The Sophistry of Bailouts

To Bailout or not to bailout? Apparently, that is the question. Unfortunately, unlike Hamlet's question, nobility has nothing to do with it. The reasoning behind bailing out financial institutions hold some merit, as monetary flow is essential for the functioning of the economy. An argument can at least be proffered that bailing out the financial institutions will benefit the economy in a fundamental way. But, bailing out the auto companies helps the auto companies and those who invested in them at the expense of everyone else, and everyone else benefits very little.

The arguments for bailing out the auto companies are the problem. The premise seems to be that the auto companies have made bad decisions on what products to produce and have been producing poor quality products. Neither assertion appears to be the case. American auto companies have been producing high-quality cars and trucks, and have apparently been producing the products that Americans desired, up until the bottom fell out of the stock market. The problem now is that most people are in no mood to buy a car or a truck, whether it is made by an American company or by a foreign company. The issue for the auto companies is a drop off in demand for new vehicles, across the board. The idea that senators or congressmen can instruct the automobile companies on what kinds of vehicles the American people want is laughable. Seeing the captains of industry begging for the government to bail out their sinking ships is a sure sign that the American philosophy of private industry is already lost at sea.

Why can't the auto companies sell cars and trucks right now? The American people have been sitting with jaws dropped watching their home values and 401k savings fall in value over the last year or two by about 40 percent. Most of the 401k drop has occurred in the last few months. They are greeted each evening with talk of how we are heading into another Great Depression. They see job losses and more job losses coming. When you can't measure the value of the assets you currently own as each day brings new losses, and you are unsure whether you will have a job in the next year or two, most responsible people do not look to take on a multi-year loan for a major purchase, like a car. Even if it runs on sunshine and rain water, and emits rainbows and dew drops as it putters along.

Which leads us to the reason why we should not bail out the auto companies. If you bail out the auto companies, yes, you will keep people in their jobs, but their jobs are to build cars that nobody is in the mood to buy. That makes the problem worse. The auto companies should be cutting the price of their automobiles and trucks so they can clear their inventory and raise the cash flow needed to cover their bills. Yes, the auto companies should sell their inventories at a loss, like all other companies do when demand falls. If auto companies drop the prices of their cars significantly, offer zero percent financing, purchase finance insurance if necessary to offer financing to lower credit risks, maybe even the frightened American consumer will see the bargain and start buying again. Perhaps, they will even trample a salesman or two to death along the way. And, those who invested in the auto companies will be the ones to take the loss, not the American public. Of course, the auto companies would much rather get a loan from the government and hope consumers are in a better mood before the money runs out. They would rather this so much as to endure the humiliation of taking lectures from no-nothing politicians who pretend they know something about making cars, and what the American consumer desires.

If you really must have a bail out of the auto companies, at least do something that helps people to buy cars, not something that helps the auto companies continue making cars. Why not offer a tax credit for buying a new car as a stimulus package? Or better yet, bail out the American consumer by offering a tax holiday, as one congressman proposed? I actually heard an analyst say that this would be a bad idea because people would be inclined to either save the money, or pay down their debt, rather than spend the money. As it happens, saving money would help the financial institutions, and paying down their debt would help improve consumer credit-worthiness, so they might be eligible to purchase a car. Paying the money to the auto companies so they can increase inventories of cars they cannot sell, or paying banks money so they can offer financing to borrowers who have already tapped out their credit limit, hardly seems like a better plan than letting taxpayers keep their own money, to save, invest, or spend as they like. Right now, the crisis seems to be in paying back loans, not in acquiring more loans. Saving and paying down debt sound like a much better results then building more cars that no one wants to buy and offering more loans that no one wants to take on.

And so, the sophistry continues. It is not about what is best for the economy, but what is best for the auto industry and the politicians. It has far more to do with the fact that politicians like to see private businessmen grovel, and private businessmen like to delay problems and hope they go away, rather than facing them. The politicians will likely give the businessmen the reprieve they desire, but unless someone does something to make people want to buy new cars, the businessmen will be back groveling for more help to make more cars that nobody wants to buy, even if they are more environmentally sound. Once you've been rewarded for groveling, it's really hard not to make a habit of it.

