Goodness. I never, ever expected this kind of honesty from a government statistical office. Maybe there *is* hope after all.
Today's release of the Monthly Wholesale Trade: Sales and Inventories report shows that the sales of merchant wholesalers was up 0.6% from the revised May number.
Not so bad, I thought.
Then I saw the +-0.7% after that number, in brackets. And an asterisk for the footnote.
The footnote says, and I quote directly:
The 90 percent confidence interval includes zero. The Census Bureau does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero.
Goodness. Such direct honesty is severely refreshing in this day and age. I've always liked working with the Census folks. Now I know why. Rarely does one meet such honesty on the front page of a statistical document. Seriously: what they are saying is that after the rather extensive revisions, the actual values of the month-on-month changes are difficult to nail down. The year-over-year numbers, on the other hand, are not marked with that asterisk, indicating that while there may be a variance (which is documented), the values actually mean something.
Kudos to the U.S. Census Bureau. May you remain well funded...
Mittwoch, August 10, 2011
Mark-to-Market, Instability & Just How Bad Are Things?
For those of you who have been following me for a while, you would know I am no fan of mark-to-market accounting.
Why?
Well, read why here, here, here, and here.
Seriously, mark-to-market is a disaster. There is one aspect of mark-to-market that has now emerged over the last several months that took me a while to notice: it leads to instability by inadvertently promoting what the Germans call "Beamten-Mikado". That's a version of the classic Mikado game, also known as "pick-up-sticks": dump a pile of elongated toothpicks on the table and try to remove them one by one without moving the other sticks.
In the German version called "Beamten-Mikado", played each and every day in German government offices, the one who makes the first move loses. Doesn't matter if you get any sticks, it is the inverse of the standard Mikado game. Move and you lose.
According to mark-to-market principles, if you see the value of an asset decline on the markets, you are required to re-assess your assets and change their value appropriately (well, not changing it all until you sell the asset would be the most appropriate thing to do, but you get what I mean). What happens when there is no market?
Hmmm. The mark-to-market people didn't think that one through.
What happens when markets start acting funny - and I scarcely think anyone can deny that this continues to be the case - is that companies cease acting within the market, deciding instead to see what the market will do. Given that every one of the bigger players is holding assets that may or may not turn toxic and, at the same time, take down those holding them if they were to revalue mark-to-market, what's a holding company to do?
Nothing, of course. Nothing that would require them to revalue their assets. Especially nothing that would require the revaluation of toxic assets.
As Brian Rogers of Fator Securities put it (link here to Zero Hedge):
The $60tr global economy can take a haircut on billions of dollars in Greek debt, but it simply cannot take a haircut on $700tr in global derivatives sitting on the balance sheet of every major government, hedge fund, financial services company, TBTF bank, insurance company and major corporation that engages in any hedging activity.
In other words, anything that would require a change in valuation of the hedges that these companies hold destroys the world financial system.
Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland could all simply restructure their debt and life would go on were it not for the leverage of the banks that hold them. In the US, real estate could be allowed to fall to its market clearing price or be written off by the lender were it not for the leverage of the banks that own it. No matter which way you turn, all roads lead to the TBTF banks, their leverage and the $700tr derivatives market.
Bingo: the system is fundamentally unstable because, at the end of the day, the markets are not being allowed to function. In the pursuit of some magic recovery, some strange and bizarre turn of events that would turn the game around from lose-lose to win-win, the powers-that-be have chosen not to allow markets to work, thus, in their eyes, removing the mark-to-market catastrophe that would otherwise loom, done in the name of stability.
In other words, in the name of stability, instability has been created, where the massive leveraging of finances means that any small change, anything that forces a major player to move, will instead bring down the system as a whole.
Right now, there is real incentive not to do anything: whoever moves first, loses.
The difference between this and Beamten-Mikado is that the latter doesn't actually exist as a game: it is a cynical observation.
Just how bad are things?
Consider the $700 tr derivatives markets. If these were to start to fail, it would represent the greatest destruction of capital bar a nuclear war. Not even the destruction of German and Japanese cities wholesale comes close to this. It is the inverse neutron bomb of the modern world: it would destroy capital, but leave the people alive.
Just how bad are things?
Consider the world population and the farm-to-person chain: disrupting logistics chains because of bankruptcies due to mark-to-market revaluations of derivatives. Millions starve because food can't move from farms to cities (and don't think that the government can "intervene" and get things running again: it doesn't work that way).
Just how bad are things?
I remember reading, back in the 1970s, some of the "get rich by financial manipulation" books that were the rage. One of them recommended living very frugally and maxing out your equity by leveraging your cash flow - aka income - as fully as possible. Keep on driving an older car, live in a small apartment, eat frugally, skip the movies, live off of 20% of your income in order to borrow as much as you could with the other 80%: "invest" the money in the stock market and you'd be a millionaire in 10 years tops. Of course, that meant that any small change in interest rates or returns would lead to personal bankruptcy, which, of course, back then wasn't that much of a problem (since changed). The major economic players out there apparently read those books, and as a result we have, speaking as a nation, no income for consumption, as it is so heavily leveraged.
Just how bad are things?
Consider this: growth in China, driven by politically determined prices to drive exports, has reached the point where additional debt no longer generates growth (see this for more). However, this hasn't stopped China from expanding debt and increasing investments with no regard to their profitability. This is the next catastrophe coming, one that will change the game and may even mean the end of China as we now know it.
Just how bad are things?
Keynes called for government intervention to improve worker's salaries during recessions. The governments, as they are wont to do, screwed that up royally and instead pumped money into the economy in the (vastly) mistaken expectation that vast amounts of really cheap money would lead to growth. It led, instead, to massive misallocation of capital - THE cardinal sin of economics as such - and a resulting landscape of financial ruins that are little more than empty shells behind a Potemkin-village-like facade.
Just how bad are things?
Consider this: the Fed interventions over the last several decades were made to stabilize the economy and dampen out negative effects, while allowing positive effects to expand (ending up in a series of bubbles). The cumulative effects of trapping corrections is that when the correction have to be made, they have to resolve not merely the current crisis, but rather any number of crises that haven't been resolved. Trying to impose stability on an unstable system - capitalism, after all, is fundamentally unstable,as it is designed to tear down and reconstruct on a continuing basis (Creative Destruction) - only leads to greater instabilities in the system, with new harmonics to the movements tearing the system apart from within.
We are heading to a new phase of creative destruction, one that will be, at best, a wild ride and, at worst, a write-off of debt that will make the Great Depression look like a minor accident. Writing off $700tr in derivatives means that the dollar will be worthless in its current form - there simply aren't that many dollars around - and that would mean the US taking a deadly, fell blow to the body in order to save the world economy.
Not going to happen, of course: that means that when push comes to shove, the same thing will happen.
Just how bad are things? Worse than you can imagine. Pretending anything else is naive at best and outright self-delusion at worst.
Gonna be a bumpy ride. Fasten your seat belts, put your tray in an upright position and review the safety manual in the seat pocket ahead of you. We will be turning off the entertainment system at this time.
Don't forget your air sickness bag as well.
Why?
Well, read why here, here, here, and here.
Seriously, mark-to-market is a disaster. There is one aspect of mark-to-market that has now emerged over the last several months that took me a while to notice: it leads to instability by inadvertently promoting what the Germans call "Beamten-Mikado". That's a version of the classic Mikado game, also known as "pick-up-sticks": dump a pile of elongated toothpicks on the table and try to remove them one by one without moving the other sticks.
In the German version called "Beamten-Mikado", played each and every day in German government offices, the one who makes the first move loses. Doesn't matter if you get any sticks, it is the inverse of the standard Mikado game. Move and you lose.
According to mark-to-market principles, if you see the value of an asset decline on the markets, you are required to re-assess your assets and change their value appropriately (well, not changing it all until you sell the asset would be the most appropriate thing to do, but you get what I mean). What happens when there is no market?
Hmmm. The mark-to-market people didn't think that one through.
What happens when markets start acting funny - and I scarcely think anyone can deny that this continues to be the case - is that companies cease acting within the market, deciding instead to see what the market will do. Given that every one of the bigger players is holding assets that may or may not turn toxic and, at the same time, take down those holding them if they were to revalue mark-to-market, what's a holding company to do?
Nothing, of course. Nothing that would require them to revalue their assets. Especially nothing that would require the revaluation of toxic assets.
As Brian Rogers of Fator Securities put it (link here to Zero Hedge):
The $60tr global economy can take a haircut on billions of dollars in Greek debt, but it simply cannot take a haircut on $700tr in global derivatives sitting on the balance sheet of every major government, hedge fund, financial services company, TBTF bank, insurance company and major corporation that engages in any hedging activity.
In other words, anything that would require a change in valuation of the hedges that these companies hold destroys the world financial system.
Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland could all simply restructure their debt and life would go on were it not for the leverage of the banks that hold them. In the US, real estate could be allowed to fall to its market clearing price or be written off by the lender were it not for the leverage of the banks that own it. No matter which way you turn, all roads lead to the TBTF banks, their leverage and the $700tr derivatives market.
Bingo: the system is fundamentally unstable because, at the end of the day, the markets are not being allowed to function. In the pursuit of some magic recovery, some strange and bizarre turn of events that would turn the game around from lose-lose to win-win, the powers-that-be have chosen not to allow markets to work, thus, in their eyes, removing the mark-to-market catastrophe that would otherwise loom, done in the name of stability.
In other words, in the name of stability, instability has been created, where the massive leveraging of finances means that any small change, anything that forces a major player to move, will instead bring down the system as a whole.
Right now, there is real incentive not to do anything: whoever moves first, loses.
The difference between this and Beamten-Mikado is that the latter doesn't actually exist as a game: it is a cynical observation.
