more about these in the future.

Government and "Economic Shocks"

2009-02-07T08:33:00.000-08:00

Elected officials, in general, have two fundamental incentives; the first is to get elected or re-elected; and the second is to do some good. The first is very straightforward and easily understandable. The second…well, the second creates a question…do some good…for whom? Generally, this question can be answered by saying that “for whom?” refers to people that will elect the officials…or will re-elect them.

Elected officials are often asked to behave in ways that reflect the common good…that ignore total self-interest. But, the very cynical argue that you can count on one hand the number of times that an elected official acted in ways that were solely for the good of all and did not reflect just self-interest. Others would argue that the number is larger than that…but to understand the elected official you must not ignore the fact that his or her position depends upon them acting in their own self-interest.

If a subset of the electorate elects an official, they do so on the expectation that the official will represent them and support their interests. If the official does not represent the subset’s interest to the degree that they expect the official to…then they have incentive to support another candidate. So, elected officials really only have one incentive in running for office…to get elected or to get re-elected.

The point here is that elected officials may have incentives that are different from the incentives that exist within the economic system. For example, if economic growth is slowing down…elected officials or those appointed by elected officials may have an incentive to stimulate the economy and increase employment if an election is near at hand. If elected officials or those appointed by elected officials express concern that the stock market may collapse, they may try and keep interest rates extremely low in order to avoid a stock market correction or a readjustment to a more realistic level. If elected officials or those appointed by elected officials believe that every American…or almost every American…should own a home, they will create and support programs that encourage such a result.

Every one of these efforts…and many more like them…can be traced back to efforts to get elected officials re-elected…and they are all aimed at a “good” thing…or a “good” cause. No one can disagree with the basic attempt by the elected officials or those appointed people.

Each of these efforts, however, is what the economist would call a “shock” to the economic system. Each of these efforts represents a response to a different set of incentives than those that exist within the functioning of markets and relationships in the economic system, itself. Economic models attempt to separate out the different factors that are at work within an economic system. Factors that do not respond to the regular incentives that exist within the economic system are called “exogenous” variables and changes in these variables are introduced independently of the system. Other variables that respond to the incentives that exist within the system, both those created by other non-exogenous variables as well as to the incentives created by the exogenous variables are called “endogenous” variables.

The importance of this distinction is that many of the “shocks” that an economic system receives is of the “exogenous” variety and are introduced into the economy for reasons other than allowing the economic system to work out all the incentives and dis-incentives that currently exist. In effect, these “exogenous” shocks are often aimed at preventing the economic system to work itself out in the direction it is going. And, as stated above, many of these interventions are for the “good” of the economy or for the “good” of, at least, some of the people in the economy.

The fact of the matter is that we don’t really have good theory to examine how these “exogenous” shocks come about. If we did, obviously, then they could be incorporated into the economic model and would become “endogenous” variables. Therefore, these “exogenous” shocks…government decisions…must stay exogenous and be introduced as they happen or are expected to happen.

Economics is a study of human behavior. Therefore, the predictions that come from economic models are going to be highly imprecise. Economic models are all incomplete and fallible. We just can’t do better than that when dealing with human behavior. Some situations lend themselves to more consistent behavior that allow for the making of better predictions…but other situations…like government decision making…are not systematic and so are almost impossible to model. And, we are finding out through the research in areas such as behavioral economics and behavioral finance that some situations that were, in the past, assumed to be fairly regular, are not that regular and need to be modeled with much less confidence about the accuracy of their predictions.

The name of John Maynard Keynes has surfaced a lot these days…and I am going to refer back to something that he wrote that, I believe, pertains to this very issue. In his commentary of the great economist Alfred Marshall after the great man died, Keynes discusses what makes an exceptional economist. In terms of Marshall, Keynes remarked that he was very learned in history. And then Keynes followed up on this by saying that anyone that wanted to be a top level economist needed to incorporate history into his or her explanation of how things worked. And, Keynes did not mean by history, incorporating a huge amount of statistical data into the model building process. Keynes was referring to the need to understand specific individuals and how those individuals made decision…how they were affected by their time…and how they were affected by their own experience and upbringing. He concluded that good economics required a good knowledge of history and biography…not something that is often taught in Ph. D. programs in economics or finance.

The point of this post is that in the policy making issues that government has to deal with we cannot just rely on assumptions of completely self-correcting free market economic systems where the incentives generated within the system are sufficient to work themselves out in a deterministic fashion. These systems will be continuously impacted by “exogenous” shocks that will bump the system one way or another, preventing the system from working itself out into a “new equilibrium” where everything is OK. These systems…for better or for worse…will be buffeted by these “exogenous” shocks and this will mean that we, in order to understand what is happening or what has happened, will need to introduce history and biography into the analysis we are going through. That is…economics cannot stand alone and provide all the answers.

This leads us into the position that we can…and must…look for bumps and shifts in the economy that are caused by governmental interference…usually with good intentions…and see how the government changes incentives…and how these changed incentives can divert the economy from one path onto another.

A good example of this comes in situations that create what economists call “moral hazard”…actions that lead people to do perverse things that they would not do under other circumstances. For example, people have to take risks in what they do…starting a business, buying a home, investing in securities, and so on. If a situation arises in which the people that have done one or more of these things get into dire straights…that is, they may face foreclosure or bankruptcy…elected officials can decide…for good reason…to protect them in some way. This presents a situation of “moral hazard” because those people that get protected may, in the future, decide to take on even higher levels of risk and make the economic or financial system more fragile. One can applaud of condemn actions that create “moral hazard” but it is a judgment decision. The elected officials must make a decision relating to the trade off between avoiding a bad situation now…protecting the people who have gotten in trouble…versus not protecting the people now and facing a economic or financial catastrophe. Where you set the tradeoff is a personal decision.

Liberal Democracy

2009-02-03T18:40:00.000-08:00

Liberal democracy has its benefits and it has its problems. One of the things the founders of the United States seemed to want to avoid was the creation of a democracy…instead they wanted to produce a republic. Why would this be the case?

A democracy, Webster’s tells us, is “rule of the majority.” A republic, Webster’s states, is “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to the citizens and governing according to law.” In addition, a republic is “a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch.”

The difference in emphasis is dramatic…a democracy…the majority rules. In a republic…people govern who are representatives of the people…and are elected to use their own judgment. A democracy can also have an elected body, but the people serving in that government are expected to be conduits of the will of the people.

The founders and many other individuals of a “liberal” persuasion tended to shy away from the idea of a democracy because they equated democracy with a rule by the crowd or the mob. The thing that these people were concerned about is the tendency for the crowd to be moved by emotion and to swing first one way and then another. Representatives in a republic are responsible to bring with them their intelligence and experience and judgment…they are not expected to be swayed by the emotion of the moment or by this trend or that trend.

The problem that occurs when a republic becomes dominated by “public opinion” they begin to act more like a democracy. That is, they pay less attention to their own judgment and abdicate their responsibility to the “will of the moment.”

History has shown that incentives exist for politicians to extend the voting franchise whenever it is in their best interest to enlarge the number of people that are allowed to vote. We see this to be the case in England…Disraeli and Gladstone both increased the franchise to get them elected and serve their own purposes. We see that happening over-and-over again in the United States. The effort of the politicians is to play to the preferences of different “interest” groups and ride them into office and into power.

To discuss this in very modern terms, I refer once again to the recent work of Niall Ferguson, especially his latest book titled “The Ascent of Money.” There are two specific areas that I would like to focus on specifically in this post. The first area concerns how capitalism and, more specifically, the financial aspects of capitalism can create opportunities for politicians to build large constituencies that can help them attain office perhaps to the potential detriment of the health of the country. The second has to do with “housing” democracy, the idea that all…or at least the vast majority…of Americans should own their own home.

The first of these areas relates to the “bad press” that finance and financiers have gotten over time. Historically, finance and financiers have been depicted as parasites that prey on the “real” economic activities that are carried on by the rest of the society. Somehow these people attach themselves to what is really going on in an economy and “suck” the system for what it is worth. Essentially, what is being said about finance and financiers is that they are peripheral to the real work of the economy contributing little or nothing to the output produced real workers.

One of the things that Ferguson presents and stresses is that economic development requires that finance exist within an economy and without a financial system (private property and the rule of law) little enterprise, innovation, or expansion takes place. Finance brings resources, particularly financial resources, to where they can be the most productive in a society. Without this allocation function, societies tend to remain dormant…listless…poor.

With this said, Ferguson goes on to write that debtors have seldom felt well disposed toward creditors and the former has tended to outnumber the latter by a large amount. Because of this debtors have tended to get better coverage in the press and a wider audience for their complaints among intellectuals and people with particular political leanings. Politicians can count and are very aware that debtors outnumber creditors.

Furthermore, financial crises and scandals occur frequently enough to make finance appear to be a cause of poverty rather than prosperity, volatility rather than stability. That is, finance disrupts people’s lives…it seems to make things more difficult…it is identified with “cheats” and “frauds”. Again, the thing that seems to “stick” in people’s minds is the “bad stuff” and not the “good stuff” that comes from a well-functioning financial system.

There are two other factors that seem to permeate the image of the financier to “common” citizens. First, there are wide disparities in income and wealth distribution separating “financiers” from the rest of society. This doesn’t seem very democratic and fair…especially if these people are parasites. Second, for centuries, financial services have been disproportionately provided by members of ethnic or religious minorities who have been excluded from other important positions in the society.

The point of this is that people that have or can have negative feelings about finance and those people that work in financial institutions. These negative feelings can be played upon by those that can gain from obtaining support from these large numbers of people. That is, politicians and others can play on the emotions of the discontented, the dislocated, and the disenfranchised. In this way they can play down or tarnish the image of the good that comes from the financial system.

The other topic I wanted to emphasize is what has been titled “housing” democracy…the concept that all…or, at least, most…Americans should own their own home. This move started in the 1930s as laws and institutions were created to make it easier for people to own their own home. This effort increased after the close of World War II and gathered speed in the 1960s with the “Great Society” and did not slow down into the Nixon years.

I remember working on something called a mortgage backed security during the time I was in the Washington, D. C. in the 1971-72 period. The rationale, as least the one I heard, for this effort was to help get Republicans re-elected to Congress as well as to bring more Republicans into government. How could this happen? Well, if we could get thrift institutions, the primary organizations that originated mortgages, to package their mortgages and sell them to other financial institutions, like insurance companies and pension funds that purchased long term assets, then the thrift institutions could go out and originate more mortgages. More people could own their own homes…and since the Republicans created this process…the voters would reward them by electing or re-electing them to public office.

During the rest of the century this idea was not lost on either Republicans or Democrats. Basically, this effort became a part of the American dream…the creation of everyone owning their own home. So, financial innovation built on financial innovation…and these innovations were constantly celebrated. As a consequence, mortgage-related securities are the most prominent financial asset in the world in terms of outstanding amounts. And, this promotion of “housing” democracy has brought us to the brink of financial collapse…or worse. But, it reportedly got a lot of happy homeowners to vote.

If these politicians have pushed America…and other countries…into more and more of a democratic mode…the question is…has this been helpful? Has this made things better off or worse off? Another question follows…if this process of “democratization” has actually taken place and has not been the most beneficial approach to the health and welfare of the country…what can be done to counteract it? This last point will be discussed in my next post.

Big Government

2009-01-30T07:56:00.000-08:00

So much discussion is going on today about “Big Government.” The urgency of the talk is, of course, a result of the Obama stimulus plan…and TARP…and a possible “bad bank”…and possibly even more spending and tax cuts coming down the line. There is even a new book out called “The Case for Big Government,” by Jeff Madrick.

Has anyone been to Washington, D. C. lately?

Tell me what someone means when they say…”small government”?

It’s all relative…right?

To me the talk about “Big Government” or “small government” is so much wasted energy. The United States government IS big! It is going to STAY big! There is no way that I can see it becoming smaller. And, this doesn’t even take into account that we are faced, throughout the world, with dealing with other BIG governments.

The question to me is not about the size of the government. I would even argue that the size and complexity of other organizations within the country and the problems that must be dealt with require that the government be big. To me the question is about how this government goes about its business…that is how the public sector interacts with the private sector.

Last February, I put up a post on this site titled “More on Hamiltonian Government” (2/27/2008). In this post I argued that government faces three problems that put a limit on its power. These problems relate to the creation of incentives, the lack of sufficient information, and the speed at which events are taking place in the modern world. These limits, as I saw the situation, restricts what a government can achieve and directs us to those things a government can do that are actually helpful. The conclusion is that a government can have a positive effect on the private sector if it focuses on process rather than outcomes. If it focuses on outcomes, a government may create more problems than it solves.

Let’s just looking at the first of these problems today, the problem of incentives: the basic incentive for government is to “improve” something…make something better…or less bad. (On January 10, 2009, I wrote a post called “Improvers” to discuss the topic a little more deeply.) The government doesn’t have a lot of specific incentives…except in cases like the military…win wars…keep the peace…and so forth. So the primary goal is to “improve” things.

The problem with this is that in trying to “improve” things, the government can often create other incentives that have undesirable results or results that are the exact opposite of what they would like to achieve. (To see some specific cases please refer to the popular book…and blog…called “Freakonomics” developed by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.) The difficulty occurs when people attempt to focus outcomes and state their objectives in specific goals. Setting the specific goals can then create other incentives that can harm or destroy the purpose of the whole effort the government has undertaken to “improve” things.