On Sarah Palin

Why is the media obsessed with trying to humiliate Sarah Palin? Why are women in the media the most critical of her? Well, there are certainly cultural reasons. The woman's father taught her to hunt in order to help provide food for the family over the winter. That kind of nontraditional role for a woman in such a rustic setting offends the jet-setting vegans who work in the media. When media women conceive of a strong woman, this is not the model they had in mind.

A lot of this is city mouse, country mouse stuff. But there is an underlying values difference which mirrors the striking differences between our country folk and our city folk these days. The starkest values difference is on the question of life, and particularly, on abortion. Here, Palin is unforgivable in the eyes of the media. First of all, she has five kids. City folk just don't do that! Just the fact that she has not planned out her 1.5 child family like city folk do, makes her suspect. And, having had five children, she still turns heads when she wears a skirt! She also looks happy! How can that be? Could there be an element of envy underlying this? Can women who have put off or forgone opportunities to have a family and children for some perceived career necessity avoid allowing envy to color their view of woman who appears to have it all, and have it all in abundance?

But the biggest reason is abortion. For most city women, there are three cases where you have an abortion. There is no question, no doubt about it. And you are crazy if you don't. First, you are a teenager and end up pregnant. If your daughter is a teenager and ends up pregnant, you quietly take her to an abortionist and hope no one finds out. Next, you are carrying an unhealthy child. Who brings an unhealthy child into the world? Especially one with Down's Syndrome? And last, you have been raped. In the view of city folk, abortion must be kept available as an option to cover these situations. The Palin family has opted for life in two out of three of these cases, and done so, smiling, without a single apparent regret. The Palins have audaciously placed their full measure of hope in life, unapologetically, unabashedly, and with no hint of doubt. Where city folk find only despair, the Palins have discovered the greatest of joys, and that is unforgivable. City folk watch this spectacle with all the dismay of the Grinch, who having stolen all the Christmas toys, looks down on Hooville and finds the Hoos singing with joy. But there has been no Christmas miracle for our beloved city folk. Only a redoubled effort to prove that this just cannot be. That it must be fake. That Sarah Palin must be a stupid, country rube, grabbing for all the fancy clothes and shoes she can, while she has her moment in the limelight. Let we country folk all pray that our city folk brethren may come to remember that thing that they seem to have forgotten: that life is beautiful.

Obama's Chance for Greatness

Barrack Obama is being advised to issue an executive order to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Such morally questionable research is almost wholly unnecessary now, as advances in science have discovered ways of creating the same type of cells without the destruction of embryos. Little scientific gain will result from changing the current policy, and such a change should be viewed as completely political. The question is, is it in Obama's interest to play wedge politics with pro-life, social conservatives, or is it in his interest to expand his appeal by being magnanimous in victory?

His decision here will be telling. He may take a step toward greatness by explaining that it is pointless to alienate millions of Americans who find this research to be morally suspect, since advances in science have rendered the point moot. He could take the high road, and say that he has studied the question and, while in the past, before the advances in science found ways to create the needed cells without destroying embryos, it would have been justified to change the policy, but now, there is no longer any need. If he is wise, he will throw this small bone to those who are rightly suspicious of his views on life issues. and show that he has an open mind. The added benefit will be that he will avoid a potentially nasty social issue debate, which could serve as a distraction to the other major objectives of his presidency. Bill Clinton made such a mistake when the first thing he did was change an executive order to allow gays in the military.

Mr. Obama has a chance to reach for greatness. Or, he can reach for petty partisanship and stick it to his presumed enemies. The people who disagree with him on life issues will never agree with Mr. Obama on abortion rights, but they would respect him for a thoughtful position on stem cell research, and would be much more likely to support him in the more important items on his agenda. His position here will set the tone for his presidency, one way or the other. I am hopeful he will reach for greatness.

Corporate Greed or Central Bank Mismanagement?

Ok, we all know that it was corporate greed that caused the mortgage meltdown. Or was it? Did corporations suddenly become more greedy? Or is there some other reason?

Well, I'm not qualified to answer the question about what caused the meltdown, but I feel I might just be qualified to ask a question. The question I'd like to ask is, just what was the Federal Reserve Bank doing in the lead-up to this catastrophe?