Just how bad are things?
Consider the $700 tr derivatives markets. If these were to start to fail, it would represent the greatest destruction of capital bar a nuclear war. Not even the destruction of German and Japanese cities wholesale comes close to this. It is the inverse neutron bomb of the modern world: it would destroy capital, but leave the people alive.
Just how bad are things?
Consider the world population and the farm-to-person chain: disrupting logistics chains because of bankruptcies due to mark-to-market revaluations of derivatives. Millions starve because food can't move from farms to cities (and don't think that the government can "intervene" and get things running again: it doesn't work that way).
Just how bad are things?
I remember reading, back in the 1970s, some of the "get rich by financial manipulation" books that were the rage. One of them recommended living very frugally and maxing out your equity by leveraging your cash flow - aka income - as fully as possible. Keep on driving an older car, live in a small apartment, eat frugally, skip the movies, live off of 20% of your income in order to borrow as much as you could with the other 80%: "invest" the money in the stock market and you'd be a millionaire in 10 years tops. Of course, that meant that any small change in interest rates or returns would lead to personal bankruptcy, which, of course, back then wasn't that much of a problem (since changed). The major economic players out there apparently read those books, and as a result we have, speaking as a nation, no income for consumption, as it is so heavily leveraged.
Just how bad are things?
Consider this: growth in China, driven by politically determined prices to drive exports, has reached the point where additional debt no longer generates growth (see this for more). However, this hasn't stopped China from expanding debt and increasing investments with no regard to their profitability. This is the next catastrophe coming, one that will change the game and may even mean the end of China as we now know it.
Just how bad are things?
Keynes called for government intervention to improve worker's salaries during recessions. The governments, as they are wont to do, screwed that up royally and instead pumped money into the economy in the (vastly) mistaken expectation that vast amounts of really cheap money would lead to growth. It led, instead, to massive misallocation of capital - THE cardinal sin of economics as such - and a resulting landscape of financial ruins that are little more than empty shells behind a Potemkin-village-like facade.
Just how bad are things?
Consider this: the Fed interventions over the last several decades were made to stabilize the economy and dampen out negative effects, while allowing positive effects to expand (ending up in a series of bubbles). The cumulative effects of trapping corrections is that when the correction have to be made, they have to resolve not merely the current crisis, but rather any number of crises that haven't been resolved. Trying to impose stability on an unstable system - capitalism, after all, is fundamentally unstable,as it is designed to tear down and reconstruct on a continuing basis (Creative Destruction) - only leads to greater instabilities in the system, with new harmonics to the movements tearing the system apart from within.
We are heading to a new phase of creative destruction, one that will be, at best, a wild ride and, at worst, a write-off of debt that will make the Great Depression look like a minor accident. Writing off $700tr in derivatives means that the dollar will be worthless in its current form - there simply aren't that many dollars around - and that would mean the US taking a deadly, fell blow to the body in order to save the world economy.
Not going to happen, of course: that means that when push comes to shove, the same thing will happen.
Just how bad are things? Worse than you can imagine. Pretending anything else is naive at best and outright self-delusion at worst.
Gonna be a bumpy ride. Fasten your seat belts, put your tray in an upright position and review the safety manual in the seat pocket ahead of you. We will be turning off the entertainment system at this time.
Don't forget your air sickness bag as well.
Dienstag, August 09, 2011
The Sound of a Sacred Cow Being Gored...
What drives liberals and democrats into apoplexy is calling their sacred cows into question: the entire holy trilogy of Great Society, Medicare and Social Security. Raise even minor problems with these and you can watch their blood pressure increase by the second. The yelling starts, discourse is shut down and only by silencing their opponents can they start to recover their composure. It makes it hard, at times, not to tease, since you can get them so riled up with little effort.
This is a great example of how these folks react to criticism. It's a capture of a certain point in time, a point in time where the original author decided that she had enough lip and removed the comments. Read and see how she utterly fails to make her point and gets taken down.
Of course, there's more to the story than that. The woman involved is Froma Harrop, She is the President of the National Council of Editorial Writers and runs the Civility Project, designed to improve the quality of political discourse: in other words, shutting down discourse is an epic fail.
Read the comments - where there is no cursing and no ad-hominem attacks - and understand what liberals mean when they demand an end to incivility: they are really demanding an end to anyone talking back to them.
It is the sound of sacred cows being gored. They are losing, slowly, gradually, but consistently, their world picture of how the world should be working. They are the do-gooders and can do no wrong (and have done so much wrong that it will take a generation to fix it); they are the smart ones that everyone should listen to (whose ignorance is legion and legendary); they are the ones who understand how to make peace (and end up make wars not only possible, but inevitable); they are the ones sympathetic to the down-trodden and the disadvantaged (but exploit these groups in order to have a good life for themselves); they are the ones who will remake the world so that it is just and fair (but lack the understanding that there is no such thing in the real world and that by taking from others to give to others, they are just as unjust and unfair).
I could go on. R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. wrote a lovely book called "The Liberal Crack-Up" back in 1984. You could call it the disintegration of principled liberalism into trendy enthusiasms without principles.
Now the sacred cows of liberalism are being gored. It will get much uglier out there than anyone really wants to see, and that is the hope of the liberals: they want to shut anyone up who disagrees.
This is a great example of how these folks react to criticism. It's a capture of a certain point in time, a point in time where the original author decided that she had enough lip and removed the comments. Read and see how she utterly fails to make her point and gets taken down.
Of course, there's more to the story than that. The woman involved is Froma Harrop, She is the President of the National Council of Editorial Writers and runs the Civility Project, designed to improve the quality of political discourse: in other words, shutting down discourse is an epic fail.
Read the comments - where there is no cursing and no ad-hominem attacks - and understand what liberals mean when they demand an end to incivility: they are really demanding an end to anyone talking back to them.
It is the sound of sacred cows being gored. They are losing, slowly, gradually, but consistently, their world picture of how the world should be working. They are the do-gooders and can do no wrong (and have done so much wrong that it will take a generation to fix it); they are the smart ones that everyone should listen to (whose ignorance is legion and legendary); they are the ones who understand how to make peace (and end up make wars not only possible, but inevitable); they are the ones sympathetic to the down-trodden and the disadvantaged (but exploit these groups in order to have a good life for themselves); they are the ones who will remake the world so that it is just and fair (but lack the understanding that there is no such thing in the real world and that by taking from others to give to others, they are just as unjust and unfair).
I could go on. R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. wrote a lovely book called "The Liberal Crack-Up" back in 1984. You could call it the disintegration of principled liberalism into trendy enthusiasms without principles.
Now the sacred cows of liberalism are being gored. It will get much uglier out there than anyone really wants to see, and that is the hope of the liberals: they want to shut anyone up who disagrees.
Donnerstag, August 04, 2011
The End of Keynes...
This pretty much says it all.
Fundamentally, if you actually go back and read what Keynes said, it's all about jobs and incomes: without improvements in either, the economy will tank. It really is that simple. No amount of redistribution can cover up a jobless recovery and stagnating wages.
While some may call for the end of Keynesian meddling with the economy, this would be too fundamentally wrong, since Keynes was right.
It's his followers that have royally screwed things up.
Why?
Because Keynes wanted the government to intervene in recessions in order to give workers both jobs and wages to get consumer spending back up. You can do that very well by cutting taxes for businesses and private persons so that they have more money to spend and invest; by making it easy to hire (and fire!) workers; by having the government go out and buy services directly to build and renew. It's a very simple solution to kick-starting growth and getting the economy back up to speed, and if done right - by putting expiration dates into the measures and having the decency to ensure that people's money isn't wasted - it works. It may not jump-start an economy in a depression, but it does prevent more serious collapses.
Of course, modern-day government interventions do anything but work. The TARP money was a boondoggle without end, generating virtually no jobs by enriching those who lobby well and government cronies, and the the pork - aka entitlements - has replaced any reasonable semblance of effective and productive government spending to counter the effects of a recession.
Obama and Bernanke have flogged the dead horse that is Keynes to the point where even the MSM can recognize that it is fruitless to continue to throw money at the problem.
The problem is that we now need an anti-Keynes to remove the parasite that is government spending today. Once that is achieved, a multi-generational undertaking, perhaps Keynes can be reinstated as the excellent economist that he was and for which he should be respected and taught.
But not the parody that he represents today.
Fundamentally, if you actually go back and read what Keynes said, it's all about jobs and incomes: without improvements in either, the economy will tank. It really is that simple. No amount of redistribution can cover up a jobless recovery and stagnating wages.
While some may call for the end of Keynesian meddling with the economy, this would be too fundamentally wrong, since Keynes was right.
It's his followers that have royally screwed things up.
Why?
Because Keynes wanted the government to intervene in recessions in order to give workers both jobs and wages to get consumer spending back up. You can do that very well by cutting taxes for businesses and private persons so that they have more money to spend and invest; by making it easy to hire (and fire!) workers; by having the government go out and buy services directly to build and renew. It's a very simple solution to kick-starting growth and getting the economy back up to speed, and if done right - by putting expiration dates into the measures and having the decency to ensure that people's money isn't wasted - it works. It may not jump-start an economy in a depression, but it does prevent more serious collapses.
Of course, modern-day government interventions do anything but work. The TARP money was a boondoggle without end, generating virtually no jobs by enriching those who lobby well and government cronies, and the the pork - aka entitlements - has replaced any reasonable semblance of effective and productive government spending to counter the effects of a recession.
Obama and Bernanke have flogged the dead horse that is Keynes to the point where even the MSM can recognize that it is fruitless to continue to throw money at the problem.
The problem is that we now need an anti-Keynes to remove the parasite that is government spending today. Once that is achieved, a multi-generational undertaking, perhaps Keynes can be reinstated as the excellent economist that he was and for which he should be respected and taught.