This often happens in situations involving the government’s monetary and fiscal policies. For example, the goal to avoid recessions can create government policies that send out messages to the private sector that can totally destroy the initial goal of the government. When Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System became so concerned about the possibilities of an extended recession following the bursting of the stock market bubble in the early 2000s that he kept the target interest rate of the Fed excessively low for an extended period of time, lower than the rate of inflation the economy was experiencing.

The result…excessive borrowing took place because the real rate of interest was negative…it paid people to borrow…a bubble in asset prices occurred in housing markets…this was passed into the capital markets through securitization…and this funneled into other areas of the capital market, especially more and more exotic derivative instruments…and as people continued to create credit at an exponential rate and as people continued to leverage up their balance sheets…the financial markets…and the whole economy…became more and more fragile.

Why did people…even sensible people…do these things?

The incentives created in the credit expansion distorted things. If, for example, I run a hedge fund and I want to earn a slightly better return on my portfolio than you I can, say, try one of two things. For one I can increase the riskiness of the assets I hold…maybe purchase securities backed by subprime loans rather than corporate bonds. Or, I can increase the leverage on my balance sheet to stimulate higher net returns on my portfolio. In either case I am increasing the riskiness of my portfolio in order to gain an advantage over you.

And, how can I get away with this. Well, I know that Alan Greenspan is so worried about avoiding a recession that he will continue to support the credit expansion even in the face of riskier asset portfolios or greater use of leverage in the system. And if this continues on for two or three years, the competitive pressure to do well and outperform my competitors will grow and grow. I will continue to increase the risk of my portfolios and to increase how much leverage I introduce to my balance sheet.

And, if I don’t do it? Suppose I am a relatively conservative portfolio manager and I don’t believe that I should either increase the riskiness of my asset portfolio or raise the amount of leverage on my balance sheet…what happens? Over time, as my competitors earn, even a few more basis points on the return on their portfolio…my clients will start withdrawing money from my funds and placing it with my competitor. If this environment is sustained by the government, I will either have to close my fund or capitulate and change my beliefs and become more aggressive. And, if I don’t have that choice and work for someone else…I will be replaced with someone that is more aggressive.

Is this outright greed that is driving this scenario? Are these people “bad” or “excessively crass” in their behavior?

These people want to perform well…that is true…but, I don’t believe that they are addicted to avarice any more or less than most people. The incentives changed on them and they just responded to the competitive pressures that were present in the market place. In my estimation…these incentives were set up by the government in following the incentive they placed high on their priority list…government officials wanted to improve things…they wanted to keep a recession from happening.

Government is going to have its incentives; and the private sector is going to have its incentives. The problem is not one of whether or not the government is big. The problem is related to how the government is going to implement its actions to achieve the goals it sets for itself. Often, as in the example I have given, the “good intentions” of the government can be translated into actions that create the “wrong” incentives for the private sector. If the private sector responds to these “wrong” incentives…and they will…the ultimate result may be totally the opposite of what the government was trying to achieve in the first place.

The problem is that the ultimate results occur at such a distance from the cause that the two are not tied together. Do people tie Greenspan’s attempt to avoid recession early in this decade with the current financial collapse?

A Modern Liberal and Free-Market Capitalism

2009-01-27T16:55:00.000-08:00

Milton Friedman always claimed that he was a liberal…but, that he was a “classical” liberal. By that he meant that in terms of economics and liberty he was more like a liberal in the 18th century and the early 19th century. Liberalism shifted on him…or as Ronald Reagan said about the Democratic Party…he didn’t leave the Democratic Party…the Democratic Party left him. Friedman felt the say way about the policies and programs proposed by 20th century…and early 21st century liberals.

I am in this dilemma as well. I tried to lay out my position in my last essay, posted o January 24. In that post I claimed that I was an Information Libertarian. This meant that on the side of the cultural wars and civil rights I tend to come down with the modern Liberal…I am for openness, transparency, and liberty. However, on the side of capitalism and the role of government in the economy, I tend to come down on the side of free-market capitalism and minimal government intrusion into economic affairs. My liberalism…as it were…is split…right down the middle.

Liberalism, as Friedman argued, used to include free-market capitalism as one of its components. What happened? Why did free-market capitalism move from support on the left of the political spectrum and land on the right? Good questions.

Currently, I am reading the book titled “The Ascent of Money” by Niall Ferguson. In the Introduction to his book Ferguson makes several observations about how the world looks at finance and financiers that carry some relevance for the questions asked in the previous paragraph.

Ferguson writes: “Throughout the history of Western civilization, there has been a recurrent hostility to finance and financiers, rooted in the idea that those who make their living from lending money are somehow parasitical on the ‘real’ economic activities of agriculture and manufacturing.” He cites three causes of these attitudes:
• Debtors have tended to outnumber creditors and the form have seldom felt very well disposed towards the latter;
• Financial crises and scandals occur frequently enough to make finance appear to be a cause of poverty rather than prosperity, volatility rather that stability;
• For centuries, financial services in countries all over the world were disproportionately provided by member of ethnic or religious minorities, who had been excluded from land ownership or public office.
Furthermore, in terms of business, in general, there have been wide disparities in income distribution and this can be highlighted by the earnings of corporate executives in recent history and the increases they kept receiving over the years, far exceed what individual workers receive, the including small increases that they have received in recent years.

Ferguson goes on to say that one of the real paradoxes of the ‘liberal’ or ‘radical’ prescription for the elimination of the use of money is that one of the major constraints on economic development and growth is the LACK of financial institutions, the absence of banks…not the presence of them. And, this not only applies to nations, or regions, but also to neighborhoods and areas within cities. That is, for economic development to take place there must be some kind financial services present or development is not going to happen or be constricted.

However, Ferguson also says that “If the financial system has a defect, it is that it reflects and magnifies what we human beings are like.” For example, behavioral finance has shown that “money amplifies our tendency to overreact.” Also, the financially knowledgeable can use their talents and skills to multiply opportunity whereas those that are not can be severely hurt. Financial presence can accelerate mobility…both upward and downward. “The rewards for ‘getting it’ have never been so immense. And, the penalties for financial ignorance have never been so stiff.”

What Ferguson seems to be saying is that the presence of free-market capitalism and modern financial institutions and markets are like financial leverage…they can magnify both positive results and negative results. The way this seems to work is that ‘the few’ get very great benefits from capitalism whereas the ‘many’ end up with only meager results. That is the distribution of benefits is very skewed with smaller numbers at the top with a substantial number at the bottom.

The thing that doesn’t get mentioned as much is that, on average, countries that are democratic, capitalistic, with a great amount of liberty have much higher living standards than do countries that don’t offer these things to their citizens. The income distributions may be very skewed and unequal in the former countries but even those that are nearer the bottom are much better off than many of the citizens in these other countries. This doesn’t make the skewed income distribution right…but the fact that there are higher living standards relative to those in other countries is relevant.

The point is free-market capitalism can create wealth, it can create inequalities in income distribution, and since the inequalities can be quite substantial and magnified. Given these results, people can focus on the issue of fairness, not only of relative results at one particular time but also over time in terms of economic fluctuations. Thus, criticism can be leveled at financial capitalism because of these outcomes and because the people further down the pyramid outnumber the people at the top, discussions and debates about the validity of capitalism can be dominated or, at least, forcefully engaged in.

I would like to make three points in response to this. First, there does need to be oversight and regulation existing side-by-side in a capitalistic system…it cannot just be an open, do-as-you-will environment. This would include greater openness and transparency within the business and financial system. The capitalistic system can run better. Second, there does have to be safety nets, insurance programs, education, financial institutions to serve poor areas and other forms of help to reduce some of the risks and extreme results that can come about in free-market capitalism.

Finally, the government must not be too active in attempting to fine-tune the economy. The government can set up incentive systems that drive people and businesses to take excessive risks and make unwise decisions. The most recent eight years is a case-in-point. Through its monetary and fiscal policies the Bush43 administration created an environment that incented executives to take on more and more risk, to assume higher and higher leverage, and to bring new and untested innovations into the market place. The financial…and economic…system became more and more fragile. The collapse came. And, who got the majority of the blame…the executives running these institutions…those running the government escaped without the fingers being pointed at them at all…or, very little.

What I would like to emphasize is that small, entrepreneurial businesses provide most of the dynamism of a free-market capitalistic system, most of the new jobs created, large amounts of wealth that is relatively well distributed, and it adds substantially to the upward mobility in a country. This system thrives on information, trying new things, gathering more new information, innovating, learning, and growing. This part of the system…even the modern liberals like. It is the big, set-in-their-ways organizations, who create much of the unhappiness and the inequality.

I, of course, like this breed of entrepreneurs that exists below the horizon covered by the large, clumsy behemoth. It is also consistent with my support of liberty in the culture wars and civil rights. It is also consistent with support of the “new” in art and literature and music and life style. It is consistent with what being an Information Libertarian is all about…at least, I believe it is.

Being an Information Libertarian and Its Conflicts

2009-01-24T13:17:00.000-08:00

I have claimed over the past several years that I am an Information Libertarian. I have defined an Information Libertarian as one who believes in the free flow of information, complete access to information, and the eventual triumph of information over all those that attempt to hide, control, or in anyway manipulate the use and access to information…for whatever purpose. I believe in openness and transparency in all activities.

I put this last sentence into the paragraph because it is hard to say that there are cases where perhaps some secrecy is necessary and still call oneself an Information Libertarian. Yet, I will admit, there are some situation where, perhaps, some information should be controlled…like in situations of national security…or, in the case of the hurt or harm that might be imposed on someone, say, who is dying.

But, this then gets back into the argument for balance…something that I dealt with in my post of January 19, 2009. Because we work in a world of incomplete information we can only say that there may be some situations that we have to deal with in which the “best” (whatever that means) decision we make is to keep some information “under wraps”…keep it secret. Still, to me, to argue that one is an Information Libertarian means that one should, in reaching a balance, always err on the side of openness and transparency. One should always lean to the side that argues for the release and spread of information…whatever that information is about.

It is difficult to be an Information Libertarian in the political world that exists today. On the one side, an Information Libertarian tends to side with what would be considered to be the left, or the progressive, side of the political spectrum. In other issues, an Information Libertarian would tend to side with what would be considered the right, or the free-market capitalistic, side.

This conflict puts the Information Libertarian in a conundrum because, taking one’s beliefs seriously, one feels constantly ill-at-ease with the wide chasm that seems to exist between these two extreme positions. Wouldn’t it be much nicer if one could one could find one location on the political spectrum where all that an Information Libertarian supports would be located?

On the left side of the spectrum, the Information Libertarian supports a free press, no censorship, freedom to publish anything, freedom to produce anything in the theater, movies, and so on, freedom to compose anything, paint anything, sculpt anything, and basically freedom to create, compose, write, or perform any kind of information one feels compelled to. Obviously, this refers to political as well as cultural efforts.

It also refers to individual thinking, individual decision making and so forth. These, of course, are all generally associated with those ideas, laws, and rules that are looked on as “liberal” as the way of thinking. Of course, all of these must be incorporated within the legal and social structure of groups, organizations, governments, and other cultural arrangements so that people can live and work and thrive together. One thinks of the idea of a “civil” society…one in which people can get along with each other and not harm one another. The fundamental concept here is the idea that a person cannot be allowed to yell “fire” in a movie theater filled with people. Where one can, one leans to the side of as much freedom of expression as is reasonable.

On the left side of the spectrum, the Information Libertarian supports free-market capitalism. Of course, as with the other side, a societal balance must be achieved between unfettered markets and regulation or oversight. One can argue, and I do, that the freedom of markets enhances the living standards and effectiveness of a society through the greatest encouragement of information exchange, innovation and progress. This kind of a society encourages the mobility and fluidity of people, the breakdown of exclusiveness and discrimination, and the spread of wealth, and, consequently, power throughout the society so a truly democratic form of government can exist.

It refers to investigation, exploration, discovery, debate, dialogue, collaboration, and scientific advancement in all forms. It produces an environment where ideas can go from just thought to creation to application to consumption. The world of free-market capitalism, because of the fact that it supports meritocracy rather than aristocracy, should provide the environment for all that produces openness and transparency within the whole society. Therefore, a society that supports free-market capitalism should support the spread of information, the enhancement of education, and the existence of the public forum where anything and everything can be discussed. But, again, I add the caveat that there are limits or boundaries that people or groups cannot go beyond except to the detriment of the society. Yet, one still needs to err on the side of liberty and freedom in contemplating the constraints that might be imposed on the society.

This last side of the argument may draw some skepticism from many readers at this particular time in history. With the collapse of the financial markets throughout the world and with many economies in recession or expecting something worse, a lot of analysts have pointed to the failure of free-market capitalism to operate without sufficient oversight and regulation.

I have two responses to these charges. First, with a greater flow of information in the business world…more openness and transparency…there would be much less for today’s more progressive thinker to be concerned about. If businesses had to reveal what they were doing in all areas of their operations, then people, groups, and markets would be able to respond to the information and the “bad” conditions, etc., for which the progressive thinkers condemn free-market capitalism. I argue that greater information availability and dissemination would lessen discrimination and bias, create greater mobility in markets, which I believe would reduce inequities and inequalities, reduce risk taking and other things that people contend create crises.

The second point has to do with how effective government or oversight or regulation is in overcoming the problems of free-market capitalism. It is my belief that government, or oversight organizations or regulatory bodies often create an environment in a free-market economy that can lead to the subsequent behavior that come to be criticized in the future as the “problems” with free-market capitalism. To me the current financial crisis is a perfect example of this type of situation.