The best indicator I know of as to what the Fed was doing is the target federal funds rate. Basically, this is indicates how the Fed is trying to influence interest rates, and interest rates are at the heart of the problem. Here's the graph:

http://www.newyorkfed.org/charts/ff/

The target rate went from a high of 6.5% on 12/28/2000 to 1.75% on 12/11/2001 (that's a 73% decrease in less than a year) then continued to fall to a low of 1% on 6/26/2003 where it stayed until 6/29/2004. Then began a series of small increases until the rate settled at 5.25% on 7/11/2006 (that's an increase of 525% over about 2 years) and stayed there until 9/13/2007. Then, fell precipitously once again to 2% on 4/30/2008 where it remains.

Now, keep in mind, the Federal Funds target rate is just that, a target. This is where the Federal Reserve is aiming! We might understand such fluctuation and volatility if it were subject to some random and wild process of nature, but on the contrary, it is only subject to the whims of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee and the Federal Reserve Chairman. I daresay, if we had a measure of corporate greed to put on the graph next to this interest rate chart, we would find it remarkably stable.

How is it that the Fed went from shooting at 6.5% to shooting at 1% to shooting at 5.25% to shooting at 2%? Since interest rates are an indication of the cost of money, has the cost of any other commodity been this volatile? If people are making investment and funding decisions based on short term interest rates when they are 1% and need to refinance two years later and rates are 5.25%, why is anyone surprised that they have difficulty? Why should we attribute this difficulty to greed?

The question I feel qualified to ask but not qualified to answer is why did the Fed target interest rates this way? How is it that we should not assume that the Fed has been driving the economy as if they were drunk and finally have crashed, and now, are asking the taxpayers to pay for the damage?

Tags: bailout, corporate greed, greed, fed, federal reserve, central bank, mismanagement, interest rates, mortgage, crisis

The Real Inconveniant Truth

Environmentalists like to claim that the science of "Climate Change" is settled. However, the fact that they now talk of "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" belies the fact. The science is not settled on climate change, in that the scientists do not agree on the direction of the change, nor the cause. They do, however, their best to maintain the appearance of concensus that the climate is in some way changing, and maintain the suggestion that it is changing in some way that it has not always been changing. When I think of the fact that a mere ten thousand years ago most of the north american continent was a mile deep in ice, I am encouraged to do all I to be sure that any climate change resulting from human activity eres on the side of warming. Think of the global catastrophe of another ice age and tell me I should be worried about my carbon foot print and a degree or two of warming.

One question on which the science is settled is that of when life begins. And here, science has presented the world with a real inconvenient truth. Nancy Pelosi would like to debate the Catholic Church on when life begins, because it is an inconvenient truth that the science is settled on the question: Life begins at conception. The Church's position on when a soul enters a fetus, and therefore, when it is considered murder to commit an abortion, has evolved over time, and yielded to the determination of science that life begins at conception. The Catholic Church has, however, always taught that abortion is a sin, just that perhaps, if the fetus does not yet have a soul within it, it may not be the sin of murder. Ms. Pelosi would like to turn back the clock on science and the Church to the fifth century and adopt a more convenient starting place for life.

The inconvenient truth is that there has always been a consensus among pagans, Christians, and anyone else who has considered the question, that abortion is an unquestionable evil. Even now, most pro-choice voters do not consider abortion as a good. It is only the most radical proponents of abortion that believe that an abortion can be a positive good, versus a lesser of evils, a view peculiar enough, in that to accept this view one must accept the propisition that having a baby is the greater evil. Barack Obama seems to be in this camp, however, having suggested that a woman "should not be punished with a baby for having made a mistake."

There is no debate on the issue of when life begins, except among those who would like license to have, procure, or perform abortions, which, unfortunately, also includes the Democrat candidate for the presidency, who, among his limited accomplishments, actively spoke out against providing medical care for abortion survivers who were being left to die among the medical waste in Chicago hospitals. His argument, as I understand it, was that if an aborted fetus survives and it is considered to be a person and entitled to medical care, it would undermine the Roe vs. Wade decision. Now that would be inconveniant.

Tags: Pelosi, Obama, abortion, life, begins, conception, inconvenient, truth, global warming, climate change, settled science

17 Pregnancies, Amazing!

17 girls make a pact to get pregnant.  Amazing.  But what is amazing to me is not that 17 girls made a pact to become pregnant, but that everyone is amazed that 17 girls would want to get pregnant.  Indeed, what a perverse society we have, where it would be no surprise to anyone if 17 girls made a pact to lose their virginity (we have even had teen movies about boys making such a pact), or 17 girls having indiscriminate sex as long as the men wear condoms, or 17 girls marching in solidarity to the abortion clinic.  But 17 girls wanted to become pregnant! 