But not the parody that he represents today.
Talk About Projection...
First of all, sorry for the extended absence: as you can imagine, given the markets and the contradictions of data from so many sources, things have been...hectic.
But this brought me back. Hmmm: that link doesn't seem to be working, perhaps it will. If not, simply go to the blog there and the article appears.
Key quote:
But this brought me back. Hmmm: that link doesn't seem to be working, perhaps it will. If not, simply go to the blog there and the article appears.
Key quote:
MSNBC host Martin Bashir interviewed Stanton Peele, a psychologist and an "expert on addiction," this afternoon. Bashir urged Peele to psychologically evaluate supporters of the Tea Party. "It reminds us of addiction because addicts are seeking something that they can't have," Peele said. "They want a state of happiness or nirvana that can't be achieved except through an artificial substance and reminds us of the Norway situation, when people are thwarted at obtaining something they can't, have they often strike out and Norway is one kind of example to one kind of reaction to that kind of a frustration."
Bashir later asked: "So you're saying that they are delusional about the past and adamant about the future?"
"They are adamant about achieving something that's unachievable, which reminds us of a couple of things. It reminds us of delusion and psychosis," Peele responded.
Sorry, guys: the ones who are delusional are the MSM, the left, the Democratic Party (sorry, but I repeat myself).
Addicts seeking something that they can't have? Sounds like the left with their visions of "economic justice" or "equality."
A state of happiness or nirvana that can't be achieved except through an artificial substance? Sounds like the left with their heavy meddling in business and their dependence on federal money (now there's an artificial substance if there ever was one!) to try to remake society after their own vision.
When people are thwarted at obtaining something they can't have, they often strike out? Sounds like the name-calling and hysteria of the MSM, the left and the Democratic Party (again, I repeat myself) towards the semblance of responsibility that the deficit ceiling agreement appears to be (it's a long, long way from being really responsible, but it's a start...).
They are delusional about the past and adamant about the future? Doesn't that sound like the delusions about the Great Society - which led to a worsening of society, rather than an improvement - and the whole edifice of New Deal beggar-thy-neighbor-especially-if-he-has-more-money distributional policies?
Delusion and psychosis are some of the fundamental core values of those who have dedicated their lives to maintaining the shibboleths of US liberalism: that the government is there to do wonderful things for society, that throwing money at problems is a solution; that the government can do no wrong; that by dwelling on the past and making injustices of the past inviolate and holy, one can achieve a better society.
Those are delusional and psychotic, my friends: the reality is that government is doing terrible things to society in the name of a utopian good; that throwing money at problems only serves to corrupt; that government does wrong each and every day; and that by maintaining and enhancing grudges and hates, the government divides in order for the politicians to conquer.
Talk about projection!
Mittwoch, Juni 22, 2011
True colors...
Why doesn't this surprise me?
President Obama wants to be re-elected, so he is throwing Afghanistan under the bus in order to make himself look good.
Of course, that follows a long, long pattern of US betrayal of allies when it was politically opportune to do so. Always, always during a Democratic presidency.
It is a sad fact: the President of the United States is a political hack, without direction or vision beyond what his financiers have been telling him to do, and even that has been spotty. For them, of course, he's the only game in town. He knows that, and is, I think, honestly perplexed that his honorable opposition isn't willing to get on the deal.
Look at the historical record: Democratic presidents, almost without fail, get the US into trouble internationally with poor decisions, bellicosity and incompetence. Kennedy started US involvement in Vietnam and Johnson escalated, and a Democratic congress cut Vietnam off in their final hour of need. Carter had the Desert One fiasco, while Clinton had the Balkans and alienated Russia for at least a generation. Obama may have inherited both Iraq and Afghanistan, but is doing just fine screwing things up in Libya and Sudan.
I think the problem with the Democrats and foreign policy is that they both don't really care about it (domestic politics is where the money is and where careers are made) and when they do, behave like Wilsonists and present carefully thought out, brilliant and complete unworkable solutions that make everyone shake their heads and go "what are they smoking?" whilst, of course, at the same time solving nothing. Carter's sole claim to fame is the Egypt-Israeli peace deal, and that got Sadat murdered, Clinton failed to achieve anything in the Middle East.
The true colors of the Democrats is that they cannot be trusted with foreign policy because they consistently screw things up. The days of Sam Nunn and the Senate Democratic Hawks are long, long gone, and there is no one of his character left. His retirement from the Senate was because the party shifted left: he could no longer be a part of that.
You can't run a super-power based on the politics you need to put together a coalition of gays, minorities and unions. You won't care about the hard military and defense decisions you have to make if all you are worried about is playing gay marriage advocates against Black church goers in order to keep the support of both. You won't be able to call upon everyone to make sacrifices when you think a sacrifice is 8% growth of the money for your union supporters, rather than 15%.
The Democrats are thoroughly corrupt and corrupted, unable to see, given the degree of support given a slimeball like Wieners, that what they are willing to accept as the new normal is far, far beyond the pale of normality.
You can't run a super-power based on wishful thinking and plans to have everyone sign kumbya around a camp fire making smores.
President Obama wants to be re-elected, so he is throwing Afghanistan under the bus in order to make himself look good.
Of course, that follows a long, long pattern of US betrayal of allies when it was politically opportune to do so. Always, always during a Democratic presidency.
It is a sad fact: the President of the United States is a political hack, without direction or vision beyond what his financiers have been telling him to do, and even that has been spotty. For them, of course, he's the only game in town. He knows that, and is, I think, honestly perplexed that his honorable opposition isn't willing to get on the deal.
Look at the historical record: Democratic presidents, almost without fail, get the US into trouble internationally with poor decisions, bellicosity and incompetence. Kennedy started US involvement in Vietnam and Johnson escalated, and a Democratic congress cut Vietnam off in their final hour of need. Carter had the Desert One fiasco, while Clinton had the Balkans and alienated Russia for at least a generation. Obama may have inherited both Iraq and Afghanistan, but is doing just fine screwing things up in Libya and Sudan.
I think the problem with the Democrats and foreign policy is that they both don't really care about it (domestic politics is where the money is and where careers are made) and when they do, behave like Wilsonists and present carefully thought out, brilliant and complete unworkable solutions that make everyone shake their heads and go "what are they smoking?" whilst, of course, at the same time solving nothing. Carter's sole claim to fame is the Egypt-Israeli peace deal, and that got Sadat murdered, Clinton failed to achieve anything in the Middle East.
The true colors of the Democrats is that they cannot be trusted with foreign policy because they consistently screw things up. The days of Sam Nunn and the Senate Democratic Hawks are long, long gone, and there is no one of his character left. His retirement from the Senate was because the party shifted left: he could no longer be a part of that.
You can't run a super-power based on the politics you need to put together a coalition of gays, minorities and unions. You won't care about the hard military and defense decisions you have to make if all you are worried about is playing gay marriage advocates against Black church goers in order to keep the support of both. You won't be able to call upon everyone to make sacrifices when you think a sacrifice is 8% growth of the money for your union supporters, rather than 15%.
The Democrats are thoroughly corrupt and corrupted, unable to see, given the degree of support given a slimeball like Wieners, that what they are willing to accept as the new normal is far, far beyond the pale of normality.
You can't run a super-power based on wishful thinking and plans to have everyone sign kumbya around a camp fire making smores.
Montag, Juni 06, 2011
Revisionism at its best, with a seasoning of intolerance tossed in as well...
Good lord.
When I read this, I had to double-check to make sure it wasn't the Onion.
Nope. You usual Sydney Morning Herald, not a bit of onion in sight.
First of all, the intolerance. Mr. Glover feels that anyone who isn't a true believer should be tattoed so they can be identified as sinners. Above and beyond the sheer intolerance and outright bloody-mindedness of the idea, Mr. Glover takes it one step further, actively denying the past.
Mr. Glover, the Left defended and justified the brutal repression of the Hungarians in 1956. Not perhaps your smarmy drawing-room git who thought he was a socialist (but in fact simply resented his low place in society) and was perfectly willing to change his colors whichever way the wind blew, most likely supporting Mrs. Thatcher when it became apparent that it behooved him to do so.
No, I'm talking about your true believers, the unrepentant, those who could, with a straight face, argue that the Wall in Germany was really to protect the East Germans from the fascist West Germans.
Goodness.
Key quote:
It's not those who you call deniers who are in denial, Mr. Glover: it is you. You and your fellow travellers were wrong on socialism and communism - and you cannot separate the two, as they are tied together forever - and you are wrong on anthropogenic climate change.
The Left didn't have any problems acknowledging the brutal realities of the dictatorship of the proletariat: it is exactyl what they deeply wanted and desired for their own countries. Anything else would have been bourgeois sentimentalities and worthy of a lengthy stay in Siberia to understand the errors of their thinking.
Good lord. Only in today's deliberate ignorance and respression of how truly evil the Left was, is, and will always be could someone even try to make this case. The examples that disprove his thesis are legion: the unwillingness of the SPD in Germany, for instance, to even contemplate unification because it meant abandoning the dream of real existing socialism on German soil (they were dragged kicking and screaming - behind closed doors, but nonetheless - by the US, the UK and France, along with the German conservative parties into agreeing for the liberation of East Germany and unification with West Germany. These were the same folks who tut-tutted when the Czechs dared to stand up to their rightful Soviet masters and want some meaningless, bourgeios freedoms instead of the glorious life of Czech socialism in 1968, warning that to even protest the march into Czechoslovakia would be provocative.
Mr. Glover is both guilty of projection and viewing what is apparently his own history with rather rose-colored glasses, selectively seeing what he wants to, rather than what actually is.