I don’t have time to go into this in this post but my belief is that government actions can lead to the creation of incentives for business people and organizations to act in a self-destructive way. On top of this the government counters the consequences of their initial actions thereby creating moral hazard with respect to banks, investment banks, financial companies, business manufacturers, retail organizations and so on, who then enter into competitive behavior that makes themselves riskier and riskier finally leading to a point where the system becomes so fragile that it collapses of its own weight.

I would put the theory that the “government is the cause of the problem” up in opposition to the theory that “the problem with the world is the behavior of greedy business people and speculative financiers.” If anyone needs a quick bit of evidence that government activity, in this case “Conservative” government activity, can be harmful to the economy and the society, I submit the example of the eight years of the Bush 43 administration.

The apparent contradictions in policy prescriptions in today’s world that come from claiming to be an Information Libertarian can present a real hornet’s nest of problems. In today’s post my effort is to begin to get these problems out into the air in order to start a discussion of how these contradictions might be resolved.

Balance

2009-01-19T17:49:00.000-08:00

Every leader must reach some sort of balance in the areas in which they are trying to lead. These leaders must also reach some sort of balance between the areas in which they are trying to lead.

I am not arguing that the leader should not have his or her own position within a given area. I am not arguing for wishy-washy compromise. I am not arguing for an un-grounded pragmatism.

What I am arguing for is for a leader to strike an appropriate balance of competing forces not only within a given area of interest but also between areas of interest. Notice too that I said “an” appropriate balance…not “the” appropriate balance. In addition, there is another point of contention as well. The balance that is achieved in various areas and between various areas will change over time…a balance cannot be held onto indefinitely.

The problem is that in any important area (or even not-so-important areas) of interest within the scope of a leader’s responsibility there will be competing positions…even within the group of people that are the leader’s closest allies. The same will be true when it comes to discussing priorities between areas of interest. There will be many competing positions…and those that may be allies in one area may be opponents in another…and so on.

And, within such an environment it is so important to remember that you may have to count on someone on a very, very important issue even though you fought tooth-and-nail against that person on the last thing you worked on. Even though people may oppose you there is a very good chance that sometime soon in the future you will be working with the very same person.

Achieving balance is important even if there are only two competing ideas within an area of interest. It is very seldom a winner-take-all situation. In many cases, you will be working with the “other side” in some capacity in order to carry out the goal that has been decided upon. Whether it be in government, or business, or in friendships, or in families…once a plan of action has been decided upon…it is necessary for those involved in the discussions to bind together in order to make something happen. The “winning” side is not the one that must move forward and execute the plan.

It, of course, becomes that much more difficult in the usual situation when there are multiple positions that have to be reconciled. People still have to go forward. They have to act and must avoid some form of paralization that could occur if some of the parties involved decide to opt out of the effort. Balance must be achieved so that people feel that even though they may not have gotten all they wanted in this situation that there is a good chance they may achieve more of what they want in another one.

Furthermore, as mentioned, care must be achieved in reaching a balance between different areas of interest. Here there may be more a notion of priority setting…we can do this now…but, we can only work on that thing partially at the present time…and we will have to wait a year or so before we can get to the other thing. Again, balance has to be achieved because you want to achieve a whole portfolio of objectives and not all of them can be attained at the same time. Thus, plans must be made for how the different areas will be addressed in what order and so forth.

Again, the leader will have to deal with shifting sand in terms of those that they are working or will work with on some issues, who will not be so warm to other areas and to those that they will be working with on different areas in the future. Everyone is a potential ally…and everyone is a potential foe. But, in one way or another, all of these individuals must work together in some form, on some issues, at some time in the future.

Having written this, I must go ahead and strongly emphasize two very, very important things. First of all, arguing as I have does not mean that you don’t have strong feelings about the different issues that you will be dealing with. On the contrary, it is very important that the leader have strong ideas…and it is crucial that the leader have a strong sense of who they are…and it is also a requirement that the leader feel comfortable within their own skin. That is, not only does the leader know what he or she stands for but it is also important that they know themselves and are unified and whole within their own person.

The further the leader is from this ideal the less confident they are in their ability to lead. And, the further they are from this ideal, the more they seek certainty of opinion and control over the chaos that is swirling around them. A leader with this shortcoming wants only people around them that agree with them and demand that these people be loyal through thick and thin.

A leader like this is not really a leader and will, in almost every case, fail in what they set out to do.

Second, it is not a weakness to work for balance. Reaching an appropriate balance is a secret of success. Achieving an appropriate balance is the way to build strong teams that can accomplish what they set out to accomplish. And, even though different combinations of individuals or groups may make up the team the sets out to attain another objective, the balance that is achieved within each team and between teams is vital to gaining more successes than fewer ones.

It takes a strong person who knows who they are to achieve an appropriate balance within a given area…and also between areas. Strong because they have to combine people and groups that also have strong wills. Strong because they have to lead people to work together. Strong because they have to convince people to postpone something they believe is very important until some time in the future in order to work on something right now that these people do not feel is as important as the other thing.

Barack Obama has said that he has learned quite a few things from President Ronald Reagan. I believe that one of the things that he learned from Reagan was the ability to attain balance when striving for various and sometimes contradictory goals. I don’t think anyone around would argue with the claim that Reagan had very strong views. But, he compromised to achieve balance. He sought supporters from all different positions of thought. And, he maintained friendships so that he could reach out to individuals in the future even though they might have had substantial differences on given issues in the present. In this way Reagan got a lot of what he wanted…not everything…but a large amount. By starting out with strong positions he was able to keep the balance in many areas tilted to his end of the spectrum…but, he gave in to many in order to keep the doors open and the discussions continuing. Reagan knew who he was, what he believed in, and was very comfortable in his own skin.

It is easy to pick on Bush 43 as the one at the other extreme. Bush 43 I would not call a leader. Bush 43 wanted certainty. He never worked for balance. And, he also demanded loyalty of those on his “team” above all else. I really never got a sense that he was really comfortable with himself. He wasn’t the “star” that his father was. He had very little intellect or talent. He “forced” himself to stop drinking and this effort of will was constantly in front of him as he “forced” his way through life. Objectives were either acceptable…or unacceptable…no in-between. And, he failed…with miserable incompetence…and almost everyone that surrounded him was tarnished in some way by the failure of his administration.

The main goal of a real leader is to achieve a sufficient balance in all that he or she is doing and with all the people that he or she is working with. Achieving such a balance is necessary if one is to be a successful leader…and achieving such a balance is a sign of personal strength…and inner wholeness.

Deliberative Government

2009-01-15T07:36:00.000-08:00

President-elect Obama is pushing hard to formulate his economic stimulus plan and have it enacted at the earliest possible date. First, he was shooting for January 20, 2009, the day of his inauguration as President of the United States. Then he was aiming for President’s Day in February. Now…there is a good deal of uncertainty.

The idea of an economic stimulus plan is popular with the people of the United States. It is also popular in Congress. But, Congress is a deliberative body…and…this raises the level of uncertainty of when the package will be passed and signed into law.

We have just experienced this past fall when Congress was stampeded to act…we even had a panicked Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke tell Congress on a Friday evening in September that the bailout package had to be passed the next Monday or “all hell would break loose.” And, so Congress gave up some of its deliberative power and moved quickly…although not as quickly as the pale and frightened Bernanke called for.

And, Congress has been regretting the quickness with which they passed the bailout bill ever since. Basically, Congress gave Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, and the Treasury Department a blank check with not controls and no oversight…at least for only $350 billion of the package. And, Congress…and apparently the Treasury Department…has no idea where the $350 billion has gone and how it has been used. It is, apparently, just gone!

Action like this is expected when there is a royal head of state or a dictator. That is, a dictator or a tyrant can change his or her mind on the spot and move this way or that way on a whim. The founders of the United States did not believe that this was a good idea. The policies and programs of a government should be discussed and debated and lingered over…and not just rushed into. There should be some “conservative” element within the government so slow down the process and get all sides of the issue a chance to be resolved. The founders created Congress to slow things down and muddy the waters.

Of course, there are times when decisions must be made in relative quick fashion…but, even issues that require relatively quick action can stand some time for reflection. Obviously, a balance has to be reached between rapid decision making and deliberation, but the general idea of the founders was that a country should err on the side of deliberation rather than on the side of hasty decision…frustrating though it may be.

Coming back to the present, I believe that the United States government, Congress, should err on the side of deliberation on the stimulus package. We are talking about a lot of money…and for a relatively long time frame.

We are talking about federal deficits of $1.0 trillion or more, not only this year…but next year…and the year after that…and so on…

We are talking about how much of this debt will be monetized…this year…next year…and so on.

Some are even talking about the United States becoming, financially, like a banana republic.

Yes, there are potentially real dangers on the other side. The economic slowdown could become an economic collapse…a second Great Depression.

But, there is no indication that the stimulus package will do what many are saying it will do. There is uncertainty about the combination…increasing spending or producing tax cuts. There is uncertainty about the speed at which programs can be implemented. There is uncertainty about whether the proposed spending will even have the desired effect of stimulating other spending. There are further questions about the ability of the financial system to support the large package.

Deliberation must take place! Even though the situation is serious…we cannot be rushed into this without discussion, debate, and contention. Yes, we want the result to be supported in a bi-partisan way…but this may not be fully possible. However, we want those that are not in favor of the stimulus program to be able to fully express their concerns.

There are too many concerns surrounding the whole situation to move precipitously.

Bernanke panicked the Congress in September to move hastily on the bailout package. There are many, many regrets about this. And, the feeling is that maybe Congress really did not have to move so quickly.

In my experience, many decisions that seem so urgent at the time they occur can really be reasonably postponed. Again, this is a judgment call so the answer is not cut and dried. Still, I have found that it is good to slow down and discuss things in most cases. This leads to a consideration of more alternatives and results in better decisions in the end.

I believe that the founders of the United States were correct in their wish to have this “conservative” element built into the structure of government. We need to take some time to examine issues and the potential solution to the problems the issues contain. We need a deliberative body that will do its work…deliberatively.

Let’s give Congress some time to consider the Obama stimulus plan. Let’s not be rushed into a program that has been hastily conceived and forced through into law by the new administration.

As that world famous philosopher Winnie-the-Pooh said, “A thought may sound very thingish when it is inside your heard, but it may not sound thingish at all when it gets out into the air.”

Let’s follow the advice of Winnie-the-Pooh and get these ideas about the stimulus plan out into the air and see if it is thingish or not!

Improvers

2009-01-10T08:53:00.000-08:00

I have just finished the book “Empire of Debt” by William Bonner and Addison Wiggin. I won’t focus on much of the content of this book for I am doing a book review on it for Speaking Alpha and the reader should go there for a discussion of the book, itself, and its major thesis. What I want to concentrate on in this post is the authors disdain for people they refer to as “improvers” and the problems these people can create within a democratic form of government.

An “improver”, as defined by the authors, is someone who wants to make improvements to the world…wants to impose his or her view of how the world should run on all of the rest of us. Of course, politics within a democracy is a perfect venue for “improvers” to show their wares.

One can get a taste of what is meant by an “improver” by checking out Bonner and Wiggin’s “Hall of Shame” as well as their “Hall of Heroes.” To them, the stars of the United States Presidents they list as villains are Lincoln, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon, and Bush 43 and so on. The heroes that stand tall in their book are James Garfield, Chester Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Millard Fillmore, and their personal favorite Warren Harding.

Just waiting to enter into this “Hall of Shame” is Barack Obama…just his proposals, even before taking the oath of office, are enough to bring down the abuse and ridicule of these two authors. President-elect Obama wants to make the world better for others. What a joke! What a crock of …well, you name it.

And, it is just this attitude that is walking…no, now, running…no, now, sprinting…down the path to the doom of the empire. In short, the American empire has been built upon the shaky premise that foreigners will continue to finance the debt of the United States forever and will continue, through thick and thin, to keep faith in the strength of the almighty United States dollar.

How much debt is the Obama administration going to add to the total United States debt outstanding?

Trillions and trillions of dollars!

But, this is not the focal point of this post. The focal point is on Bonner and Wiggin’s definition of “improvers” and the role that “improvers” play within a democratic framework of empire. Empires, to Bonner and Wiggin, keep their people happy and distracted by giving the masses “enemies and circuses”. That is, the thing that keeps an empire going is the diversion of its people. And, a democracy, according to the authors, is just perfect for the exploitation of the people.

Empires have always existed upon imperial interests, which mean that there are always wars on the periphery. The twist of the modern day imperialist is that they “pretend all manner of selfless and world-improving motives, every one of which is either an obvious fraud or a monumental bamboozle.” The authors go on to say that “The gist of the modern empire builder’s creed is that he has a duty to make the world a better place, and he can only do it by telling other people what to do.”

Empires need enemies…and isn’t it just convenient that when the modern empire takes on an enemy it is often done to bring liberty and democracy to the people it is fighting for. Perhaps, Bonner and Wiggin argue, one of the most difficult periods for the American empire came after the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of Communism because it left the United States government with no “bad guy”…no enemy. Thank goodness, they continue, for 9/11 because it gave the empire a vague, world wide enemy, the terrorist, that it could combat endlessly and without constraint on cost. Just what the empire needed to continue.

But, just as the empires of the past, these excursions cost lots and lots of money. In the past the empires extracted the funds to pay for their adventures from the defeated. The modern empire, the wealthy, prosperous empire, the empire that does not do its own saving, borrows from the poor of the world…those nations in which their people actually save.