There is nothing more natural than young girls wanting to become mothers.  There is nothing more unnatural than girls wanting to be indiscriminately promiscuous and not wanting to become pregnant.  I actually heard one normally sensible person say that we need to scare these girls out of wanting to become pregnant, and another chastising the boys, not for having sex with the girls, but for not using condoms.  These are the same people who scoff at the principles of the traditional family and abstinence education.  The problem is not that the girls want to become pregnant; it is that they think that it is okay to get pregnant through indiscriminant sex, including, allegedly, with a 24 year old homeless man.

Where did the girls get the idea that this was acceptable behavior?  I heard it mentioned that they need more sex education.  I believe they have quite a good understanding of the purpose and nature of sex.  I heard someone say the school should be held accountable for not handing out condoms, as if giving condoms to girls who want to get pregnant would magically stop them.  I even heard one commentator go out of his way to mention that this happened in a predominantly Catholic area, as if the Catholic Church condones this behavior.  I believe the Catholic Church teaches quite strenuously that young girls should wait until they are married to engage in sex and it is routinely scoffed at for teaching such nonsense, and thwarted in its efforts at every turn.  The Church does indeed defend life, but it does still teach that fornication is a grievous sin.  You'll have to look elsewhere to find doctrines of free-love being taught. 

No, lets think about a more simple explanation.  If you encourage and exult non-traditional families, you will get more non-traditional families.  When you call unions between men or unions between women, unions that can never bring forth children, marriage, when you reduce the mother's womb to a baby incubator, and the man's part in procreation to that of a turkey baster, when you exalt women's rights and diminish the role of fathers to that of sperm donors, why should anyone be surprised that young girls find it okay to come up with there own concept of family.  If Heather can have two mommies, why can't 17 teenagers have babies and raise them together, with no fathers involved? 

But, of course, this is not what we all had in mind when we taught our girls to be independent and sexually free.  Who would have thought that they would want to get pregnant?  The amazing thing is, that nature being what it is, that our nature-loving, free-love society could never understand that young girls just might aspire to be mothers, and not desire to thwart nature by the most artificial and unnatural means.  Amazing!

Tags: 17, pregnant, girls, teenagers, Gloucester, MA

On Marriage and California

Well, the courts have done it again!  Taken from the people the right to govern themselves and imposed their ideology on well established societal norms.  But this time, they have done worse.  The Supreme Court of California has redefined a word, and so changed the status of every married person in that state.  It used to be that if a man said, "I'm married,"  that meant he had a wife, a member of the opposite sex.  Now, it might mean he has a, well, I'm not sure what to call it?  Are they husband and husband?  Wife and wife?  Partner and partner?

The problem is that it is difficult to define marriage, even in lay terms, without mentioning husbands and wives, and it is difficult to conceive of the institution without them.  In my religion, marriage is a sacrament.  It is the consecrated union of man and woman as husband and wife, wherein the two are no longer considered separate, but "one flesh."  This union is validated in the gift of children, who are that one flesh, in the flesh, so to speak: one part husband, and one part wife.  This kind of union is not possible between a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, no matter how badly one might want it to be or how unfair one might think this reality.  You may grant whatever legal status you want to these relationships between men, or between women, but they are not marriages.

Yes, you may say, but these are only my religious beliefs, and society is free to have a broader conception of marriage.  I may even agree with this sentiment, but only if society makes that decision.  That is not what happened in California.  Society chose to define marriage as being between a man and a woman and to accommodate civil unions between men, or between women, with similar status, thus allowing gays to have all the privileges and legal rights of marriage, but preserving the definition of marriage as something distinctly separate.  The court says if you give these unions the same status and rights, you must call it a marriage.  That's like saying that if you grant Black Americans the same rights as White Americans, you have to call Black Americans White Americans. 

Can institutions be similar and gain similar treatment under the law without the courts demanding that they are the same thing?  Evidently, not in California. 