Further:
Each generation of people has a job to do; a burden that falls to their time. Sometimes, it's a war or depression. Sometimes, it's the work of building the first railways and roads. Sometimes, it's a plague that wipes out half the population or a fire that destroys a whole city.
God help anyone who actually believes such nonsense: they are in the arms of delusion and, worst of all, true believers in something that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as History as a force of nature, something that charts the paths of men: there are just people trying to exist and live their lives as they see fit. Mr. Glover and all of his like would put that to a right proper stop and show them the errors of their ways.
Beware the utopian idealist. The greatest political slaughters always beging with them, and end only when ordinary people stop them. It's one of the great mysteries of human society that so many fail to see this.
When I read this, I had to double-check to make sure it wasn't the Onion.
Nope. You usual Sydney Morning Herald, not a bit of onion in sight.
First of all, the intolerance. Mr. Glover feels that anyone who isn't a true believer should be tattoed so they can be identified as sinners. Above and beyond the sheer intolerance and outright bloody-mindedness of the idea, Mr. Glover takes it one step further, actively denying the past.
Mr. Glover, the Left defended and justified the brutal repression of the Hungarians in 1956. Not perhaps your smarmy drawing-room git who thought he was a socialist (but in fact simply resented his low place in society) and was perfectly willing to change his colors whichever way the wind blew, most likely supporting Mrs. Thatcher when it became apparent that it behooved him to do so.
No, I'm talking about your true believers, the unrepentant, those who could, with a straight face, argue that the Wall in Germany was really to protect the East Germans from the fascist West Germans.
Goodness.
Key quote:
Facts that don't fit one's world view can be difficult to see. Consider the way the left spent decades ignoring the horrors of Soviet communism, horrors that were obvious to anyone who cared to look from at least the early 1930s. The facts didn't fit in with the way they wanted to see the world, so they spent decades in denial, looking the other way.
For most of the left, that blindness ended, dramatically, with the invasion of Hungary in 1956: it became impossible not to acknowledge the brutal realities of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Like I said, revisionist history at its finest. Further, and this is the core of Mr. Glover's thesis, he is projecting: the reality is that the facts on global warming don't fit the theories (and if you think the IPCC talks about facts, take a closer look: peer review doesn't mean something is true, especially the kind of kid-glove peer review that is the norm for what is dubiously called climate change science), not the other way around. Mr. Glover wants those who don't think like him - he calls them the right - to suffer the same disappointments that he and his ilk have.It's not those who you call deniers who are in denial, Mr. Glover: it is you. You and your fellow travellers were wrong on socialism and communism - and you cannot separate the two, as they are tied together forever - and you are wrong on anthropogenic climate change.
The Left didn't have any problems acknowledging the brutal realities of the dictatorship of the proletariat: it is exactyl what they deeply wanted and desired for their own countries. Anything else would have been bourgeois sentimentalities and worthy of a lengthy stay in Siberia to understand the errors of their thinking.
Good lord. Only in today's deliberate ignorance and respression of how truly evil the Left was, is, and will always be could someone even try to make this case. The examples that disprove his thesis are legion: the unwillingness of the SPD in Germany, for instance, to even contemplate unification because it meant abandoning the dream of real existing socialism on German soil (they were dragged kicking and screaming - behind closed doors, but nonetheless - by the US, the UK and France, along with the German conservative parties into agreeing for the liberation of East Germany and unification with West Germany. These were the same folks who tut-tutted when the Czechs dared to stand up to their rightful Soviet masters and want some meaningless, bourgeios freedoms instead of the glorious life of Czech socialism in 1968, warning that to even protest the march into Czechoslovakia would be provocative.
Mr. Glover is both guilty of projection and viewing what is apparently his own history with rather rose-colored glasses, selectively seeing what he wants to, rather than what actually is.
Further:
Each generation of people has a job to do; a burden that falls to their time. Sometimes, it's a war or depression. Sometimes, it's the work of building the first railways and roads. Sometimes, it's a plague that wipes out half the population or a fire that destroys a whole city.
God help anyone who actually believes such nonsense: they are in the arms of delusion and, worst of all, true believers in something that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as History as a force of nature, something that charts the paths of men: there are just people trying to exist and live their lives as they see fit. Mr. Glover and all of his like would put that to a right proper stop and show them the errors of their ways.
Beware the utopian idealist. The greatest political slaughters always beging with them, and end only when ordinary people stop them. It's one of the great mysteries of human society that so many fail to see this.
Mittwoch, Juni 01, 2011
You Know You've Blown It...
...when your minions catch on to how they are being lied to and screwed.
This is damning, less so much because of what it says as where it comes from.
It's written by a water-carrier for the Democratic Party, a true sycophant. Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones, never afraid to toe the party line and defend the indefensible.
He laments the collapse of the Unions, ignoring, of course, the stench of corruption and the inequity of seeing your labor dues spent on things you find appalling.
Ultimately, the Unions died - effectively - because the New Left of the Democratic Party found actual workers - blue-collar, red-necked and generally your average American in all their glory - to be truly appalling.
And here is the key quote:
In other words, it's not that the working class has abandoned Democrats. It's just the opposite: The Democratic Party has largely abandoned the working class.
Duh. I've said that here time and time again. It's about time one of their own realizes it.
This is damning, less so much because of what it says as where it comes from.
It's written by a water-carrier for the Democratic Party, a true sycophant. Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones, never afraid to toe the party line and defend the indefensible.
He laments the collapse of the Unions, ignoring, of course, the stench of corruption and the inequity of seeing your labor dues spent on things you find appalling.
Ultimately, the Unions died - effectively - because the New Left of the Democratic Party found actual workers - blue-collar, red-necked and generally your average American in all their glory - to be truly appalling.
And here is the key quote:
In other words, it's not that the working class has abandoned Democrats. It's just the opposite: The Democratic Party has largely abandoned the working class.
Duh. I've said that here time and time again. It's about time one of their own realizes it.
Why Doesn't This Surprise Me?
Casinos are cool, right? Bright lights, music, cheap drinks and food, and who knows, ya might win big.
Wrong.
First and foremost, casinos exist for one thing only: to separate money from those who are bad at statistics. Nothing more, nothing less. There is a single verity when dealing with gambling, be it legal or unlawful: at the end of the day, the house always wins. Always.
Sure, you read of the guy tossing in a quarter and winning $10mn from the slots. The casinos need these stories to distract you from the fundamental fact that the guy winning $10mn didn't get that money from the casino: he got it from literally hundreds of blue-haired grandmothers feeding the slots, from hundreds of blue-collar workers out for a thrill and losing their paychecks at blackjack, from hundreds of office workers trying a system in roulette. The casino exists to provide a thrill in a mundane life, of the never-to-be-vanquished-hope of winning it big, of being someone special, of having the skill to beat the house and break the bank.
What fools we be.
Casinos bring all sorts of secondary effects. First and foremost, there is the problem of gambling addiction, of those who are so convinced that the next pull of the handle, the next deal, the next turn of the wheel will finally bring in the big bucks, that they are psychologically impaired and do foolish things in the pursuit of something that is extremely unlikely to happen. This addiction, like most, is destructive and insidious, affecting both rich and poor (with the only real difference being the length of time before they hit bottom). It breaks up families and destroys careers. But hey, it's not the casino's fault that these folks are susceptible to the allures, the bright lights and fleeting fame that gambling brings.
Second, casinos don't come alone. People out looking for a wild time will seek other ... distractions, and there is no casino out there that doesn't have the twin companions of drugs and rented sex. Maybe you didn't win big at the tables, but hey, you can still have that threesome you fantasized about, or you can get higher than a kite and what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
Which is why Vegas is coming to Chicago.
Why doesn't this surprise me? Simple: because it is, after all, the logical next step on the road to perdition.
The City of Chicago is expecting upwards of $1bn of additional revenues from no less than 4 casinos, slots at the racetrack and at the two remaining Chicago airports.
Consider it instead a tax on statistical incompetence and stupidity. The City will need the revenue as bad money drives out what little is left of the good money.
Sin City just got some competition. Hope you like your new Mayor, Chicago, and what he is going to do to your city. Lock up your daughters (and sons!) and hope that the damage won't be too severe.
But this doesn't surprise me in the least. Letting casinos operate is a sign of desperation, not a sign of intelligent planning. Casinos are parasitical: they don't create meaningful jobs, but exist to take money from those who do not know better and serve the baser instincts. Expect fawning stories about job creation in the MSM, since they won't report on the thousands of lives destroyed.
But it doesn't surprise me: it is, if anything, the logical consequence of having Democrats running Chicago for so long, and also the logical consequence for electing the Mayor that Chicago apparently deserves.
It doesn't surprise me at all. Expect a move to decriminalize the sale of both soft drugs and sex; expect a police force interested in making sure the casinos work smoothly and keeping the human debris from showing up; expect strange deals and odd developments aimed at washing money. Standard operating procedures for a Democratic county that is already infamous for corruption and outright thievery of tax monies.
It doesn't surprise me at all.
Wrong.
First and foremost, casinos exist for one thing only: to separate money from those who are bad at statistics. Nothing more, nothing less. There is a single verity when dealing with gambling, be it legal or unlawful: at the end of the day, the house always wins. Always.
Sure, you read of the guy tossing in a quarter and winning $10mn from the slots. The casinos need these stories to distract you from the fundamental fact that the guy winning $10mn didn't get that money from the casino: he got it from literally hundreds of blue-haired grandmothers feeding the slots, from hundreds of blue-collar workers out for a thrill and losing their paychecks at blackjack, from hundreds of office workers trying a system in roulette. The casino exists to provide a thrill in a mundane life, of the never-to-be-vanquished-hope of winning it big, of being someone special, of having the skill to beat the house and break the bank.