So much for wars…now for circuses. The modern day circus, to Bonner and Wiggin, has to do with the promises and dream worlds which politicians in a democracy offer to the electorate. These promises and dream worlds can never be achieved and many attempts at attaining them leave those whose votes are solicited by the politicians worse off. To get elected, therefore, the politicians engage in lies and outright fraud. But that is the way of the modern world.

And, what is promised? Full employment. No financial pain. A home of their own for everybody. And, so on and so forth.

And, who is going to pay for the delivery of all these programs and policies?

Bonner and Wiggin tell us…China, India, Brazil, countries in the Middle East…and others in the less developed world…who save some of their income.

I keep getting off-the-point. Democracy gives “do-gooders” (those that want to make the world a better place to live based upon the knowledge the “do-gooders” have about how the world works and what should be done to make the world a better place to live in) the opportunity to make the world a better place to live in. And, so we get the modern empire…America in the 21st century.

The obvious thesis of Bonner and Wiggin is that the world would be a lot better place if there were fewer “improvers” or if the “improvers” were taken for what they are, in the authors words, frauds and cheats. They believe that people need to stick to their own business, be humble, and work hard. They believe that grandiose ideals and plans can only lead to trouble. They believe that the United States did pretty well until that incompetent fake, Woodrow Wilson became President.

Europe knew that Wilson was a fraud and laughed at him. They used him and then abandoned him and his ideals on how the world should be built. Yet, Wilson became the model for the many activist Presidents that came after him starting with Franklin Roosevelt. And, as they say, the rest is history…the history of the American Empire.

As we stand here on January 10, 2009 on the edge of financial chaos we need to develop an answer for the criticisms of Bonner and Wiggin or we need to be very afraid. The debt of the United States is going to expand dramatically over the next few years.

Who is going to finance all these trillions and trillions of dollars of American debt? Is the only way to finance this debt to monetize it? To print paper money or to electronically generate money?

Who is going to want to hold the United States dollar? The dollar lost 40% of its value between the start of 2001 and August, 2008. Will it lose 40% more? Or, 80% more? Or, 100% more?

Is this where the “improvers” have brought us?

Bonner and Wiggin believe so.

What Conservatives Are Saying Now!

2009-01-07T06:09:00.000-08:00

The United States is coming into 2009 having established one of the largest moves to socialization in the world. The prospects for the future do not provide any encouragement for this move to slow down!

The United States has moved into a new era…and who would have thought that it would be the Conservatives in America that created the environment for this to happen.

The Conservatives were always the people who believed in discipline…of not living beyond ones means and capabilities. Yet, it became the Conservatives that led the way to uncontrolled and irresponsible behavior…on the part of the government…and on the part of the private sector.

When did it start?

When Nixon claimed that “We are all Keynesians now!”?

Did this lead to the policies of Ronald Reagan who promoted Supply-Side tax cuts that led to large deficits that went on and on?

And this led to Bush 41 and Bush 43 and their undisciplined fiscal behavior?

The Republican Party…like most parties…is a conglomerate of groups with disparate or even conflicting positions. But, Nixon drew up the new boundaries of the party and created the new culture at the top. And, what were these new boundaries?

I would like to concentrate on three: making the Republican Party the party of the South and the religious conservative; the move to fiscal and monetary irresponsibility; and the emphasis upon loyalty to creed as the primary criteria for membership.

There is no question that the Nixon “Southern Strategy” became the foundation of the ‘new’ Republican Party. Lyndon Johnson basically disenfranchised the South with his policies on civil rights and welfare. These programs completed upset the social stratification of the South and caused many citizens of that part of the country to look for a new home.

Richard Nixon provided them with that new home. But, in doing so the Republican Party had to be open to two things…even if they were sublimated in all discussions concerning the party. These two things were, first, that the party had to accept the racist leanings of the Southerners that were brought in under the ‘big tent’, and, second, the party had to openly support a religious leaning that was more fundamentally orientated. Up until the late sixties, the Republican Party had been the home of the mainline Protestant denominations. That was to be no more…they were ‘too liberal’.

These two themes brought in the South and also appealed to more rural areas of the United States. This provided a background for ascending to the Presidency, but also to provide a strong bloc of support in both the Congress in Washington, D. C., and in state houses throughout the country. It also provided a funnel for future leaders of the Party.

The second boundary had to do with the economic policies of the Federal Government. Nixon was so paranoid about getting re-elected as President that he did whatever was necessary…the rest-of-the-world be damned. Consequently, the conservative policies of ‘hands off’, constraint, and discipline did not appeal to him. This made him susceptible to advisors around him…especially John Connolly…that led him in a totally different direction. That direction included ideas about ‘big government’, deficits in the budget, wage and price controls, and an easy monetary policy. And, the last item there was connected to the withdrawal of the United States from the gold standard that served as the basis for stable economic policies. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt did not dare get rid of this peg during the Great Depression.

Richard Nixon became a “Big Government” President opening the door for a succession of ‘Conservative’ big government presidents…like Ronald Reagan (a former Democrat), Bush 41, and Bush 43. And, “Big Government” for the Republicans included building up the military…for this was the patriotic thing to do. American was the leader of the free world and therefore it needed more and more resources for the military.

The problem with “Big Government” is that taxpayers in the United States will generally not support the taxes needed to run a big government so that the big government will have to be financed by selling bonds…or monetizing the debt. Nixon did both…but, to combat the possibility that inflation could get worse he also froze wages and prices in the economy.

Whoa ! ! !

The third boundary had to do with loyalty. Since the things discussed above became the ‘religious’ beliefs of the Republican leadership, adherence to the ‘religion’ became paramount…no matter how ridiculous the stance one had to take. Loyalty to the line became the most important criteria for membership in the leadership.

And, this loyalty transcended talent, ability, or experience. If you did not believe the way the Party did…you had no chance to help the Party regardless of how good or how successful you were. How else can we explain the incompetence of the Bush 43 administration? How else can we understand the ignoring of facts and of reality? How else can we explain the lies and the cover-ups?

In the past, the Conservatives were always the Party of reality, the Party of discipline, the Party of incremental movement.

I think that these Conservatives can now say…”We told you so!”

I think that these Conservatives can now say…”If you lose your discipline, you will eventually crash!”

I think that these Conservatives can now say…”Once you crash because you have lost your discipline, there are no good choices!”

I think that these Conservatives can now say…”There is only one way to ‘right the ship’ and that is by re-establishing your discipline!”

I think that these Conservatives can now say…”Re-establishing your discipline is VERY, VERY painful!”

The Split in America

2008-10-29T01:50:00.000-07:00

Timothy Egan begins his Sunday Opinion column in the New York Times, “The Party of Yesterday”, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26egan.html?scp=3&sq=timothy%20egan&st=cse, with the following description of the “nation’s brainiest cities…cities with the highest percentage of college graduates”: “These are vibrant, prosperous places where a knowledge economy and cool things to do after hours attract people from all over the country. Among the top 10 only two of those metro areas—Raleigh, N. C., and Lexington, Ky.—voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election.”

He continues, “This year, all 10 are likely to go Democratic. What’s more, with Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia now trending blue, Republicans stand to lose the nation’s 10 best-educated states as well.” Going further he states that “Brainy cities have low divorce rates, low crime, high job creation, ethnic diversity and creative capitalism…They grow good people in smart cities.”

Although I don’t disagree with the conclusion that Egan reaches, that Republicans “blow off the smart cities” and the smart states which makes them “The Party of Yesterday”, I believe that there is a deeper cause behind this bifurcation. It seems to me that this separation is something that is being experienced worldwide and is connected with the spread of information.

Historically, we have seen that information spreads and its spread cannot be stopped. Nations and organizations and cultures can slow down the spread for a while but in the end the spread of information overcomes even the most restrictive of societies. The development of movable type allowed for the printing and dissemination of books and pamphlets to audiences never before reached and this resulted in societal upheavals like the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and Post-Modernity. As this and further innovations that allowed people to compare viewpoints and data that were kept isolated before, science grew and prospered along with many other fields of applied science and intellectual investigation. The Information Age is bringing the world to an even greater integration of thought as the spread of information reaches more and more corners of the globe.

Of course, this is not looked on favorably by many. The spread of information threatens ways of thinking, lifestyles, and people in power. The spread of information is disruptive and often brings with it an upheaval of ordinary life. The spread of information forces change!

Those in power that are threatened by the changes sense the danger of the “new” information and attempt to constrain its spread while at the same time engage in the defensive maneuver of requiring a stricter adherence to the “old” way of doing things. In this response there can be no openness to debate or dialogue for the leaders in power believe that they cannot give in an inch to different ways of thinking.

Beyond the leaders that are threatened by the “new” information, different people respond to this threat in different ways. Whereas some people welcome the change, even thrive on the “new”, others in various ways are wary of anything that is different or are just overwhelmed by the wave of the “new”. In one instance it is costly to change one’s life and thinking to accommodate the new information. In another instance the situation can be described as one of information overload: the new information is like “white noise” to people…they are inundated with too much information and are unable to process it. In either case, as well as others like it, many people resist what is happening because it alters what they know and are comfortable with.

This environment is making a major contribution to the separation that Egan describes in his column. Whereas he claims that the separation is occurring as the “brainy” areas of the country are divided from other areas of the country, I believe that the bifurcation is being exacerbated by the division between those that are receptive to the spread of information in the modern world and those that want to hold on to the old knowledge and the old ways of thinking.

The foundational “base” of the Republican Party is constructed more and more from just those that want to hold onto the “old way of thinking” and are resistant to the spread of information that is making the modern world such a dynamic place to live in. The objections that are being raised relate to the diversity of culture and of different cultures, the new discoveries in the biological and physical sciences, the innovations relating to information technology and the global application of this knowledge, the openness to alternative goals and objectives in the world, and the possibility that all worldviews, including theirs, could be fallible.

With the emergence of the modern Republican Party in the late 1960s, it became the common wisdom of the party that a candidate attempting to gain the nomination for President had to move to the right end of the political spectrum to get nominated. Once nominated, the candidate could then move toward the center in order to be elected. Early on, through the 1980s, the Republican Party had a sizeable portfolio of policies and programs that were sufficiently attractive to independents and other swing voters to attract them to vote for its presidential candidate. However, the Party had exhausted their portfolio of policies and programs by the late 1980s and into the 1990s.

Therefore, something new had to be tried. A young Karl Rove was able to resolve this dilemma. In the two Bush (43) elections, the Republican candidate for President stayed to the right in order to cement the base of the party. However, since the party had little or nothing to offer those in the center of the political spectrum Rove resorted to fear tactics in order to obtain the votes of the independents and the swing voters. In the age of 9/11 and the war on terrorism, the strategy proved to be successful!

A similar strategy has been followed in the current run for the presidency. John McCain was supposedly an independent, a maverick that appealed to those in the center. What he didn’t have was an appeal to the foundational “base” of the Republican Party. The campaign strategists filled this gap in a very satisfactory fashion, to their way of thinking, by getting Sarah Palin nominated for the office of Vice President. The problem with the strategy was that Sarah Palin was not acceptable to the swing vote and the election started to slip away from the campaign. McCain’s “maverickism” could not hold the center. In desperation, the managers of the effort moved to the old standby of the previous two campaigns…demonize the opposing candidate and scare the independent voter into voting for McCain.

Not only did the strategy not work, it exposed the intellectual emptiness of the Republican Party. It exposed the Party as being the party that was resistant to the future. It exposed the Party as being an organization that was not only resistant to the spread of information but as the party that wanted to constrain thought and hold onto old prejudices. It exposed the Party as being reactionary.

This is the problem America has to face going forward. In past years we saw this problem as one we faced externally in a world. Now, we see it as also a problem we have to face internally. For whatever cause, people everywhere resist the spread of information. People fight wars to keep information from spreading. It is not a new battle, but one that has been rejuvenated as those impacted have become desperate as they feel the world they know slipping away.

History shows that the resisters never win…but they can put up an inconvenient and troublesome fight. Those that support the spread of information ultimately win the battle by example…by showing others that, as Egan implies, they are good people living in a good place with room for all to join them.

Where McCain and the Republican Party now stand

2008-10-27T09:06:00.000-07:00

This election has been a long road for me. Even though I left the Republican Party in the 1992 election, as the nominating season got underway in 2007 I was hopeful that there was at least one Republican candidate I could count on…possibly even two. I regretfully have to state…the Republican Party has definitely left me behind. I have never been so disappointed in people…Mitt Romney and John McCain in particular.

Last year as the political campaigns got under way I must admit to being particularly taken by Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts. I grew up in Michigan and was a big fan of Romney’s father…George Romney…and his mother…Lenore. I got the opportunity to work with George Romney in Washington, D. C. when he was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I had and have a great deal of respect for the elder Romney and believe that he always had his heart and mind in the right place.

I thought Mitt would be like his father and his life story indicated that this might be true. He went from one success to another, Bain & Company and Bain Capital, the Winter Olympics, and his term as governor of Massachusetts. He seemed open minded and responsive to situations with strong moral character. He seemed to be a lot like his father. Thus, I supported him financially, as well as emotionally.

And, then he began his campaign. I could not have been more disappointed as I heard him in the early stages of the campaign…especially in Iowa. He seemed to be a different person, perhaps because he did not believe what he was saying…or perhaps because he had accepted views that he was just learning. Whatever, he was nothing like the strong pragmatic individual I had seen earlier, a person who had a firm moral structure within him. In addition, he was nothing like his father!