In its decision, the court argued that gays would be treated as second class citizens if they were not allowed to marry.  In fact, gays have the same rights to marry as anyone else; they may marry a member of the opposite sex.  Where I live in New Jersey, we have an ex-governor who is gay and managed to get married twice.  I know a guy who married a woman who was gay.  I really don't think there is a shortage of gays getting married.  But that's not what they want.  They want a special right to marry someone of the same sex, which is not really possible.  They want to change the laws of nature so that they may become one with a member of their own sex, the way men and women become one in marriage.  They would like this union to result in children, which is not possible.   Their true argument is not with the law, but with biology.  They may gain some temporary satisfaction in the California court's ruling, but it will not change the underlying facts of why the age-old definition of marriage included a husband and a wife.  That is a law that is not so easy for a court to overturn.

Tags: gay marriage, California, California Supreme Court

Hippocrates, the first Pro-lifer

Doctors pride themselves on being followers of Hippocrates, the father of medicine.  They recite an oath derived from the oath sworn by Hippocrates circa 400 B.C., well before there were any wild-eyed, bible-thumping, anti-science Christians to mock and jeer at for their overdone moralism.  But somehow, this pagan scientist, created the first pro-life statement.  Unfortunately, modern physicians around 1964, edited out the most pro-life parts.  Here is an translation of the original (source:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html):

The Oath

By Hippocrates

Written 400 B.C.E

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!

Here is the modern version (source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html)

Hippocratic Oath—Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, allthanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Hippocrates clearly stated he would not take a life nor induce an abortion.  Modern physicians are urged to humbly take lives, while not playing God.  One must wonder how they manage this.  Call the modern oath what you will, but without the most powerful admonitions to preserve life, it bears only passing resemblance to the oath of Hippocrates.  Science has progressed and murdered a morality established some 400 years before the birth of Christ.  It is science that has declared war on morality, not the other way around.  So the next time you see Christians praying for doctors to respect life, consider that they have more in common with the father of medicine than do modern doctors.

Tags: Hippocrates, Hippocratic oath, doctor, doctor's oath, pro-life

Clinton's opening

I read an article today on msnbc.com.  People are concerned that Barack Obama will be assassinated.  The seed has been planted.  The idea placed in the public imagination.  The Clintons are too close to come up short.  Just one life away.  Barrack Obama will not live to be the nominee.  It will look like a racist, Republican. 

Forgive me.  The only way I can understand the Clintons is to think like a gangster.  Or, perhaps, a Roman.  We kid ourselves if we think that those who hunger for power will not find a way to be satisfied.  A little blood.  A martyr for the cause.  And, Saint Hillary to the rescue. 

Who would believe she could be so audacious?  We have a democracy after all?  That is how they get away with it.  For the good of the country, they step in line.

Barack, please, hire some food tasters...

Tags: clinton, obama, assassinated, assassination, audacity, audacious

Implied racism of Clintonism

I hear commentators try to point out why what our former president and first lady are saying and doing is implied racism.  They use words like, "code," but they fail to get the point across.   When Bill Clinton uses a phrase like "fairy tale" to describe the Obama campaign, and Hilliary Clinton extols the virtues of LBJ at the expense of MLK, I recall a scene in the Eddie Murphy movie, "Trading Places."  In the movie, Eddy Murphy plays an African American ne'er-do-well and conman named Valentine.  Two wealthy bond traders, Randolph and Mortimer Duke make a bet that they can replace their star bond trader who is being groomed to take over the firm, Winthorpe (played by Dan Akroyd) with Valentine and by foul circumstance turn Winthorpe into a bum.  The experiment is successful and Valentine is an expert bond trader and Winthorpe a bum.  At this point, the following exchange takes place: 

Randolph Duke: Now, what are we going to do about taking Winthorpe back and returning Valentine to the ghetto?
Mortimer Duke: I don't *want* Winthorpe back, after what he's done.
Randolph Duke: You mean, keep *Valentine* on as managing director?
Mortimer Duke: Do you really believe I would have a *n-word* run our family business, Randolph?
[Valentine's eyes widen with outrage]
Randolph Duke: Of course, not. Neither would I.

To me, the Clinton tone is clear, and will unfortunately resonate with many of the old-time, blue collar Democrats.  African Americans may be up to the job, but do you really believe we would have an n-word lead our party?

 

 

Tags: racism, implied racism, clinton, obama, code, LBJ, MLK, primary, democrat, fantasy