What fools we be.
Casinos bring all sorts of secondary effects. First and foremost, there is the problem of gambling addiction, of those who are so convinced that the next pull of the handle, the next deal, the next turn of the wheel will finally bring in the big bucks, that they are psychologically impaired and do foolish things in the pursuit of something that is extremely unlikely to happen. This addiction, like most, is destructive and insidious, affecting both rich and poor (with the only real difference being the length of time before they hit bottom). It breaks up families and destroys careers. But hey, it's not the casino's fault that these folks are susceptible to the allures, the bright lights and fleeting fame that gambling brings.
Second, casinos don't come alone. People out looking for a wild time will seek other ... distractions, and there is no casino out there that doesn't have the twin companions of drugs and rented sex. Maybe you didn't win big at the tables, but hey, you can still have that threesome you fantasized about, or you can get higher than a kite and what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
Which is why Vegas is coming to Chicago.
Why doesn't this surprise me? Simple: because it is, after all, the logical next step on the road to perdition.
The City of Chicago is expecting upwards of $1bn of additional revenues from no less than 4 casinos, slots at the racetrack and at the two remaining Chicago airports.
Consider it instead a tax on statistical incompetence and stupidity. The City will need the revenue as bad money drives out what little is left of the good money.
Sin City just got some competition. Hope you like your new Mayor, Chicago, and what he is going to do to your city. Lock up your daughters (and sons!) and hope that the damage won't be too severe.
But this doesn't surprise me in the least. Letting casinos operate is a sign of desperation, not a sign of intelligent planning. Casinos are parasitical: they don't create meaningful jobs, but exist to take money from those who do not know better and serve the baser instincts. Expect fawning stories about job creation in the MSM, since they won't report on the thousands of lives destroyed.
But it doesn't surprise me: it is, if anything, the logical consequence of having Democrats running Chicago for so long, and also the logical consequence for electing the Mayor that Chicago apparently deserves.
It doesn't surprise me at all. Expect a move to decriminalize the sale of both soft drugs and sex; expect a police force interested in making sure the casinos work smoothly and keeping the human debris from showing up; expect strange deals and odd developments aimed at washing money. Standard operating procedures for a Democratic county that is already infamous for corruption and outright thievery of tax monies.
It doesn't surprise me at all.
Dienstag, Mai 31, 2011
Finally Someone From the World Bank Makes Sense...
This is a good read. Solid research, honest work.
It's titled "On the Relevance of Freedom and Entitlement in Development, New Empirical Evidence (1975-2007)", by Jean-Pierre Chauffour.
If you are at all interested in why some countries succeed and others don't: read it.
Key quote:
These results tend to support earlier findings that beyond core functions of government responsibility—including the protection of liberty itself—the expansion of the state to provide for various entitlements, including so-called economic, social, and cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long run and may even make them poorer.
That's right: expanding functions of the state beyond core functions tends to make people poorer, rather than richer.
The reason is simple:
...the extent to which political institutions and human interactions in society are formed around the concept of freedom constitutes one key determinant of growth, perhaps the ultimate cause of why economic agents actually create and accumulate.
The emphasis is in the original. The fundamental is this: that people actually create and accumulate, generate economic growth, because left to their own devices, free to do what they want to, they can.
Finally, we do not find any robust relationship between entitlement rights and economic growth. The initial level of the entitlement right is negative and statistically significant in regression where only this variable has been included ... and not statically significant in other specifications. The change in entitlement rights seems to influence the average economic growth positively, but this relationship is not robust to the inclusion of economic freedom.
Duh. Not so much what Mr Chauffour writes, but much more: of course. There can't be any robust relationship between entitlement rights and economic growth because the former inhibits the latter: the relationship is inverse. Entitlement rights are the opposite of economic freedoms!
From the conclusion:
Freedom and entitlement are largely two different paradigms to think about the fundamentals of economic development. Depending on the balance between free choices and more coerced decisions, individual opportunities to learn, own, work, save, invest, trade, protect, and so forth could vary greatly across countries and over time. The empirical findings in this paper suggest that fundamental freedoms are paramount to explain long term economic growth. For a given set of exogenous conditions, countries that favor free choice—economic freedom and civil and political liberties—over entitlement rights are likely to growth faster and achieve many of the distinctive proximate characteristics of success identified by the Growth Commission (2008): leadership and governance; engagement with the global economy; high rates of investment and savings; mobile resources, especially labor; and inclusiveness to share the benefits of globalization, provide access to the underserved, and deal with issues of gender inclusiveness. In contrast, pursuing entitlement rights through greater state coercion may be deceptive and even self-defeating in the long run.
I've highlighted the key point: entitlements are nothing less than coerced decisions. Take free choice awaz and coerce decisions, and you run counter to the natural state of man, that of freedom. Fundamental freedoms are not some sort of old white man political constructs: they are the very foundation of long-term economic growth.
Don't take it from me: take it from the World Bank.
It's titled "On the Relevance of Freedom and Entitlement in Development, New Empirical Evidence (1975-2007)", by Jean-Pierre Chauffour.
If you are at all interested in why some countries succeed and others don't: read it.
Key quote:
These results tend to support earlier findings that beyond core functions of government responsibility—including the protection of liberty itself—the expansion of the state to provide for various entitlements, including so-called economic, social, and cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long run and may even make them poorer.
That's right: expanding functions of the state beyond core functions tends to make people poorer, rather than richer.
The reason is simple:
...the extent to which political institutions and human interactions in society are formed around the concept of freedom constitutes one key determinant of growth, perhaps the ultimate cause of why economic agents actually create and accumulate.
The emphasis is in the original. The fundamental is this: that people actually create and accumulate, generate economic growth, because left to their own devices, free to do what they want to, they can.
Finally, we do not find any robust relationship between entitlement rights and economic growth. The initial level of the entitlement right is negative and statistically significant in regression where only this variable has been included ... and not statically significant in other specifications. The change in entitlement rights seems to influence the average economic growth positively, but this relationship is not robust to the inclusion of economic freedom.
Duh. Not so much what Mr Chauffour writes, but much more: of course. There can't be any robust relationship between entitlement rights and economic growth because the former inhibits the latter: the relationship is inverse. Entitlement rights are the opposite of economic freedoms!
From the conclusion:
Freedom and entitlement are largely two different paradigms to think about the fundamentals of economic development. Depending on the balance between free choices and more coerced decisions, individual opportunities to learn, own, work, save, invest, trade, protect, and so forth could vary greatly across countries and over time. The empirical findings in this paper suggest that fundamental freedoms are paramount to explain long term economic growth. For a given set of exogenous conditions, countries that favor free choice—economic freedom and civil and political liberties—over entitlement rights are likely to growth faster and achieve many of the distinctive proximate characteristics of success identified by the Growth Commission (2008): leadership and governance; engagement with the global economy; high rates of investment and savings; mobile resources, especially labor; and inclusiveness to share the benefits of globalization, provide access to the underserved, and deal with issues of gender inclusiveness. In contrast, pursuing entitlement rights through greater state coercion may be deceptive and even self-defeating in the long run.
I've highlighted the key point: entitlements are nothing less than coerced decisions. Take free choice awaz and coerce decisions, and you run counter to the natural state of man, that of freedom. Fundamental freedoms are not some sort of old white man political constructs: they are the very foundation of long-term economic growth.
Don't take it from me: take it from the World Bank.
Who Lost The Middle East?
There is a writer whose last name became a verb, after so many decided to deconstruct and make fun of his reporting, which was so obviously biased and subjective that it belonged on the OpEd pages, rather than "factual".
His name?
Robert Fisk. Of "fisking" fame. I've done it here.
Read this now. For the record, this is classified as a commentary by the Independent, so they are capable of learning.
So it starts:
His name?
Robert Fisk. Of "fisking" fame. I've done it here.
Read this now. For the record, this is classified as a commentary by the Independent, so they are capable of learning.
So it starts:
This month, in the Middle East, has seen the unmaking of the President of the United States. More than that, it has witnessed the lowest prestige of America in the region since Roosevelt met King Abdul Aziz on the USS Quincy in the Great Bitter Lake in 1945.
While Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu played out their farce in Washington – Obama grovelling as usual – the Arabs got on with the serious business of changing their world, demonstrating and fighting and dying for freedoms they have never possessed. Obama waffled on about change in the Middle East – and about America's new role in the region. It was pathetic. "What is this 'role' thing?" an Egyptian friend asked me at the weekend. "Do they still believe we care about what they think?"
President Obama isn't interested in the Middle East for two reasons: they aren't doing anything for him, and he has seen how previous Democratic presidents failed, with perhaps the exception of Carter and getting the Egyptians at least to talk. Of course, that got Sadat killed.
Now, the rest of the Fisk article descends into the usual US and Israel-bashing that he is infamous for, but this is the key quote:
Indeed, Obama's policy towards the Middle East – whatever it is – sometimes appears so muddled that it is scarcely worthy of study.
On that he is right. The rest is a quagmire of conspiracy and speculation, But once in a year of blue moons, the old Fisk, the reporter getting his facts right, glimpses through the rest of the madness and gets something right.
That President Obama and his administration is getting it wrong.
Montag, Mai 30, 2011
American Indulgences...
Read this to understand the choices facing us.
It really is pretty much that simple: America can choose to be a superpower or it can choose to be a welfare state, but not both. We're past the point where a President like Lyndon Baines Johnson could persuade Congress to finance both guns and butter: this is the starting point of the slow, dreary and inevitable breakdown of the US government's finances.
You can't have both. Or, more exactly, you can't have both forever without coming up empty. We're at this turning point, reached when US government debt reached 70% of GDP (a while ago) and put off by dealing with symptoms, rather than causes, over the last 30 years or so.