Let me digress here for a minute. In the last quarter of the twentieth century one of the major beliefs held within the Republican Party was that a person who wanted to receive the nomination to run for President at the head of the Republican Party had to move sharply toward the political right in the primaries before moving back to the center of the political spectrum for the general election.

Romney did this to an extreme. In Iowa, he didn’t sound anything like the person who had been Governor of Massachusetts. And then there was the Michael Hucklebee threat. Not only did Romney feel that he needed to move to the political right, because of Hucklebee, he believed he had to sound like a Christian fundamentalist! Adding to this was the fact that Romney, being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, being a Mormon, was a member of a religious body that was greatly distrusted by many of the evangelical Christians he was trying to attract. He even claimed Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior and gave a ‘defining’ speech to lay out his religious beliefs. Romney sounded more and more like he really didn’t have any fundamental personal beliefs!

Romney lost the Iowa caucuses.

Worse than that…because of his pandering in Iowa he lost New Hampshire! At one time, Romney was well ahead of his competitors in New Hampshire. He was from neighboring Massachusetts and people in New Hampshire knew of him and liked him because of what he had done in Massachusetts.

And, at one time John McCain trailed Romney in New Hampshire polls by double digits and this was amazing because people in New Hampshire had always really liked McCain. But, McCain was basically ‘out-of-the-race’ because of his poor organization and the strained financial condition of his campaign. It seemed as McCain’s last try for the Presidency was dead on arrival.
Romney gave McCain his life back. Because of his pandering in Iowa, the people of New Hampshire turned against Romney. McCain re-organized and won the primary. McCain was back in business although still weak.

But, the other Republican candidates went on to self-destruct. Romney became less and less credible. Rudolph Giuliani followed a dreadful strategy which focused on Florida. And, in the end, the only one left standing was John McCain…the winner by default. A winner who was not trusted by the right-wing side of the Republican Party…who, at best, was received less-than-warmly by the evangelical Christian Right. McCain became the nominee of the Republican Party with only limited enthusiasm from the base of the party.

In order to explain the rest of this story let me just state up front that I believe that John McCain is one of the worst organizers I have ever seen at this high a level of ambition. The unfolding tale of his campaign is one of continual decisions that were questionable at their best and disastrous at their worst. But, the saddest part of this whole saga is that John McCain lost his direction and, in the process, lost his honor.

It seems to me that early on his campaign decided two things. First, McCain’s campaign managers believed that John McCain was loved by the center of the political spectrum for being a maverick and an independent thinker and the center would stay with him…especially if he were running against an extreme liberal. Second, his managers believed that it was important to command and energize the right side of the Republican Party, the side that was so lukewarm to McCain. The answer, they believed, was the choice of candidate for vice president…that person had to be someone of the political right that also appealed to the evangelical base. Furthermore, it would not hurt if that person were a woman…given that Hilary Clinton was not in the race anymore.

However, two things happened. First, the choice of the candidate for Vice President did fire up the right side of the Republican Party and its religious base, but, in so doing this individual over shadowed the candidate for President and dominated the news. Even worse, the vice presidential candidate seemed to drive away the independents and the people of the center that was the natural constituency of McCain, himself.

Here is where McCain’s political handlers hit the panic button. The choice of a vice presidential candidate held the political base of the Republican Party; but McCain was not supposed to lose his base in the process. Only half the plan was working.

The subsequent efforts of the McCain team represented a desperate effort to re-capture the center. And, how was this to be done? Demonize the Democratic candidate so that the center of the political spectrum would once again return to its preferred candidate…John McCain. This is the only way one can explain all the efforts the campaign to target Obama as a friend of terrorists, a socialist, a tax-and-spend liberal.

The problem was that the efforts to demonize the Democratic candidate didn’t work. In fact, if anything these efforts had the opposite effect and John McCain was now seen as a person who sold out to his right leaning handlers and had given up his honor and his dignity. He was not what we thought he was.

The right hand side of the Republican Party has come to dominate not only the primary season of the Party but also the Party in the general election. Unfortunately, it has swallowed up two men, who, in the past, seemed to be decent and capable individuals. It will continue to do this unless the Party loses badly in this election. But, more on this in another post.

What is Possible in the next Four (Eight) years?

2008-04-02T04:32:00.000-07:00

“What to do about a country that isn’t prepared to participate adequately in its own rescue?” Robert Rubin, writing about the Russia of 1998 in his book “In An Uncertain World”.

All of the candidates for President of the United States are out talking with the people and describing to them the policies and programs they would like to enact if they are elected this November. The basic question that follows this ‘dance’ is, “What are the chances that this person, if elected President, would be able to carry through and implement these policies and programs?”

Right now, my answer to this question is “Little or none!” Until the current financial dislocation resolves itself and the new administration really gets serious about the strength of the United States dollar, the hands of the new President will be tied in terms of enacting new programs and policies. The situation is similar to the one faced by Bill Clinton when he became President in 1992. The Republicans had had control of the White House for twenty of the previous twenty-four years and so Democrats were very anxious to get back into the White House and enact some programs and policies that were more consistent with their way of thinking. However, this was not to be.

Fortunately, for the United States, President Clinton listened to Bob Rubin who advised him that the Federal Budget had to be brought under control and then kept under control. The reason being, Rubin argued, was that any whiff of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Democratic administration would be jumped upon by the international financial markets and the dollar would suffer the consequences. New programs and policies would have to be limited while the administration brought their fiscal budget into balance.

The result of this was eight years of almost continuous prosperity and growth for the United States economy and strength for the value of the dollar. Granted that the Clinton administration had received the gift of a tax increase on the part of the George H. W. Bush administration, a gift that helped propel Clinton into the White House, but this gift set the stage for the eight good years that followed. [Clinton DID return a gift to Bush 43 reciprocating the gift that had been given him by Bush 41: the form of the gift was a balanced federal budget and, in general, a very robust economy. Bush 43 has not been so generous to the President that will follow him.] But, prudent fiscal discipline and management also made a major contributed to this period of growth and prosperity.

In one sense, however, the new President that will follow Bush 43 is in a similar situation to the one faced by Clinton. The dollar has been declining for about six years. The environment created by the Bush administration over the past seven years is one that includes a lack of discipline and prudence with respect to risk management and has left financial markets and institutions in disarray. One of the first items on the agenda of the new President will be to restore confidence in the United States government and the United States financial system. This agenda item will affect all else that the President does.

What about the war in Iraq? Well, no new President may be able to take the United States out of Iraq in the near term. However, anything that is done there…and in Afghanistan… is going to be severely limited by what can be done within the budget constraints that will need to be honored.

What about health care…universal or not? Again, budget constraints may not allow anything of consequence to be enacted.

What about….? Same story…

Well, if this is the case, how long must the budget constraints be imposed? It took President
Clinton almost his whole term to bring the Federal budget under control. And, what is very important along the way…the new administration must not only show its intent to bring the budget under control, everything it does must reinforce the image that it is moving in this direction. The international financial markets will not just respond positively to talk or weak actions on the part of the new leaders. ‘Tweaking’ won’t do it. The crucial thing here is the confidence the world has that the new President and the leaders within the new administration are firmly committed to successfully pursuing such a policy. This confidence is hard to come by and if it is abused at all, the confidence will go away and be just that much harder to re-establish.

The candidates for the Presidency must be very careful on this. They have at least two audiences. The first is, of course, the American public. These candidates must convince the electorate that they are capable of being the President and will bring to that office a vision that the American people can buy into. Second, however, the candidates are being closely scrutinized by the world community. In the past eight years, the Bush administration has followed a relatively unilateral economic policy (as well as a relatively unilateral foreign policy). This world community is trying to determine just how much these candidates, as a President, will play by the rules of the international financial markets. This is what will make it so hard on the candidates to conduct an honest, yet positive campaign into the fall.

What these two audiences want to hear are in many instances contradictory. The American public wants to know what the candidates would like to enact if they are elected President. The international financial community wants to know whether or not the new President will bring discipline and responsibility to the creation and management of economic policy. If I am right about the concern over the undisciplined fiscal and monetary policy of the United States government, this will mean that the American public will not get what it wants…at least for an extended period of time.

I just hope that the next President of the United States will surround him- or herself with advisors of the caliber and independence of Robert Rubin. Then I hope that this President will have the wisdom to listen to their arguments and then act in the best interest of all Americans. There are many times when pragmatism should win over ideology…this is one of them!

Establishing Discipline: Over Fundamentals or Over Ideology

2008-03-19T04:23:00.000-07:00

The United States is facing a very difficult situation currently due to the economic policies the Bush Administration has followed over the past seven years or so. To begin with, the Bush Administration came into office with the Federal budget in surplus and with the Federal Reserve following a relatively disciplined monetary policy. In a sense, the fiscal and monetary house of the United States government was in order.

Basically, the new administration decided to go it alone. That is, it would conduct its economic policy independently of the rest of the world. This was not inconsistent with what the administration was doing in other areas, such as foreign policy. Its first major economic policy action was to construct and then get Congress to pass a substantial tax cut. This, of course, would throw the Federal budget into a deficit, but, the feeling was that this tax cut would stimulate the economy and create sufficient revenues in the future to reduce the deficit and make it manageable. Also, there was some talk about slowing down the growth, or even eliminating some expenditure programs and this would further help to eliminate the deficit. The tax bill was passed.

In devising its fiscal plans, the administration did not anticipate the events of September 11, 2001 and its aftermath. Not only did these events precipitate a ‘war of terror’, they also resulted in one war in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. The expenditure side of the budget grew very rapidly. Furthermore, all three ‘wars’ left open a future commitment to an unpaid bill that was enormous. Occurring at about the same time all this was happening, the Federal Reserve was setting its operating target for the Federal Funds rate at 2% or below for a period of over 3 years. Given the rate of inflation during this time, this meant that the real rate of interest on these short term loans was negative.

The value of the United States dollar began to drop in 2002. World markets were concerned about how the Bush Administration was acting independently of the rest of the world and that they were not playing by the ‘rules’ of international finance. The most basic rule of international finance is that one country cannot ‘inflate’ its economy for its own purposes without a consequent decline in the value of its own currency in foreign exchange markets. This is just a fundamental result of how markets work. But, in the past, the United States being as big and powerful as it was, could get away from acting independently of these rules. This is no longer the case.

As the value of the dollar declined in foreign exchange markets, the Bush Administration gave lip service to the fact that the dollar was falling in value, but did nothing about it. As a consequence, the dollar continued to decline, falling by about 7% a year against the Euro between 2001 and 2007. It also fell by over 5.5% per year against the British Pound. The day of reckoning has finally appeared.

Historically, all countries that once had significant economic and financial positions in the world, except the United States, faced a transition from being able to act relatively independently of the rest of the world and having to abide by the workings of international markets. As countries moved from the former position of relative independence to disciplined cooperation, they went through a period of learning. During this period, the country in question would find that as it attempted to act independently of world markets through the creation of budget deficits that were eventually monetized by its central bank, ‘international bankers,’ an ambiguous and anonymous clandestine group of money managers, would start selling their currency until the drop in value became significant enough that the government had to back off its fiscal and monetary policies and establish a sound and disciplined program going forward.

The United States now seems to be in this transition position. The world has changed and it is no longer the world power it used to be. Yes, it is still powerful and important but due to globalization and the reliance of the world on oil it is not as important as it once was. As a consequence, the rest of the world is now showing the United States that it must join the club, it must humble itself enough to be realize that it must work with others and not just act as it wishes.

This is the background of the point I would like to make about the working of governments. The Bush Administration constructed its economic policy on the basis of an ideology. This ideology came from the presidential administration of Ronald Reagan. It is founded upon the premise that it is always good to cut taxes. In the past, this premise was presented along with the idea that programs should be cut as well in order to maintain fiscal discipline and reduce the size of the government. However, this latter component fell to the wayside when the proponents of ‘small government’ found that it was not practical or feasible to cut programs from the budget. Thus, only the first part of the ideology remained. Cutting taxes is good!

‘Conservatives’ and the Bush Administration stuck to the ideology. It brought in people to work in the administration that were loyal to the ideology. And, they enacted their tax cut and everybody was happy…on the ‘conservative’ side of the aisle. Discipline was rampant, but the discipline was to enforce adherence to the ideology regardless of the consequences of the impact of its execution. Furthermore, we see this imposed discipline carrying through to the campaign to become the Republican nominee for President in the 2008 election. Candidates went through unbelievable loops to sound convincing that they would continue the Reagan policy of cutting taxes if they were elected President. All seemed intent on becoming the next Ronald Reagan and they fought over who was the most representative of the Reagan tradition.

The problem is that the times have changed. The fundamentals are different now than they were 15 years ago let alone 28 years ago. The United States is not in the position it once was and must respond to the new fundamentals. The market imposes discipline upon those that operate within the market system. There is now enough wealth and power held outside the United States so that the United States must respond to this discipline and impose the discipline upon itself. This is all a part of being just one among many. One must pay attention to the wishes and needs of others. Within such an environment one must conform to the rules and become a good citizen.

