Politics, hatred, utopia: I should have seen this coming

“I think he showed us how it’s done.”  My lunch companion was a 30-year-old Yale grad, an up-by-his-bootstraps denizen of Rochester’s inner city with political aspirations.  He was talking about Donald Trump and how the left would defeat him. I confess I am not very glib. That’s why I write this blog.  It may take me a dozen drafts over 4 or 5 days to concisely express my opinion.  So, my response to this young progressive was… wait for it… nothing!  I was dumbstruck. 

I’ve always thought that society’s reaction to our boorish, prevaricating president would be a return to civility.  But my young friend was spot on as last year’s elections proved.  Using the Twitterverse as a platform, the AOC contingent (if I may call it that) became ascendant.  And, their success has brought outrageous ideas (70% marginal tax rates, Green New Deal) into mainstream media discussion.  Like Trump, AOC has become the “brand” of her party according to Peggy Noonan.  Her essay (Congress’s Mean Girls Are Trump’s Offspring) in the Wall Street Journal asserts, “[t]hey believe that to be enraged is to demonstrate seriousness. It is to show that you understand the urgency of the moment, even if others don’t.”

Still I wonder where the line of acceptable behavior is drawn.  I guess it’s somewhere on the spectrum of nasty women who make their living by being, well, nasty.  Samantha Bee is okay, but Kathy Griffin is not.  There’s a line between them somewhere, right?

Following President Trump’s election, I was astounded at the public reaction of those who supported his opponent and thought she had it in the bag.  His outrageous behavior, boorish manners and policy lunacy was outmatched by street protests, hate-filled messages and the media’s obsession with him.  “He’ll be reelected because liberals will overplay their hand,” I would tell anyone who would listen.  Not many did. And, now, I am not so sure I was right. 

Hatred has transformative power.  It can make the innocuous into the menacing. And, menace provides moral empowerment, which in turn leads to totalitarianism.  In a conventional society, laws are designed to protect people and their property.  In a totalitarian society, laws are designed to move society toward utopia.  Successful extremists can always define utopia. One extreme would have us erect barriers to free trade and reject immigrants while the other would open our borders and exercise government control over private enterprise.  The reaction by each cohort is to accuse their opponents of either being Nazis (Hitler) or socialists (Lenin).  Those who gain political power by conjuring hatred can and will do whatever is necessary to achieve their goals (as both Hitler and Lenin showed us).  

America desperately needs leadership that stands for sanity and moderation, not demagoguery.  Those whose political fortunes rely upon judging, lecturing and disdaining may resonate with a segment of the public but not with the “Exhausted Majority.” Despite the best efforts of the media, most people do not follow politics with rapt attention.  They are more concerned about paying their rent and the rising cost of healthcare and sending their kids to college.  

The question now is how to get the genie back in the bottle.

WHO WILL LEAD?

What I’m reading

Economist Brian Beaulieu says we’re in the third phase (Caution!) of the economic cycle. We may be on the precipice of recession – or maybe not….  In a 1 minute 43 second video, the Hoover Institute provides an alternative to a carbon tax called "Low Carbon Pollution Standards"….  David Brooks of the NY Times tells us that the media have become scandal mongers (once the province only of tabloids).  

#justanoldwhiteguy

It’s old news now but I’ve been thinking about the mob that semi-attacked Tucker Carlson’s home last fall. If so-called progressives want to be the anti-Trump, shouldn’t they stop behaving like the anti-Christ?

Gillette and Mothers of sons… Inventing economics… How did we get here?

Gillette and Mothers of sons

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? 

Broadband… AOC… Pelosi… Ryan… WTF!

No, you don’t have a right to broadband Internet

Like anything, once the majority has something, everybody wants in.   The Wall Street Journal reports House Democrats have cobbled together an infrastructure proposal that includes “$40 billion in ‘direct federal funding to connect all of America to affordable high speed Internet.’” Meanwhile, in a report titled “If you think you have issues with your broadband internet, you’re not alone,” our local paper reports on the frustration of those who have eschewed an urban/suburban lifestyle, moving to rural counties where they are unable to get a consistent broadband connection.  

With scant attention to the cost of extending broadband to areas where it would be underutilized, the article tells us of the misfortune of the poor folks looking for five acres of land where they can raise chickens and bees without sacrificing their connection to cyberspace. A group advocating for extending broadband service, promotes the idea that broadband is “a utility now and we need universal access.”  The article closes with a quote from a frustrated schoolteacher saying, “Internet is no longer a privilege… it’s a right.”  The statement makes a now common error by confusing goods and services with “rights.”

To be clear, goods and services are not the same as human rights.  They may be (and generally are) unequally distributed.  For example, few rural communities have big shopping malls, big name entertainment or five star restaurants.  Rights, on the other hand, must be distributed equally.

Let’s not confuse the efforts to ensure equal rights with the desire to socialize the cost of providing services to those who can and do make informed choices. 

AOC

From the “Much Ado About Nothing” department comes a 12 second video of youngest woman ever House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (now dubbed AOC by the media, social and otherwise). Like almost everything, the video is at ground zero in the culture wars and is likely to remain there for at least a few more seconds.

Of greater concern to me is the Paul Krugman defense of AOC’s suggestion of top tax rates of 70 or 80%. How else will the government pay for free everything – healthcare, college education, whatever?  Citing studies done by Peter Diamond and Christina Romer, he uses a marginal utility analysis to explain why rates that high wouldn’t matter.  He fails to mention that Diamond’s study was done in the 1960’s when the highest rate, 91%, was lowered to 70%.  Nor, does he mention that Romer was run out of the Obama administration after its first year because she dared advocate that higher rates would dampen economic growth.

Nancy Pelosi (left) and AOC (right, no not really)

Pelosi and Ryan

So, long as I’m taking shots at politicians, I’ll close with some observations about two oft-mentioned names.

It’s fair to say that Nancy Pelosi’s politics are way too liberal for me to even contemplate.  I set that aside yesterday watching CBS’s Jane Pauley interview her.  There was one word that occurred to me at its end: resiliency.  She dismissed the target placed on her back during the recent campaign season saying, “once you step into the arena” you should expect it. She further asserted she would “go home” once her “mission” was accomplished and not before.  She sets a great example for young women – at least for those who venture forth from their safe spaces.

While my head is still spinning, I should point to one of my former heroes, Paul Ryan. Once the stalwart advocate of both low taxes and a balanced budget, he has departed Washington with a legacy that reflects neither.  As perhaps the most well informed member of leadership during two years of Republican control of government, he leaves us with a tax reform that is a mixed bag of good and evil along with a $1 trillion dollar annual deficit.  

I’m having a WTF moment. 

WHO WILL LEAD?