This will be the key debating point of the next presidential election: whether we pay for 30-year old to indulge in their sad sexual fantasies or whether we pay the price in weapons and blood to ensure that the US continues to be the beacon of reason and law in a world that only occasionally behaves.
It really is that simple. That we have come to this point is appalling enough in and of itself. Entitlements creep forward, slowly, insidiously, with the original good intentions - and this road to fiscal hell is paved very well indeed, thank you - perverted as they always will be by the very human desire to have something for nothing and your chicks for free. It's easy and convenient to be indulgent, especially when you have a political party dedicated to making sure that whatever turns you on will be tolerated, supported and no stern words said, all in exchange for supporting that party and casting your vote their way.
If the choice is between paying for the lifestyle of a diapered, infantile (by choice) 30-year old who cannot fathom why the government won't be paying for his choice of sexual perversion and lifestyle, or paying for the soldiers who stand in the line and keep us safe, there is no argument.
You can't have both. Not any longer.
It really is pretty much that simple: America can choose to be a superpower or it can choose to be a welfare state, but not both. We're past the point where a President like Lyndon Baines Johnson could persuade Congress to finance both guns and butter: this is the starting point of the slow, dreary and inevitable breakdown of the US government's finances.
You can't have both. Or, more exactly, you can't have both forever without coming up empty. We're at this turning point, reached when US government debt reached 70% of GDP (a while ago) and put off by dealing with symptoms, rather than causes, over the last 30 years or so.
This will be the key debating point of the next presidential election: whether we pay for 30-year old to indulge in their sad sexual fantasies or whether we pay the price in weapons and blood to ensure that the US continues to be the beacon of reason and law in a world that only occasionally behaves.
It really is that simple. That we have come to this point is appalling enough in and of itself. Entitlements creep forward, slowly, insidiously, with the original good intentions - and this road to fiscal hell is paved very well indeed, thank you - perverted as they always will be by the very human desire to have something for nothing and your chicks for free. It's easy and convenient to be indulgent, especially when you have a political party dedicated to making sure that whatever turns you on will be tolerated, supported and no stern words said, all in exchange for supporting that party and casting your vote their way.
If the choice is between paying for the lifestyle of a diapered, infantile (by choice) 30-year old who cannot fathom why the government won't be paying for his choice of sexual perversion and lifestyle, or paying for the soldiers who stand in the line and keep us safe, there is no argument.
You can't have both. Not any longer.
Donnerstag, Mai 26, 2011
Well, of course he wouldn't think it corrupt: he's a Democrat...
While I really shouldn't be surprised, things like this still astound me. Not so much the clear corruption as much more the rejection that it is anything out of the ordinary.
Because apparently Democratic politicians don't have to obey the law. It's the only explanation of why he thinks that this being a conflict of interest is "nonsense".
God help the people of Boston "represented" by Barney Frank. The only thing he represents is the need to clean out the stables.
Because apparently Democratic politicians don't have to obey the law. It's the only explanation of why he thinks that this being a conflict of interest is "nonsense".
God help the people of Boston "represented" by Barney Frank. The only thing he represents is the need to clean out the stables.
Mittwoch, Mai 25, 2011
And this is surprising?
When three of the most famous astronauts that ever lived write an op-ed about US space policy, it's worth a read.
Here.
As far as the Obama Administration is concerned, America does not need to waste money on a space program. That's the clear message being set.
And this is surprising?
President Obama comes from that portion of the Democratic Party that views space flight as a waste of money, with the money being spent better "at home" (ignoring the fact that the money was spent at home: what they really mean is that they want to use the money to create additional dependencies for the aggrandizement of their own power).
The real reason why NASA is being gutted and space programs being deleted? Because there is no constituency for the Democrats here, none that is beholden to them. I've told you here many times, President Obama is a Chicago Democrat: unless there is an in for him, a deal that helps and supports him, helps him directly, then forget about it.
What we have isn't so much a lack of vision, but rather a venal and self-serving vision that doesn't care about space travel. Why should he? It never did anything for him.
The election of President Obama was a disservice to the notion of nation that made Kennedy decide that we would go to the moon in 10 years. Given that challenge, the US government (NASA) and the aerospace industry surpassed that goal and did what no other country could do.
Today? What vision does President Obama bring to the nation? One of decay and a long, slow decline from the world's only superpower to a nation dismayed and divided. That way it's easier to exploit for personal and political gain.
Oh how have the mighty fallen...
Here.
As far as the Obama Administration is concerned, America does not need to waste money on a space program. That's the clear message being set.
And this is surprising?
President Obama comes from that portion of the Democratic Party that views space flight as a waste of money, with the money being spent better "at home" (ignoring the fact that the money was spent at home: what they really mean is that they want to use the money to create additional dependencies for the aggrandizement of their own power).
The real reason why NASA is being gutted and space programs being deleted? Because there is no constituency for the Democrats here, none that is beholden to them. I've told you here many times, President Obama is a Chicago Democrat: unless there is an in for him, a deal that helps and supports him, helps him directly, then forget about it.
What we have isn't so much a lack of vision, but rather a venal and self-serving vision that doesn't care about space travel. Why should he? It never did anything for him.
The election of President Obama was a disservice to the notion of nation that made Kennedy decide that we would go to the moon in 10 years. Given that challenge, the US government (NASA) and the aerospace industry surpassed that goal and did what no other country could do.
Today? What vision does President Obama bring to the nation? One of decay and a long, slow decline from the world's only superpower to a nation dismayed and divided. That way it's easier to exploit for personal and political gain.
Oh how have the mighty fallen...
Montag, Mai 23, 2011
95 Days...and Irony...
It's not so much that there isn't anything to say and for that reason I haven't written, but rather it's much more that there is so much to say that I don't know where to begin.
Start with this.
The problem with big government is that it is BIG. Seriously big, as in too big to fail big, too big to be ignored big, and above all: taking too much, spending it inefficiently, and then pretending that everything is fine.
If we're in a situation where cutting government spending permanently means entering a recession, that is the definition of government spending out of control.
The road to ruin is paved with the very best of intentions, with the gaps filled by platitudes and all covered with a nice, comfy surface so that those driving along feel no pain, feel no disturbances, but instead blithely continue on their journey.
Key quote:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that if the debt limit isn't increased by August 2, the government will no longer be able to spend more than it collects in revenue. That means it will have to cut spending by about 35%, probably choosing among such items as payments to contractors, soldiers' salaries, social security and Medicare.
On average, the cuts would amount to about $3.8 billion a day, according to our own estimates based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office. At that rate, over a period of only 95 days, the cuts would add up to 2.9% of gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation*. That's just enough to negate all the economic growth forecasters expect in 2011.
The first and most fundamental problem here? If government spending is so large that 95 days' worth of cuts - not no spending, but rather cuts in the growth of spending - would wipe out GDP growth for 2011, it means that the economy is seriously lopsided, with government spending accounting for far too much growth.
You see, government spending, unlike any other part of the supply side of the US economy, doesn't add value per se, but is distributive: it takes taxes and fees spent by the companies adding value to the economy and spends it as politicians see fit. It also borrows to spend that money: we are at a crossroads where all paths are thorny and disturbingly difficult, but some lead to long-term recovery and the resurrection of the American dream, while others - most - lead to paths of greater debt, insolvency, and other options better left unsaid.
The ironic part has nothing to do, yet, with the US. It's just this: as the Spanish realize that socialism doesn't work (deliberate pun there: Spanish youth unemployment is over 30%) and give the Socialists there a resounding message at the polls for a change, the city-state of Bremen, in Germany, elects a red-green majority in a city that is broke. In other words, the Spanish are behaving like rational, thoughtful members of society and the Germans are behaving like voters who are collectively burying their heads in the sand and saying "Nanananan" in order to not to be confronted with the catastrophe rolling upon them, of insolvency and massive fiscal problems. Normally these roles are reversed, which is why it's so .... ironic.
Start with this.
The problem with big government is that it is BIG. Seriously big, as in too big to fail big, too big to be ignored big, and above all: taking too much, spending it inefficiently, and then pretending that everything is fine.
If we're in a situation where cutting government spending permanently means entering a recession, that is the definition of government spending out of control.
The road to ruin is paved with the very best of intentions, with the gaps filled by platitudes and all covered with a nice, comfy surface so that those driving along feel no pain, feel no disturbances, but instead blithely continue on their journey.
Key quote:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that if the debt limit isn't increased by August 2, the government will no longer be able to spend more than it collects in revenue. That means it will have to cut spending by about 35%, probably choosing among such items as payments to contractors, soldiers' salaries, social security and Medicare.
On average, the cuts would amount to about $3.8 billion a day, according to our own estimates based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office. At that rate, over a period of only 95 days, the cuts would add up to 2.9% of gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation*. That's just enough to negate all the economic growth forecasters expect in 2011.
The first and most fundamental problem here? If government spending is so large that 95 days' worth of cuts - not no spending, but rather cuts in the growth of spending - would wipe out GDP growth for 2011, it means that the economy is seriously lopsided, with government spending accounting for far too much growth.
You see, government spending, unlike any other part of the supply side of the US economy, doesn't add value per se, but is distributive: it takes taxes and fees spent by the companies adding value to the economy and spends it as politicians see fit. It also borrows to spend that money: we are at a crossroads where all paths are thorny and disturbingly difficult, but some lead to long-term recovery and the resurrection of the American dream, while others - most - lead to paths of greater debt, insolvency, and other options better left unsaid.