This insight applies more than just to the ‘most powerful nation in the world.’ It also applies to those who hold power locally or regionally. Yes, the United States has been arrogant in attempting to impose its will on the world, but others have also been arrogant in attempting to impose their will on their ‘limited’ worlds. The attempt to impose an ‘ideology’ on others and the discipline that is applied to establish or maintain an ‘ideology’ on others is doomed to failure over the longer run. The problem is that the attempt to enforce the ‘ideology’ in the short run can have many dire consequences. The ‘ideology’ of the Bush Administration was related to tax cuts. The ‘ideology’ of others relates to ‘political correctness.’ The ‘ideology’ of others relates to Islamic fundamentalism. And, we can go on, if needed, to identify many more ‘ideologies’ that are alive in the world today.

What I am more interested in is the discipline that is necessary to be aware of and respond to the ‘fundamentals’ that exist in the world. I am not a post modernist. I do not believe that any worldview works and it is just a matter of who is in power. In the case of the economic policy of the United States and the decline in the value of the dollar…markets do work, some better than others, but, they do work. As a consequence, people, governments, and other organizations must operate within the boundaries and limits of being in a world with other people, governments and other organizations. This takes discipline, but it is a discipline that responds to and operates within the ‘fundamentals’ of the world. Some things, some models, some worldviews do work better than others. We must discipline ourselves to achieve the goals and objectives that are dear to us but we must do this in concert with the way the world works.

The Purpose of Government--2

2008-03-12T07:21:00.000-07:00

In the post of March 5, 2008, I took a look at a definition of the purpose of government attributed to the economist John Maynard Keynes. I focused on this definition because the work of Keynes has been the backbone and rationale for many of the programs and policies of the ‘Liberal’ intellectual in the latter half of the twentieth century, spilling over into the twenty-first century. His biographer, Robert Skidelsky presented the definition in this way: “The purpose of government is to secure the contentment of the people as constrained by the principle of equity.” (John Maynard Keynes, Volume 2, The Economist as Savior, 1920-1837 published by Viking Adult in 1994, page 62.) Skidelsky goes on to explain that by ‘contentment’ Keynes meant ‘physical calm’ and ‘material comfort.’ He also states that ‘equity’ can be defined as “the absence in law or policy of ‘artificial’ discrimination in regards to individuals or to classes.”

Last week I wrote about the first part of this statement of purpose, the securing of “the contentment of the people” as an objective of government. I argued that this concerned itself with outcomes and not processes. I further stated that the Hamiltonian approach to government focuses more on processes rather than outcomes because in a world of incomplete information one does not always succeed in obtaining the outcomes one wants. By focusing upon processes, the government helps to create the systems of a society (the rules and regulations of the society) and also helps the members of the society to obtain the skills and knowledge necessary to operate successfully within such these systems.

This week, I would like to discuss the second part of the definition, the part that deals with “the principle of equity.” Keynes was particularly concerned with this element because of his connection with the Bloomsbury group of artists and intellectuals who were, socially and culturally, on the fringe of English society at the beginning of the twentieth century. This group included individuals like Virginia Woolf, Vanessa Bell, Duncan Grant, E. M. Forster, Lytton Strachey, as well as Keynes, himself. It is apparent in Skidelsky’s biography of Keynes that Keynes was very concerned with protecting this group because of their ‘advanced’ ideas on such things as feminism, pacifism, and sexuality.

Historically, in the nineteenth century, as well as in the twentieth century, Europe and Great Britain were experiencing movements in society that resulted in the formation of more and more ‘little societies’ like the Bloomsbury group. Historians have linked these individuals and groups together within the framework of what is called “Modernism”, a movement they contend succeeded the Enlightenment and which served as the forerunner of “Post-Modernism.” To me, the Enlightenment and Modernism were a part of one whole and just represented an extension of how human beings, once they took on an attitude of skepticism towards authority and once they started exploring things inductively, began to extend knowledge and behavior in many different directions.

This development, I believe, can be related to the spread of information which really began in earnest following the evolution of printing that occurred in the fifteenth century. And, this spread of information continues today at an ever accelerating pace, leading to almost continuous change within the world as well as almost continuous resistance in some areas, the middle east for example. New information is threatening and causes change. Some individuals that receive new information, in whatever form, end up, sooner or later, comparing this new information with the old information generated by the models and schema currently used to solve problems and make decisions. If the new information conflicts with the old information, the seemingly natural thing for a person to do is to try and find out why the difference exists and then modify their models or schema so as to be able to make better predictions in order to solve more difficult problems or make better decisions.

New information is threatening in the sense that the modified models and schema may not be consistent with the assumptions behind the existing models and schema. These conflicts can be observed in religion, politics, culture, and other areas of society that have established belief systems. These existing systems maintain themselves through indoctrination, training, repression, power, and other forms of control and reductionism. Every society, organization, or group exerts such efforts in order to maintain the coherence and stability of their society, organization, or group. Some, however, have processes by which change can be accommodated from within, such as by means of a democratic process. Others require revolution to achieve change, but there are all grades of means between these two extremes.

Earlier in history, societies tended to be more homogeneous in their makeup. Thus, they did not face the threat of alternative world views as much as we do in the modern world. If alternative world views did arise, the individuals involved were either disposed of or, if innocuous, were ignored. However, as information began to spread more rapidly and the number of alternative world views grew, societies began to experience the presence of a real threat. This movement really accelerated during the period referred to as the Reformation and became even more prevalent during the Enlightenment. In the Reformation we saw many religious sects develop and this resulted in a massive, violent at times, change in society. In the Enlightenment, more and more was challenged and, of especial importance, Copernicus, Galileo, Francis Bacon and others developed the methodology and process of science.

Modernism, it seems to me, is just an extension of the inductive method applied to other areas of human interest, like those we would call the humanities, areas like art, literature, music, and architecture. What differentiates these areas from the areas discussed earlier? It is not the methodology of approach or the process of investigation. To me it is that the subject matter under review is much more complex and is much less capable of being isolated through experiment or reductive study. Whereas in science, the models or schema used can be the result of a reductive exercise that isolates the process being studied, allows it to be studied through tightly controlled experiment, and then presented in a formal, many times a mathematical, way. The models and schema used in art, literature, and so forth, often come in the form of stories and narratives, fables, proverbs, folk lore, and so forth. This is because of the complexity of the situations being studied, that is the process being studied cannot be reduced to just a few important variables, and because the models and schema cannot be tested by means of tightly controlled experiments which result in a rejection or confirmation of the proposition being examined. Dealing with human issues is a more difficult thing to do and is subject to much more questioning and debate.

Peter Gay, in his most recent work “Modernism: The Lure of Heresy” writes that “The creative individual was little regarded until the age of the Enlightenment.” But, the emphasis on the work of the individual grew and “The claim of being first and alone in the field became a central feature in the competitive modernist enterprise, which conjured up the figure of the inventive spirit who neither wants nor needs ancestors or company…” (pages 42-43) The Bloomsbury group evolved out of this new, modern attitude.

But, Keynes feared for his friends. Bloomsbury was different and it was not only threatening to the existing social structure, it directly challenged it. Keynes was concerned that Bloomsbury, and other similar movements, would be subject to ‘artificial discrimination’ because of their beliefs and living arrangements. Thus, he argued that a government should not create laws or policies that would be harmful to such groups. Of course, these groups should not harm the ‘physical calm’ or ‘material comfort’ of others, but he would argue strenuously that those, like the Bloomsbury group, would do no such thing.

The Hamiltonian approach to government, I believe, should be a strong advocate of this constraint on government. The spread of information is going to take place on an even larger scale in the future. Likewise, new groups and sects are going to evolve out of this spread in a similar way. A society that places a high premium on innovation and change in science and technology is going to have to accept the pressure for innovation and change in other areas of the society. These other individuals and groups should not be subject to ‘artificial discrimination.’ They are all responding to the same incentives.

The Purpose of Government

2008-03-05T08:38:00.000-08:00

Recently, I have been reading the magnificent biography of John Maynard Keynes written, in three volumes, by Robert J. A. Skidelsky. In both Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the trilogy, Skidelsky spends some time discussing how Keynes viewed the purpose of government and related his concept back to an essay that Keynes had written on Edmund Burke. This, of course, is very interesting in itself because Keynes is seen as one of the founding fathers of the ‘Liberal’ approach to how government can be used to maneuver the macro-economy and Burke is one of the reigning gods in the ‘Conservative’ pantheon of revelation. What I would like to start off discussing, however, is not the relationship between Keynes and Burke, but the purpose for government that Keynes supports intellectually.

Skidelsky reduces ideas of Keynes to this general statement: “The purpose of government is to secure the contentment of the people as constrained by the principle of equity.” (John Maynard Keynes, Volume 2, The Economist as Savior, 1920-1837 published by Viking Adult in 1994, page 62.) Skidelsky goes on to explain that by ‘contentment’ Keynes meant ‘physical calm’ and ‘material comfort.’ He also defines that ‘equity’ can be defined as “the absence in law or policy of ‘artificial’ discrimination in regards to individuals or to classes.” (page 62)

In other words, the purpose of government is to provide an environment in which individuals can achieve ‘good states of mind’ where one is allowed to achieve whatever ‘good state’ that he or she seeks. This is consistent with the philosophical atmosphere that Keynes was a part of coming from the work of G. E. Moore at Cambridge University (who wrote Principia Ethica (1903; revised edition, Cambridge University Press, 1993) and the Bloomsbury set of intellectuals (Virginia Woolf, Duncan Grant, E. M. Forster, Lytton Strachey and others) located in London. What Keynes was proposing was that everyone should be sufficiently well off and free of economic worries so that they could live the life they wanted, regardless of what others thought of that life.

Keynes, of course, is well known for his efforts to see that societies, especially ones like Great Britain, could attain the ‘physical calm’ and ‘material comfort’ needed for the achievement of such a goal. He was specifically interested in the ‘equity’ issue because his friends in Bloomsbury represented a leading avant garde community that exhibited advanced modern attitudes towards such things as feminism, pacifism, and sexuality. The Bloomsbury group, itself, was relatively well off as far as wealth was concerned and was also assisted over time by the financial support of Keynes; so that the first component of the ‘purpose of government’ was not a concern of theirs. However, Keynes recognized that the condition of ‘material comfort’ and ‘physical calm’ was necessary for the group to pursue its desired lifestyle. Thus, if others were to attain ‘good states of mind’ it was necessary for them to also experience ‘material comfort’ and ‘physical calm’. Hence, government needed to do something to achieve this end.

There was another matter that was important to Keynes in the 1920s and 1930s that fit into his definition of the ‘purpose of government.’ He was very concerned that if many in the country did not experience ‘physical calm’ and ‘material comfort’ they would revolt against the existing democratic governments that supported economic systems that were basically capitalistic in nature. Of course, there was the immediate experience of the Russian Revolution. This worry, however, permeated the Paris Peace talks that followed the Great War and carried over into the 1920s and beyond as real concern was expressed that the ‘masses’ might rise up if they were in a depressed state economically. Thus, a strong, vibrant economy was necessary, it was felt, in order that people could be free to follow the own path to achieving ‘good states of mind.’ The concern here related to the potential breakdown of the capitalistic system.

It is important to address this concept of ‘the purpose of government’ from the Hamiltonian point of view that we have been discussing in previous weeks. One cannot argue from the Hamiltonian standpoint that the goals set out by Keynes are undesirable. We cannot argue that ‘physical calm’ and ‘material comfort’ are good things and are good things for everyone in a society. Also, one cannot argue that there should not be discrimination about the choice of lifestyles, let alone discrimination based on race or any other physical distinction between people.

What one can disagree with this stated purpose from the Hamiltonian point of view is the ability of government to directly achieve specific outcomes. The problem, as I see it, is that this purpose is concerned with outcomes and not processes, a distinction that has been discussed in previous weeks. Outcomes are all fine and good, we argued in the last post, but it is next to impossible for a government to obtain the information necessary to create programs that will achieve the outcomes desired; it is next to impossible to create an incentive system that will accomplish such goal; and it is next to impossible to implement and then execute such programs and policies in a timely manner. In other words, attempting to achieve specific outcomes is a very, very hard thing to do.

It is difficult enough for people to achieve the results that they set out to reach and if they focus only on current specific outcomes they can easily despair. If it is that hard for an individual to achieve what they set out to do, just think how much harder it is for a government to achieve specific outcomes. Furthermore, setting up programs and policies to gain specific ends can become counterproductive in that the programs and policies create other outcomes that are not helpful. And, once programs and policies have been created they are almost never eliminated so that they eventually come to serve other purposes. This is why it is argued that individuals, as well as organizations and governments, should focus on setting up processes that can succeed over time and that provide the tools needed to succeed.

Life is uncertain and an individual or an organization is not going to succeed in every instance. That is why the focus on specific outcomes is not that productive. In baseball, a good hitter will get a hit in 1 out of every 3 times at bat. Or, that batter does not get a hit 2 times out of every three at bats. If we focus on the times the hitter does not get a hit, things look pretty bad. Yet if this person has developed a process, a technique that allows him, on average, to get a hit 1 out of 3 at bats, that person is going to be one of the better hitters in baseball. One is not locked into outcomes when one focuses on processes.

Governmental policies and programs that initiate processes can be leveraged by individuals and organizations to achieve desirable outcomes far beyond the scope and scale of what the government can achieve by itself. In terms of education, the government can support the creation and maintenance of an educational system that results in tremendous positive externalities throughout the society. In this way, the government is helping its citizens attain the tools that are of great benefit to individuals as well as to the society. In terms of capital markets, the government can provide the rules by which capital markets can work and the policing of these markets to oversee ‘fair play’ within the operation of the markets. In terms of a banking system, again the government can provide the rules by which the banking system operates; regulate the system to minimize the amount of abuse taking place; and then support a check clearing system and central banking facilities to support the efficient functioning of the banks.

