 |
| My new razor |
In a new TV commercial, Gillette promotes the idea that we as a society have an obligation to fight “toxic masculinity.” Like its forebear “testosterone poisoning,” this outrageous sexist term is accepted in everyday conversation as though the behaviors of a few bad men are the result of simply being born male.
A generation of boys and young men are suffering by virtue of what is now defined as “social constructivism.” The theory goes that there is no difference between men and women other than that imposed by society. So, we should discourage behavior that is stereotypically male to ensure women are treated equally. As a result, boys are growing up in a culture that is questioning what’s wrong with them and casually derides them.
Popular culture has followed suit. Slang terms like “mansplaining” and “man flu” are in common use. Popular TV shows once elevated Dads like Robert Young’s character on “Father Knows Best” and now deride them in shows like The Simpsons and Everybody Loves Raymond.
For the last couple of generations, many fathers have raised their daughters to fearlessly be the best they can be. An acquaintance of mine raised three girls all of whom were All-American lacrosse players in college and have gone on to success in business. It’s time for mothers of sons to take the same approach. My mother raised three sons to have the courage of our convictions, to value achievement based upon merit and make moral judgments based upon fairness. We were never ashamed of being male.
What are you teaching your sons?
Inventing economics
Have you heard of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)? Probably not.
It’s a theoretical model based on absolutely no experience being used by the “progressive” left to justify unlimited deficit spending. Using Quantitative Easing (QE), the practice of central banks monetizing debt to inflate asset prices, MMT would be used as the basis to simply let deficits grow. No doubt, MMT would be used to justify Medicare for All (M4A), free college tuition and God knows what else. What’s interesting is that QE has created much of the income inequality about which the left complains. Low interest rates make assets like real estate and other investments more affordable. No doubt the progressive response will be to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who haven’t.
Politically, MMT would enable politicians pass these massive programs without dealing with the nagging question, “how will we pay for it?” Eventually, MMT calls for taxes to be raised when inflation gets out of control. By taking money out of the economy, inflation and growth would slow. Well, at least they understand supply side theory even if they pay it no mind.
I wonder how the public will react when they are told their taxes are being raised to fight inflation.
How did we get here?
If you can carve out 20 minutes in your day (It’s tough, I know) to read a short story, I recommend “How This All Happened” by Morgan Housel. It’s a very easy and fun read, an overview of Post-WWII history of American society and our economy.
Each of us would take something different from it. What I found it remarkable is how much the growth of debt was a factor in our economic growth. From 1945 to 1965, US household debt grew from $49.4B to $331.2B. That’s a modest sum by today’s standards but it’s 1.5 times faster than the growth in debt during 2000’s debt bubble.
The momentum continues, of course. As I wrote in “The Next Bubble to Burst Will Be…” global debt is now more than 300% of global GDP. A truism about debt is that the more you have the less you get from it. At manageable levels, it can enable economic growth, the acquisition of assets or high-return investments. However, the larger the debt burden, the lower the return from each additional dollar of debt. A clear manifestation of this phenomenon was the build up of excessive government deficits during the George W. Bush administration. Each dollar of GDP growth was matched by a dollar of government debt. No multiplier effect at all. Now that government debt exceeds 100% of GDP, each additional dollar of debt will subtract from GDP growth.
What started as sound fiscal practice has become an addiction.
WHO WILL LEAD?
No comments:
Post a Comment