The ironic part has nothing to do, yet, with the US. It's just this: as the Spanish realize that socialism doesn't work (deliberate pun there: Spanish youth unemployment is over 30%) and give the Socialists there a resounding message at the polls for a change, the city-state of Bremen, in Germany, elects a red-green majority in a city that is broke. In other words, the Spanish are behaving like rational, thoughtful members of society and the Germans are behaving like voters who are collectively burying their heads in the sand and saying "Nanananan" in order to not to be confronted with the catastrophe rolling upon them, of insolvency and massive fiscal problems. Normally these roles are reversed, which is why it's so .... ironic.
Mittwoch, Mai 11, 2011
This is what the scientific community has come to...
I have, sitting in front of me, the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, from 5-8 May 2011, 25 pages of text, released on 9 May 2011. It's easily available on the web.
I've actually read it. To be honest, I had to read it three times, because I wasn't sure I was reading it right.
This is not science. One critic put it this way:
This is policy-based evidence-making. The IPCC's report on renewable energy was written by the renewable energy sector.
One point cannot be denied: the work of the IPCC has become irrefutably captured by lobbyists and special interest groups, which have permanently compromised the working of the IPCC and corrupted the process and purpose of the IPCC to the point that it cannot be taken seriously. Or anyone quoting it as gospel can be taken seriously.
The policy director of Greenpeace is one of the Lead Authors of the report.
That should tell you everything you need to know. If you are a true believer, unswayed by true scientific methodology (as opposed to pseudo-scientific self-referencing "climate science" that is anything but that) and critical questioning, then this is everything you've ever wanted.
This is not a Summary for Policymakers: it is a political pamphlet on how those who consider themselves our masters intend to spend our monies over the next three decades, lining the pockets of those who are courtiers and sycophants whilst ignoring the needs of the world's poor. Put bluntly, if this comes to pass, the world's poor will be worse off, with capital taken away from them to be spent on fanciful energy schemes that benefit only a few in the West. It will kill people because scarce resources will be squandered chasing after a chimera, rather than being spent on economic development. There is nothing in the document that suggests otherwise.
This is what the scientific community has come to. A disgrace.
I've actually read it. To be honest, I had to read it three times, because I wasn't sure I was reading it right.
This is not science. One critic put it this way:
This is policy-based evidence-making. The IPCC's report on renewable energy was written by the renewable energy sector.
One point cannot be denied: the work of the IPCC has become irrefutably captured by lobbyists and special interest groups, which have permanently compromised the working of the IPCC and corrupted the process and purpose of the IPCC to the point that it cannot be taken seriously. Or anyone quoting it as gospel can be taken seriously.
The policy director of Greenpeace is one of the Lead Authors of the report.
That should tell you everything you need to know. If you are a true believer, unswayed by true scientific methodology (as opposed to pseudo-scientific self-referencing "climate science" that is anything but that) and critical questioning, then this is everything you've ever wanted.
This is not a Summary for Policymakers: it is a political pamphlet on how those who consider themselves our masters intend to spend our monies over the next three decades, lining the pockets of those who are courtiers and sycophants whilst ignoring the needs of the world's poor. Put bluntly, if this comes to pass, the world's poor will be worse off, with capital taken away from them to be spent on fanciful energy schemes that benefit only a few in the West. It will kill people because scarce resources will be squandered chasing after a chimera, rather than being spent on economic development. There is nothing in the document that suggests otherwise.
This is what the scientific community has come to. A disgrace.
The Catch With Catch-Share...
Ah, the joys of the internet. :-)
This I found on Drudge, as a small side-line. But it piqued my curiosity: what could be going on here?
As usual, do-gooders destroying people's livelihoods in the name of an abstract hope.
Read this first. It's what the NOAA says catch-share should be.
The key quote:
Read this for one take. And then there's this, and this.
It's killing the industry.
Key quote that got me started here:
Local fishermen said they were told by the federal team not to discuss the new regulations, just their effects.
Ye gods. In other words, they're not interested in having fisherman criticize the regulations. They just want to know what the effects are.
And if you don't think it's killing the industry - 400 years of fishing in New England - then read this.
Even Barney Frank thinks it's a bad idea. Which, in the normal scheme of things, would mean that it would have some merit.
But not in this case.
Unintended consequences? Reducing the fishing fleet in just five months by over 50%? That's not an unintended consequence: that's a deliberate plan. The result, the intended result?
Of the 247 ground-fishing vessels left in New England, 55 boats accounted for 61% of revenue. In other words, the industry is being concentrated in a few well-connected companies. The wealthy ones. not the small fisheries and independent fishermen.
So, who is in charge of doing this?
Jane Lubchenco.
Among other things, she is an environmental activist (former vice-president of the Environmental Defense Fund: you don't get that job without being an activist).
Key quote:
In fishing for a problem to support the regulatory agendas of the EDF and the Obama administration, Lubchenco netted a policy that has wreaked havoc on the fishing industry, and which will continue to put fishermen out of business until its repeal.
For all those who voted for hope and change, this is what you get. Until this is changed, there is no hope.
This I found on Drudge, as a small side-line. But it piqued my curiosity: what could be going on here?
As usual, do-gooders destroying people's livelihoods in the name of an abstract hope.
Read this first. It's what the NOAA says catch-share should be.
The key quote:
A catch share program differs from traditional fishery management by dividing up the total allowable catch in a fishery into shares. These shares are typically allocated based on historical participation in the fishery. They may be assigned to individuals, cooperatives, communities or other entities, who would be allowed to fish up to their assigned limit. Catch share participants also agree to stop fishing when they have caught as much as they are allowed.
Under traditional management programs, fishermen compete for a total allowable catch. This has lead to fishermen racing each other to catch as many fish as they can before the total catch limit is reached. This results in more boats and gear than necessary, quotas being exceeded, increasingly shorter fishing seasons, unsafe fishing and high levels of bycatch. It also may result in too many fish brought to market at once, reducing their market value to fishermen and coastal communities.
So how is it working in the real world?Read this for one take. And then there's this, and this.
It's killing the industry.
Key quote that got me started here:
Local fishermen said they were told by the federal team not to discuss the new regulations, just their effects.
Ye gods. In other words, they're not interested in having fisherman criticize the regulations. They just want to know what the effects are.
And if you don't think it's killing the industry - 400 years of fishing in New England - then read this.
Even Barney Frank thinks it's a bad idea. Which, in the normal scheme of things, would mean that it would have some merit.
But not in this case.
Unintended consequences? Reducing the fishing fleet in just five months by over 50%? That's not an unintended consequence: that's a deliberate plan. The result, the intended result?
Of the 247 ground-fishing vessels left in New England, 55 boats accounted for 61% of revenue. In other words, the industry is being concentrated in a few well-connected companies. The wealthy ones. not the small fisheries and independent fishermen.
So, who is in charge of doing this?
Jane Lubchenco.
Among other things, she is an environmental activist (former vice-president of the Environmental Defense Fund: you don't get that job without being an activist).
Key quote:
In fishing for a problem to support the regulatory agendas of the EDF and the Obama administration, Lubchenco netted a policy that has wreaked havoc on the fishing industry, and which will continue to put fishermen out of business until its repeal.
For all those who voted for hope and change, this is what you get. Until this is changed, there is no hope.
Mittwoch, Mai 04, 2011
Another Inane Idea From DC...
As if there weren't enough inane ideas from that den.
Barney Frank, always good for making sure that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, wants to not allow the regional Feds to set their own interest rates, permitting only a single one to be set from Washington.
Good lord.
The reason that the Europeans have a crisis is the simple fact that they cannot set regional interest rates. It is a real problem for the EMU, as it means that the ECB has to balance, say, the needs of Portugal against the needs of, say, Germany, resulting in policies that muddle through, rather than being decisive.
This is what Barney Frank wants: he wants to give up flexibility of interest rates to address regional needs in order to have greater control over what interest rates are.
He's a control freak who doesn't care what damage is done as long as he can ensure that Congress controls what is going on.
Is the man completely incapable of thinking?
Sorry, that was a rhetorical question, Of course not. He's a Democrat.
Nov 2012 can't come along soon enough. These fools need to be removed from office. Perhaps the new ones won't be that much better, but at this point, it's hard to see how it can get worse.
Barney Frank, always good for making sure that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, wants to not allow the regional Feds to set their own interest rates, permitting only a single one to be set from Washington.
Good lord.
The reason that the Europeans have a crisis is the simple fact that they cannot set regional interest rates. It is a real problem for the EMU, as it means that the ECB has to balance, say, the needs of Portugal against the needs of, say, Germany, resulting in policies that muddle through, rather than being decisive.
This is what Barney Frank wants: he wants to give up flexibility of interest rates to address regional needs in order to have greater control over what interest rates are.
He's a control freak who doesn't care what damage is done as long as he can ensure that Congress controls what is going on.
Is the man completely incapable of thinking?
Sorry, that was a rhetorical question, Of course not. He's a Democrat.
Nov 2012 can't come along soon enough. These fools need to be removed from office. Perhaps the new ones won't be that much better, but at this point, it's hard to see how it can get worse.
Montag, Mai 02, 2011
The Death of Osama bin Laden...
Anima eius et animae omnium fidelium defunctorum per Dei misericordiam requiescant in pace.
The above is from the Roman Catholic burial service. It is based in Isiah 57, 1-2:
The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as they lie in death.
Obama bin Laden did not walk uprightly. He did not belong to the righteous, he was not devout in any civilized sense, and he embraced evil wholeheartedly.
Hence let us understand that there is evil in the world, that evil always fails because at the end of the day, good will prevail. It is of utmost importance that we never forget that in order for evil to prevail, all it requires is that good men allow it. We do not do enough in our policies, in our education, in our culture, in our daily lives, in ourselves to stop evil in its tracks: we are merely human, frail and corruptible, weak and easily distracted. But there are times when we rally and do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons.