In all these cases, the government is focusing more on enhancing the infrastructure of the society rather than on achieving specific outcomes. Yes, outcomes are going to vary over time, but even the existing infrastructure should be aimed at smoothing the variation in the outcomes and not offsetting them. Nothing is being said here about the size of government. In a modern, well-functioning capitalistic society, it is my feeling that a fairly sizeable government will be necessary. What is crucial, however, is not the size that the government achieves, but the role the government plays in letting the society determine itself. To me, Keynes was idealistic and not realistic about what a government could do.

More on Hamiltonian Government

2008-02-27T05:18:00.000-08:00

Governments face three problems that place limitation on what they can do. First, governments have a problem with incentives. The intention behind many government programs and policies tend to be good and praiseworthy. Most of the people that work for a government are honorable and well-meaning individuals. The problem is aligning objectives with incentives so as to achieve and continue to achieve the goals that the programs or policies are attempting to achieve. Appropriate incentives are often difficult to set anywhere, but in government, where there are so many things that people want to accomplish, incentives are not always clearly defined or clearly understood. It is easy in the business world to say that the goal of a business is to maximize shareholder wealth. It is not so easy to define such specific goals in the world of government. Furthermore, objectives may change over time. Many agencies set up by the government, say, to regulate an industry, often become advocates for the industry over time.

Second, governments don’t come close to having all of the information they need in order to resolve the problems that the proponents of government would like them to solve. Friedrich Hayek pointed this fact out many years ago. For example, a large amount of the information needed to execute a government program or policy is ‘local’ information and is present only in the dispersed locations of those affected. Gathering information is costly and the costs of obtaining more and more information are generally not linear. Thus, to get the appropriate information to a centralized location so that a decision can be made, return the decision to the local authorities and then execute the decision at the local level is both expensive and time consuming.

Third, governments are less and less able to keep up with the speed at which the world is changing. Today, even businesses have trouble keeping up with the pace at which change is taking place. The problem is right there from the start of a program or a policy. Programs and policies never seem to be developed in anticipation of something happening. Most politicians don’t want to go out on a limb and introduce legislation for a problem that doesn’t exist. First of all, no one else will be interested in the legislation because it is not a pressing need and in the second place, there are too many other things a politician has to respond to that tend to grab his/her attention. The response in the U. S. Congress to the problems in housing is a case in point. The problem has occurred. Congress is trying to respond to the pain.

The difficulty with this is that by the time the programs or policies are enacted, staffed and execution attempted, the world has moved on. Governments, both bureaucrats and politicians, are, in a real sense, always fighting the last war. And, with events occurring within shorter and shorter time intervals, this difficulty is going to get worse not better.

The conclusion one reaches from considering these three factors is that governments have difficulties getting people to do the things they want done, don’t usually have the information they need to make the decisions that need to be made, and tend to be behind the curve in terms of executing and administering the programs or policies it does put into place. Any one of these difficulties can reduce the effectiveness of a program or a policy. If all three of them are working the hopes for the successful delivery of a program or policy can only be wishful thinking. If this is a realistic description of the environment that a government works within then the programs and policies that the government does enact and administer should take these factors into account.

Let’s discuss these issues a little further. In terms of information, I believe that the government should encourage and support the spread of information throughout a society. And, improving the flow of information should be a goal of the government itself. That is, a government should encourage as much openness and transparency of its operations as possible. It is interesting and important to me that someone like former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in his book “In an Uncertain World: Tough Choices from Wall Street to Washington” argued very strongly for openness and transparency in his efforts to resolve important issues that impacted not only his Treasury Department, but the whole of the U. S. Government, foreign governments, and the world. In an uncertain world, restricting or limiting information is not helpful and we should err on the side of too much information rather than too little. I will say more on this in another post.

Government programs and policies affecting the private sector should be aimed at setting up and achieving process; not outcomes. What I mean by this is that a government should set up the rules of the game and then oversee the maintenance of this process. Establishing and maintaining private property and the rule of law are major components of a government that wants to support a free and open capitalistic society. What is important here is that the government facilitates the operation of the society, it does not dictate the results of the society. Incentives can then be established relative to the creation and establishment of the process and not toward specific output goals and objectives. This is important in an uncertain world.

Finally, government programs and policies must transcend the need to be real time orientated. The problems and difficulties of a society should be attacked by the problem solving and decision making capabilities of those within the society itself. Not only are the individuals directly impacted by these problems and difficulties immediately involved with what is going on, they are the first line of defense in the society to resolve them in a timely fashion. What the government needs to create are programs and policies that provide the people and organizations within the society with the tools and information sources they need in order to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. It is the private sector that must adjust to changing situations, not the government.

In terms of this last point, one cannot say enough about governmental programs and policies that support education and the education system in the society. Not only does a first-class education system provide positive externalities within a society like a highly educated and networked work force, it also creates problem solving skills and the ability to find information and use information in the best ways possible. The support of programs and policies for a superior education system transcends the ‘real time’ problem faced by those programs and policies of a government aimed at responding to a current crisis. The educational system will help to create individuals and organizations that are present and capable, and have the tools to handle these situations in a smoother, timelier, and more incremental way.

This brings us back to two major issues of modern society: change and the ability to meet change. A highly educated and networked society is going to be causing change to take place. Learning takes place by absorbing new information, relating that information to what is already known, and then using this relationship to solve more complex problems and make better decisions. But, solving more complex problems and making better decisions moves the society along: it creates change. The ability to meet change comes from the same process. People must not be afraid of new information. It is the fear of the new, fear of new information that creates a resistance to change. A highly educated and networked society learn that new information, if smoothly incorporated into the society’s base of knowledge, is not a threat. The change that accompanies the spread of new information should be viewed as an opportunity, not an enemy.

The Role of Government

2008-02-20T08:04:00.000-08:00

What role should government play in a society? The Libertarian right away says that the role of government in a free society should be minimal and limited to just those things that the private sector cannot do for itself. The socialist, on the other hand, argues that property and the distribution of wealth should be controlled by a central organization within the society, one such organization being a governmental body.

I argue that each of these extremes is a child of academic/intellectual mental gymnastics and promise very little to us in the way of practical application. Neither works when tried! A purely unfettered capitalistic market system can result in behavior that many would say is uncivil and unfair. Incentives are the hallmark of a capitalist system (see “Feakonomics” by Leavitt and Dubner) but, in unregulated markets there are strong incentives to cheat as well as to perform morally. Libertarians tend to cover this problem by saying that a free society does have to have a basic moral system (where does it come from…religion?), private property, the rule of law, and an infrastructure (roads and police protection?).

Can a socialist society succeed? It seems that the history of the last twenty years provides many examples of socialistic societies that have left their people impoverished, uneducated, and backward in terms of the advancements of the modern world. Those still defending socialist systems contend that these experiments really were not ‘pure’ and hence are not representative of what could be achieved in a ‘real’ socialist society. They argue that these societies had individuals that worked against “the people” and this tended to derail the honest attempts to bring the socialist ideal into practice. Of course, those societies, which included Russia, China…and Cuba, attempted to severely repress the ‘disruptive elements’ and these efforts resulted in large scale imprisonments and executions.

In reality, governments exist and they are going to exist. But, these governments are not going to be small and minimal relative to the society as a whole, and they cannot attempt to exercise control over major areas of the lives of people that make up the society. It was argued in the post of February 13 that a society needs to achieve an appropriate ‘balance’ between competing ends. Liberty needs to be a major part of a society, but, liberty also needs to be tempered by behavior that creates positive externalities for society as a whole.

Externalities arise when individuals or organizations are positively or negatively affected by the decisions of other individuals or organizations, but the party causing the externality does not receive a benefit, in the case of positive externalities, or bear a cost, in the case of negative externalities. An educational system can create a positive externality for a society because having an educated workforce tends to benefit the society as a whole and not just the individuals that are educated. The basic example of a negative externality is the organization that creates pollution that affects other parts of the environment.

David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times, has suggested that we need to assume a more Hamiltonian (after the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton) approach to what the government does. He defines a Hamiltonian policy as one that supports free market capitalism but helps the people get the tools that they need to compete in it. These policies can include the rights and privileges associated with private property, the rule of law, and the security and protection to conduct business and enjoy life as well as a well functioning financial system, the encouragement of enterprise, and education. These policies can also include unemployment insurance, a more universal health insurance and other programs that can help people in transitional or disruptive situations.
For a representative sample of his writing in this area see the following articles: http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08brooks.html; http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12brooks.html; and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15brooks.html.

Where do I come out on this? Let’s go back to basic assumptions. The Libertarian begins with the assumption, coming from the Enlightenment, that human beings were originally ‘free’ and ‘at liberty.’ Since this was the natural state of the human being, society should be set up to provide the members of a society with as much freedom as possible. The Socialist contends that positions of power exist within a society and unless the powerful are controlled by a benevolent body excessive poverty and inequality will result in that society. These assumptions, in one way or another, are foundational to the different approaches to defining the role of government within a society.

I believe that neither of these assumptions are a realistic foundation for the determination of the role of government in society. My basic assumption about human beings is that humans are problem solvers. All life, to some extent, is composed of problem solvers, but the human species represents the highest development of this talent. The evolution of this skill to its current level has allowed humans to far outstrip the capabilities of any other species that we know of. And what is the goal of human problem solving? It is to allow humans to make better and better decisions and solve more and more difficult problems.

Since individual humans are limited in their ability to solve problems, they found that they can augment their individual problem solving skills by organizing. Families, groups, communities, and governments are ways that humans organize to make better decisions and solve more difficult problems. People are different…they bring different skills and knowledge to the table. Organization succeeds by combining the specialized skills and knowledge of diverse people so as to leverage their differences in order to achieve more than just what the individual can do. Organizing people that are all exactly alike in their skills and knowledge gains little or nothing in terms of the ability to solve problems. Thus, my basic assumption is that human beings are problem solvers and this is based on biological science, not utopian thinking.

The government, therefore, is just another organization set up to help humans make better decisions and solve more difficult problems. But, for a government to work effectively it must access the different skills and knowledge and diversity that exists within a society...all of the society. Since the government represents all of a society, the members of the society have a vested interest in the decisions that the government makes. Thus, to fully access what people bring to the society, the government must be open and transparent to the individuals that make up the society and must allow for debate, discussion, and dialogue on all the issues confronting the government. Modern society and the spread of information have made this more and more necessary. Every day we see that governments that don’t recognize this fact face severe problems and tend to be on the defensive!

What does this have to do with the idea proposed by Brooks that emphasizes Hamiltonian policies for government? To me, Hamiltonian programs and policies create positive externalities that can be achieved through governmental organization: these cannot be obtained through private means. For example, some situations or issues exist in which there are conflicting interests that can only be resolved by bringing together the different members of the society. Here negotiations, rules and regulations and laws are important. Positive externalities are gained by reaching a balance that everyone can work with. There are some situations or issues in which everyone has an interest and can be solved by creating programs or institutions that benefit both individuals and society. Here positive externalities can be achieved by the creation of an educational system, an interstate highway system, unemployment insurance and so forth. Thus, we are looking for government to find ways, policies and programs, that allow human beings to do what they do best…solve problems. More on this next week!

Politics as the Art of Maintaining 'Balance'

2008-02-13T05:30:00.000-08:00

Democracy is a system that achieves and maintains balance in a society as well or better than any other system around. By achieving balance I mean that a democracy is able to take all the competing ends that exist within a society and craft a solution that weighs as well as possible all of these ends. And, a democracy can maintain some form of balance over time at least as well as any other system of governance. Now, this doesn’t mean that it always gets the balance ‘spot on’ or that the balance doesn’t change over time, requiring a modification. All that is meant here is that it seems to be the ‘best’ of the imperfect systems that are available to us.

An example can be found in the tradeoff between personal liberty and security that was brought into focus in the United States after the 9/11 tragedy in 2001. Before the events of that day, the United States had achieved and maintained one ‘balance’ of these two items, but after the attack the ‘balance’ moved more toward the goal of achieving security and protection from terrorism and away from personal liberty. In all probability, exactly where this ‘balance’ resides in five years (or in ten years) will be someplace different than it is today.

The crucial element in all of this is that where a society decides to be at any one time changes and the society must be able to adapt as smoothly as possible when these changes are required. Nothing stands still and nothing creates more problems for a society than being ‘locked’ into a certain tradeoff when, in fact, the people desire another tradeoff. But, science changes, technology changes, the composition of a society changes in many ways, in terms of gender, ethnicity, religion, age, and so forth. For example, the advent of cars changed things as did the introduction of television, contraceptives, and stem cell research. These changes affect a lot of different people in a lot of different ways and adjustments must be made, compromises accepted, and relationships maintained for society to go on. And, one could argue that incremental changes are better than discrete jumps.

On the surface, however, a society never really seems to move incrementally. For one, major changes seem to take place in response to specific historical events. The balance of the role government played in the United States was significantly changed during and after the Great Depression. The Second World War cemented these changes or continued the movement toward more governmental involvement in the society. The Cold War had its impact on the location of the ‘balance.’

Another reason why changes seem to be made in leaps is that the people, as a whole, tend to be somewhat conservative in nature. Once a certain balance is achieved, there seems to be a certain reluctance to change what has seemingly worked over time. Only when an imbalance arises and becomes particularly acute does it seem that people move onto a new balance that may be at some distance from where the previous balance had been located.