My deepest and heart-felt thanks for those whose service to the ideals of the civilized world made it possible to fight this evil and help to end it. These are the true heroes, the righteous and devout, those who walk upright for they are fighting the right fight. Evil is still out there, evil will disappear only when the hearts of men are not clouded by their baser interests and that enlightenment, in one form or another, brings peace to us all, allow us to transcend temptation and not be led to evil.
Until then, lock and load. Keep your ammunition dry, your batteries charged, water clean and the rations healthy. Keep you spirits on the goal, your mind on the situation and above all, love those you do love with all your heart and body.
Keep the faith. It was a good day when Osama bin Laden died. It aggrieves me to say that, I deeply wish that he hadn't done what he did, that his twisted path had been a righteous one. It was not, and his personal evil, at least, has ceased.
That is all.
The above is from the Roman Catholic burial service. It is based in Isiah 57, 1-2:
The righteous perish, and no one ponders it in his heart; devout men are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as they lie in death.
Obama bin Laden did not walk uprightly. He did not belong to the righteous, he was not devout in any civilized sense, and he embraced evil wholeheartedly.
Hence let us understand that there is evil in the world, that evil always fails because at the end of the day, good will prevail. It is of utmost importance that we never forget that in order for evil to prevail, all it requires is that good men allow it. We do not do enough in our policies, in our education, in our culture, in our daily lives, in ourselves to stop evil in its tracks: we are merely human, frail and corruptible, weak and easily distracted. But there are times when we rally and do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons.
My deepest and heart-felt thanks for those whose service to the ideals of the civilized world made it possible to fight this evil and help to end it. These are the true heroes, the righteous and devout, those who walk upright for they are fighting the right fight. Evil is still out there, evil will disappear only when the hearts of men are not clouded by their baser interests and that enlightenment, in one form or another, brings peace to us all, allow us to transcend temptation and not be led to evil.
Until then, lock and load. Keep your ammunition dry, your batteries charged, water clean and the rations healthy. Keep you spirits on the goal, your mind on the situation and above all, love those you do love with all your heart and body.
Keep the faith. It was a good day when Osama bin Laden died. It aggrieves me to say that, I deeply wish that he hadn't done what he did, that his twisted path had been a righteous one. It was not, and his personal evil, at least, has ceased.
That is all.
Donnerstag, April 28, 2011
How To Destroy An Economy...
Here's a case study.
Consider a country that has a divided school system. All children go to elementary school through the 4th grade. Based on grades, a teacher's assessment of the child's natural abilities, as well as discussions with the parents, children are the sent to three different types of schools: the clever ones are sent to a school designed to turn them into well-educated, widely read young people who, basically, reflect the top 25% of the country's potential; the bright ones, but with little ambition or from blue-collar families, go to what amounts to a trade school, learning the proper tools to run a business or become an electrician (math, physics, but not much in the way of literature analysis); the third group goes to a school that is designed to churn out low-level employees such as retail sales people, gas station attendants, that sort of group, this time the lower 25% or so of the country's potential. That middle group is, of course, the larger of the three, with around 50%.
Those going to the clever schools overwhelmingly go on to proper universities, or enter management apprentice programs. Those going the bright schools go into all sorts of apprentice programs, and have a university path in fields such as engineering and other applied sciences. The others go out and get jobs, either directly or after a training period.
That, in a nutshell, is how the German schooling system works. First and foremost, it does recognize that there are differences in intelligence and that there are differences in social origin that can make or break individuals, and for all its flaws - and believe me, after putting my children through that system, there are many - it works well for Germany. You learn at an early age that choices made, right or wrong, have real-world implications down the road. You learn, as well, that you can surmount those decisions, but it takes hard work - transferring from the lower 25% to the upper 25% is not unheard of, but you have to prove to the system that you belong elsewhere - and is something that people respect and can be proud of. Muddling through lands you down at the lower cohort, but even someone not terribly gifted can, by dint of hard work and perseverance, can succeed. Children, of course, from wealthy families can afford to have tutoring to get them through the rough patches, and families with little money will struggle, but it's for a good cause: getting your Abitur - it is roughly the equivalent of an Associate Bachelor's degree in the US, i.e. high school + 2 years of college - means that you have, effectively, been approved by society as being someone who has passed the first test of becoming a productive member of society.
Now, there is one area in Germany that has been spectacularly successful over the last 50 years: Baden-Württemberg, the south-western corner of Germany. It's where Porsche and Mercedes call home; it's where the largest and most successful engineering firms are located; incomes are high, culture is good, life is well organized (there are rules about when you must sweep your sidewalks) and the virtues of the "Schwäbische Hausfrau", or Swabian Wife, are well known. It's a very self-satisfied area, rightfully so.
Now that there is a green-red coalition (German political parties go by a color in the normal vernacular: the Greens are the ecological party, the Reds are socialists, the Blacks are christian conservatives and the Yellows are a kind of liberal) running things in Baden-Württemberg, they have started the discussion about abandoning the three-tier system for a single school system.
In other words, they want to deconstruct exactly that system that has been a major contributor to the success of the German economy.
This is how you destroy an economy in the long run: dismantle the school system in the name of an illusionary system that "is more equal", forcing the bright and clever ones to be bored while pretending those left over are overwhelmed and frustrated. The Green-Red coalition was voted in - the coalition came after the election, not before it - after the Fukushima accident in Japan made the pre-nuclear policies of the blacks unacceptable for many swing voters: a protest vote, fundamentally, that now gives the more radical amongst the greens their opportunity to change how the country is run.
They are going after the school system first, as it is one area where they can simply make it so.
What is it with modern educators? They are sacrificing methods and systems that work in the search for something that is, purportedly, better: however, empirical evidence shows that these sorts of changes makes things worse, rather than better, but too many careers, I suppose, and too much professional status is involved for anyone to admit that the kids are worse off, rather than better.
This is how you destroy an economy: make sure the kids don't get an education that means anything. Make sure they know about gay history and how capitalism is bad, but not how to write something that people actually can understand or do their sums correctly. It takes a while, but it does explain how so many in the pedagogic business are on the political left.
Consider a country that has a divided school system. All children go to elementary school through the 4th grade. Based on grades, a teacher's assessment of the child's natural abilities, as well as discussions with the parents, children are the sent to three different types of schools: the clever ones are sent to a school designed to turn them into well-educated, widely read young people who, basically, reflect the top 25% of the country's potential; the bright ones, but with little ambition or from blue-collar families, go to what amounts to a trade school, learning the proper tools to run a business or become an electrician (math, physics, but not much in the way of literature analysis); the third group goes to a school that is designed to churn out low-level employees such as retail sales people, gas station attendants, that sort of group, this time the lower 25% or so of the country's potential. That middle group is, of course, the larger of the three, with around 50%.
Those going to the clever schools overwhelmingly go on to proper universities, or enter management apprentice programs. Those going the bright schools go into all sorts of apprentice programs, and have a university path in fields such as engineering and other applied sciences. The others go out and get jobs, either directly or after a training period.
That, in a nutshell, is how the German schooling system works. First and foremost, it does recognize that there are differences in intelligence and that there are differences in social origin that can make or break individuals, and for all its flaws - and believe me, after putting my children through that system, there are many - it works well for Germany. You learn at an early age that choices made, right or wrong, have real-world implications down the road. You learn, as well, that you can surmount those decisions, but it takes hard work - transferring from the lower 25% to the upper 25% is not unheard of, but you have to prove to the system that you belong elsewhere - and is something that people respect and can be proud of. Muddling through lands you down at the lower cohort, but even someone not terribly gifted can, by dint of hard work and perseverance, can succeed. Children, of course, from wealthy families can afford to have tutoring to get them through the rough patches, and families with little money will struggle, but it's for a good cause: getting your Abitur - it is roughly the equivalent of an Associate Bachelor's degree in the US, i.e. high school + 2 years of college - means that you have, effectively, been approved by society as being someone who has passed the first test of becoming a productive member of society.
Now, there is one area in Germany that has been spectacularly successful over the last 50 years: Baden-Württemberg, the south-western corner of Germany. It's where Porsche and Mercedes call home; it's where the largest and most successful engineering firms are located; incomes are high, culture is good, life is well organized (there are rules about when you must sweep your sidewalks) and the virtues of the "Schwäbische Hausfrau", or Swabian Wife, are well known. It's a very self-satisfied area, rightfully so.
Now that there is a green-red coalition (German political parties go by a color in the normal vernacular: the Greens are the ecological party, the Reds are socialists, the Blacks are christian conservatives and the Yellows are a kind of liberal) running things in Baden-Württemberg, they have started the discussion about abandoning the three-tier system for a single school system.
In other words, they want to deconstruct exactly that system that has been a major contributor to the success of the German economy.
This is how you destroy an economy in the long run: dismantle the school system in the name of an illusionary system that "is more equal", forcing the bright and clever ones to be bored while pretending those left over are overwhelmed and frustrated. The Green-Red coalition was voted in - the coalition came after the election, not before it - after the Fukushima accident in Japan made the pre-nuclear policies of the blacks unacceptable for many swing voters: a protest vote, fundamentally, that now gives the more radical amongst the greens their opportunity to change how the country is run.
They are going after the school system first, as it is one area where they can simply make it so.
What is it with modern educators? They are sacrificing methods and systems that work in the search for something that is, purportedly, better: however, empirical evidence shows that these sorts of changes makes things worse, rather than better, but too many careers, I suppose, and too much professional status is involved for anyone to admit that the kids are worse off, rather than better.
This is how you destroy an economy: make sure the kids don't get an education that means anything. Make sure they know about gay history and how capitalism is bad, but not how to write something that people actually can understand or do their sums correctly. It takes a while, but it does explain how so many in the pedagogic business are on the political left.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