Yet, there is still a lot of change in the balance of society that does take place incrementally. These are the changes that do not gain so much publicity or that do not raise the emotions of people to the level that other issues do. These kinds of changes add up over time and lead one to reflect, from time-to-time, on the question of ‘How did we get here?’ And, many of these changes are not so much ideologically driven as they just happen to make things work better.

Then there are the efforts that are ideologically driven. In recent years, as the political parties in the United States have become more polarized, these attempts to move the ‘balance’ that exists in different areas to a new location, seem to have gained more prominence in what candidates for office seem to offer. Not only do these candidates promise to change the tradeoffs that exist in certain areas, they promise to do it immediately upon entering office. In a real sense, the timing of these changes are driven by the election cycle in that the candidates believe that they only have about 100 days in which to make major adjustments. After this ‘honeymoon’ period, the politicians move out of the ‘grace’ period the electorate has given them and all chance to innovate is gone. The philosophy is to present all of your major changes early on and then administer the ‘new balance’ in the remaining time that you are in office.

I have two concerns with this attitude toward governance. First, those that are elected tend to take their election as a ‘mandate.’ Even if they have only won with, say, 51% of the votes, they declare that they have a mandate for change. The people have told them that they are to make major changes in where the tradeoffs in the existing ‘balance’ of things are located. So, we the people, see a new President take office and then we observe a frenzied effort to put the new ‘balance’ into place. Then in four or eight years we see another new President do the same thing, attempting to return to the previous ‘balance’.

The second concern I have relates to the ‘game playing’ that is connected with this type of behavior. For example, consider the efforts of a new President to change particular ‘balances’ in society. If this President can move things far enough to change ‘balances’ so as to actually create ‘imbalances’, then even though when this administration goes out of office, the next new administration will have to work out these ‘imbalances’ and not be able to inject a lot of its priorities. If the same party can be continuously in office for an extended period of time, these ‘imbalances’ can even be allowed to grow and this creates tremendous problems for any new President that wants to ‘change directions.’ For a good review of some of the constraints that exist in the current situation see the editorial of David Brooks, “When Reality Bites”: (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?hp).

There are times when the imbalances leave an irreconcilable dilemma as is the current situation with respect to economic policy. At present it appears as if the American economy is going into a recession. To lessen the severity of recession the government can execute a combination of monetary and fiscal actions. In early 2008 we see the Federal Reserve lowering the target interest rate it uses to conduct monetary policy and the Bush Administration and Congress creating a fiscal stimulus package. The Federal Reserve has had to lower its interest rate target because of dislocations in the financial markets. The fiscal stimulus package resulted from the game playing of the President and Congress, both of whom could not do ‘nothing’ in fear of facing massive criticism in upcoming elections. The dilemma is that these policies are exactly the opposite needed in order to stop the decline in the value of the dollar which has been declining for over five years. The decline in the value of the dollar can be attributed to the deficits created by the tax cuts enacted early-on by the Bush Administration and low interest rate policy followed for two years by the Greenspan led Federal Reserve.

Is this ‘game playing’ a direct result of the electoral process resulting from a democratic form of government? Perhaps this indicates that some ‘balance’ needs to be achieved between the game playing that goes on within a government and the electoral process and the ‘balance’ that is needed within a society in order to function efficiently and effectively.

Conservative and Liberal...Liberal and Conservative

2008-02-06T08:13:00.000-08:00

These words are really meaningless to me except in the sense that they represent the titles that we place on people. We say, “You are a Conservative!” But, what does that mean? I am just labeling someone much as I name something a “Hummer.” “You are a Hummer.” What does that mean? Calling someone a Liberal now means something different than calling someone a Liberal in the 1950s or calling someone a Liberal in the 1910s. And you hear people call themselves “Classical Liberals.” It is a name with varied meanings and when you start modifying the label you know that the title has lost any specific meaning.

A conservative person, to me, is someone that either tends to hold on to what is, or, is someone that doesn’t like to take risks. Conversely, a liberal person is one that is open to many different ideas or is more willing to take risks than is a ‘conservative person’. But, a conservative person or a liberal person is not a platform or a dogma or an ideology. When we move these terms into the realm of titles everything becomes confusing.

I have worked with a lot of people in the world of Information Technology, both in teaching at a major university and in working with young entrepreneurs that are attempting to develop the next “big” thing. In this area, people have gotten away from the terms conservative and liberal and use such terms as adaptive and innovative. These terms possess similar meanings, but get away from some of the baggage of the other terms. A person that is conservative seems to be holding onto the past whereas a person that is adaptive knows that change must take place but wants the change to be slower, moving only when there is real justification for the change. A person that is liberal seems to be open to many different possibilities whereas a person that is innovative is someone that attempts to put a new idea into practice. From this we can see that with this terminology it is easier to discuss a continuum of behavioral tendencies running from adaptive to innovative than to just speak of the two extremes. Thus, it is better to say that individuals are more adaptive than others, or, less innovative. It is not appropriate to say that individuals are either adaptive or they are innovative.

Clayton Christensen, who has written a great deal on technological innovation, has distinguished between innovations that are sustaining and innovations that are disruptive. Here the idea is that all change is innovative in nature. However, a sustaining innovation is one that tends to improve the performance of what exists. It can be ‘discontinuous or radical in nature’ or just ‘incremental’, but, the key factor is that sustaining innovation is change that remains within the existing paradigm. A disruptive innovation, on the other hand, is one that changes how things are done rather than just improves them. A disruptive innovation is a change that introduces a different paradigm. Within this framework it can also be seen that one innovation might be more sustaining than another innovation…or more disruptive. We have once again gotten away from the extremes and have established a continuum.

Why do we need to move away from the liberal/conservative labels? We need to move beyond the liberal/conservative labels because they are very, very misleading. For example, to say that someone is conservative may be something entirely different than to call someone Conservative. And, this is true of the distinction between liberal and Liberal. Why?

For one thing, I don’t believe that most of today’s Conservatives are conservative! In many cases, I find that leading conservatives are more innovative than they are adaptive and that many of the programs that they are presenting or are promoting tend to be more disruptive than they are sustaining. The same thing can be said of Liberals and the programs that they are presenting and promoting.

An example comes to mind. In the early history of the United States, Washington’s first term in office, we see the break occurring between Alexander Hamilton and his supporters and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and their supporters. The former group was labeled Federalists while the latter group, who later became the Democratic-Republican Party, was originally called the Anti-Federalists. The rivalry between the two parties became rancorous and bitter. The difference was not, in my mind, between conservatives and liberals, but was between different pictures of the world that were more innovative than adaptive and were more disruptive than they were sustaining. This is why the divisions between the two parties were so great.

In the early stages of the battle, Jefferson and Madison attempted to link the Federalists with England and with monarchy. Since the Federalists were attempting to create a stronger central government that overcame the difficulties experienced in the original confederation of states, it seemed a natural defense of the more decentralized confederation to accuse the Federalists of wanting to return to the English model of government and even to create a monarchy. Hence, the Federalists were conservatives as opposed to the more liberal Anti-Federalists. Since a war had recently been fought for independence, these were fighting words…and so the battle was engaged. Emotions ran high.

The Federalists, however, were not conservative…they did not really want to return to the English model. As Benjamin Franklin said, something new had been created. But, there were two visions of what this ‘new’ should be. The Federalists saw a world that included finance and manufacturing and trade (international as well as domestic) and in such a world they believed that there needed to be more power lodged in a centralized, national government because there were just some things that a loose confederation of states could not handle. The Anti-Federalists saw a world of farmers and small businesses that were free and independent of these less civil pursuits. They believed that a more decentralized government would better serve the people. Thus, there was a battle of two world-views.

I believe that the same type of situation exists today. I don’t believe that either the Conservatives or the Liberals want to keep the existing structure. The United States is going through a period of transition and there exists (at least) two world-views as to what the future should look like, and it is not the America now in existence or the America of the past. In this sense, what the Conservatives and the Liberals want, in their own way, is innovative and disruptive in nature. The Conservatives do not want to conserve and the Liberals are not liberal in the sense of being ‘open-minded’ about what should take place. They both have a vision and their visions diverge rather than converge…hence the rancor and bitterness of some of the debate.

Where does this leave us? If we take the earlier experience as a guide we can conclude that this division will not be resolved soon. In my interpretation of past events, the Federalists had an immediate victory and a relatively strong, centralized government was formed, much to the benefit of the United States. However, the Democratic-Republican Party controlled the Presidency and the Congress for a lengthy period of time beginning in 1800 and won many battles in the 19th century. We still, as a nation, from time-to-time, long for the idyllic America, the one composed of small farms and small businesses. The heritage of this past still lingers with us. Yet, one can argue that the United States that evolved is really more ‘Hamiltonian’ (see New York Times columnist David Brooks) than it is anything else.

If this is the case and the conflicting world-views continue to do battle we must adjust our mindsets and perceive the situation as it is and not as a battle to conserve or liberate the country, but as one in which there are (at least) two perceptions of how the government should be structured. I, personally, don’t have any suggestions at the moment as to what these world-views should be called. All I know for sure is that they should not be called Conservative and Liberal.

Comparing the Idealist and the Realists

2008-01-24T08:29:00.001-08:00

I was just reading the book, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace by Donald Markwell (Oxford University Press: 2006) and came to a section titled Idealism. Markwell had been discussing the Peace Conference held in Paris after World War I, the peace conference from which Keynes resigned his position in protest and wrote a scathing book entitled The Economic Consequences of the Peace that reported what had gone on at the conference, described the roles of the leaders of the conference and projected the consequences of the peace treaty that resulted from the conference. In the section just mentioned, Markwell contrasts Keynes’s ‘idealistic’ approach to the ‘realistic’ approach followed by the French leader Clemenceau. This contrast struck me as relevant for what is going on in the United States today.

Markwell defines “the realist or Carthaginian approach” as one that “saw man as ‘congenitally ordained to prey upon his fellows’” with the result being that history was “a perpetual prize-fight.” (Page 109) “The idealist or Keynesian approach saw ‘humanity and (European) civilisation struggling towards a new order.’” (Page 109) Along with this, Markwell states, there were two conflicting conceptions of justice: one stating that the righting of wrongs was ‘the essence of justice’; and the other urging that “nations are not authorised…to visit on the children of their enemies the misdoings of parents or of rulers”.

Within the context of the aftermath of World War I, the realist was “committed wholly to the interests of his nation” and, since the conflict between nations would not change, “a Carthagian peace was inevitable.” (Page 110) No alternative was possible and no thought could be given to the future…only the past. Keynes, we are told, argued that this plan would be impoverishing and would continually need to be enforced,

Within a ‘realist’ view of the world there is little in the way of hope or of improvement or of advancement. There is no place for ideas, for innovation, for bringing people together. There was no place for peace and justice free of retribution.

It seems to me that this contrast can be applied today to the political situation in the United States and it applies to a war…the cultural war that has been going on for the past forty years or so. It is young and old again, as in the sixties, but now those from the sixties are the old ones. And, the young ones are tired of their battles.

The ‘realists’ from the sixties contend that they represent a list of ‘victims’ and there are those that are ‘congenitally ordained’ to prey on them: that this situation is one of ‘a perpetual prize-fight.’ To these ‘realists’ justice is a matter of righting wrongs and of setting things straight. Therefore, the trenches are the only place to be! There is no alternative and there is no future…only the past.

But to this I agree with Keynes: this is impoverishing, not only because it continually keeps us ‘at war’ but because it does not free us up to work in any other direction. We are imprisoned!
And, what of the ‘idealists’? The ‘idealists’ argue that we need to move to a new order and a new sense of justice. We need to move beyond the trenches and get on with life. We need to contemplate a ‘new order’. We can never achieve retribution for the sins of our fathers and mothers; we can never gain full satisfaction for the wrongs that have been done in the past. We need to use our ideas and our hopes as fuel to conceive of a different paradigm. We need to put the ‘war’ behind us!

It is impossible for me to move on, however, without stating, again, that politics is a matter of balance. Almost every situation we experience has, at least, two parties that have conflicting programs aimed at resolving the problems embedded within the situation. Politics is a matter of achieving balance between the competing solutions so that the parties involved can go forward and co-exist in some form so that life can go on. The important thing to realize is that this balance can change from time-to-time as people and situations change. Thus, looking at the current political situation in the United States I would argue that the balance between the ‘realists’ and the ‘idealists’ needs to be changed and moved toward the end of the spectrum occupied by the ‘idealists.’

What this means at the present time is that we do not forget history. We do not forget the problems in American society that were identified in the fifties and sixties and of the efforts that were made to resolve them. We cannot dismiss what happened. But, we can move to a different level. We can go beyond the ‘prize-fight’ mentality and work toward a ‘new order’, an order we define as ‘us’ and not an order defined as ‘us versus them.’

What is this society going to be like? What are the programs and policies that are going to get us there? I don’t think anyone exactly knows that at this time. But, I think attitudes are changing and that they need to change further. We need to reset the balance between the ‘realist or Carthagian’ view of the world where the assumption is that every one preys upon his or her fellows and the ‘idealist’ view of the world that “references ‘hopes’ and ‘expectations’ for a ‘new age.’” (Markwell, page 110)

The ‘idealist’ may be called impractical or a dreamer, but being willing to seek new answers is the only way that human beings and the societies they construct can realistically solve new and more complex problems. And, solving problems is what humans do best!