g m g D e s i g n . c o m

… Because terrorists are attacking Saudi princes. If there’s one thing that’s going to push the Saudi leadership toward reform of their crappy model of subsidizing the arrogant and anti-western Saudi citizenry, it’s the fact that the Saudi royal family has been in the crosshairs of Al Qaeda and other whacko groups for the past few years (practically speaking).

Maybe their misogynistic society will even allow women to walk outside without a male relative. That would certainly be pretty “progressive” by their standards.

It’s a wonder why feminists in this country (the US, that is) are so hung up on infanticide (“abortion”) but fail to internationalize their movement. As I recall, Thomas Barnett predicted the rise of the “feminist neo-con” who would fit neatly in this role of “international feminist.” Hence, the feminist movement could resume doing something useful and laudable (as opposed to what they’re doing now). I wonder why this movement hasn’t really materialized yet…?

Tom Barnett puts it in perspective for us.

Few things are more consistency and fallaciously hyped as linear projections in demographics.

Societies are–oddly enough–social creatures that adapt to signals from the larger environment, and those signals tend to be quite similar, the world over, when it comes to modernization and urbanization and industrialization and globalization–all residual belief aside that claims a lasting, distinct cultural value…

Apparently, conservative “fly over” states are more tolerant than their east coast counterparts, per Tom Barnett’s blog site. His reasoning:

[...] whatever the minority, there’s more of them on the coasts, so questions of diversity seem more threatening in terms of actual power sharing. In fly-over states, the numbers tend to be smaller, or at least perceived to be smaller, and because the local culture is more confidently established…

Fascinating editorial on Christian evangelicalism. The gist: evangelicalism will fade in America, after decades of robust acceptance by most of the population. The godless alternative, activist secularism, will displace evangelicalism and out-maneuver ill-prepared evangelicals who are used to preaching to the choir.

Why will this happen? The writer lists the following reasons:

1. Evangelicals have associated themselves with political conservatism
2. Evangelicals won’t survive the siren song of secular thought
3. Denominations will shrink
4. Christian education has ill-prepared younglings for secular counter-arguments
5. Secularism and its disciples will see evangelicals (and religion) as hostile to the “greater good”
6. Evangelical parents will find it difficult to instill faith in their children, even in areas of presumed evangelical strength, such as the South
7. Economics

However, a new vitality of evangelicalism will emerge under the ashes.

We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.

We’re already seeing the decline of evangelicalism and the rise of a radical strain of secularism, are we not?

This brings to mind the recent “normalization of evil” editorial on the WSJ, of which I blogged about already.

The father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl speaks out against the culture of apathy toward evil.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of “resistance,” has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words “war on terror” cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

[...]

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The war on terror is lost when we lose our capacity to understand evil when confronted with it, or our willingness to fight it.

I’ve noticed certain “themes” that are prevalent in left-wing editorials. These themes are typically interspersed in editorials, satires, and Hollywood movies. Sometimes the implications are subtle, sometimes not subtle at all. The latter scenario might be more shocking or emotion-provoking (Michael Moore’s flicks, or Noam Chomsky’s books), but the former is far more pernicious.

Those themes are:

1. Disdain of capitalism/corporatism; obsession with class struggle; implicit or explicit favoritism toward Marxism or other non-market model
2. Obsession with idea that all racial and gender socio-economic disparity is explained by institutional and aggregate cultural biases, with no interest in important discussion on alternate view points on that important issue (to the detriment of those most adversely affected)
3. Disdain of religious faith of any kind, esp Christianity
4. Willingness to excuse intolerant groups deemed “oppressed,” including terrorist groups (i.e., the US “deserved” the 9/11 attacks by “freedom fighters”)
5. Along with previous theme, a kind of anti-majoritarianism; opposing the majority (the masses) for the sake of opposing them

None of this is to demean the many moderate liberals who do not share the fanaticism of the far-left. Nor am I suggesting that there aren’t wrong-headed themes on the far-right as well. Current culture, however, and especially Hollywood, leans much more heavily to the left, and the agenda-filled propaganda should be examined with these themes in mind.

I’ll add that some left-wing themes have some validity when evaluated objectively. For eg, theme 2 is certainly worth studying objectively. But fanatics–of all sorts–fail to consider their view points rationally and within the broad context, instead favoring ideological explanations.

Big Labor’s Comeback

But this claim [that unionization is good for the middle class] is suspect, given the record in autos, steel and the rest of unionized American manufacturing. The only sector of the U.S. auto industry that is prospering is the part not organized by the United Auto Workers. Likewise, Europe, with its high jobless rates and slow growth, argues against unionization as a way to lift middle-class incomes. To the extent a country like Germany has modestly reversed some of this, it has been the result of recent labor-law reforms and labor concessions.

I’m not a big fan of unions, so naturally, I’m not a big fan of the fact that, in my observation, national Democrats pander to union bosses. Unions are invariably against free trade, free choice (i.e., against new workers not joining the union), and economic competitiveness.

I’ve spent a good deal of time trying to determine if unions have any positive aspects. My thought is that, in the undeveloped or developing countries, unions can be a good thing. I do not believe that’s the case anywhere in the developed world (“rich countries”). If I’m wrong, please point me to an example or make an argument in the Comments section.

Bin Laden ‘Che Guevara of al Qaida’

My first thought when I read this is, “Gosh, it’s only a matter of time before hippie liberals are wearing bin Laden T-shirts and ivory tower professors are supporting the 9/11 mastermind.” Unfortunately, I’m not resorting to hyperbole. How will the illiberal Left view bin Laden in 10 years, or 20 years from now? With the same sympathy and solidarity that it bestows upon Ernesto Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez?

Interesting perspective I hadn’t considered on “fair-trade coffee”:

In [promoting fair-trade coffee], [Starbucks, Wal-Mart, et al.] artificially lure [coffee farmers in developing nations] away from perusing better-paying jobs that would enrich the diversity of a developing country’s economy. A caffeinated price means more growers, more land destruction, more dependency on a single cash crop. It’s a subsidy that undercuts the very sustainability fair traders want to promote.

Further down:

The belief that any group with power – government officials, economic experts, or social activists – can establish a price that’s “fairer” or “more just” than the actual market price is a fallacy that bedeviled communism for decades and it’s bedeviling the fair-trade movement today.

Seems the “fair price” is what the market will bear, not artificial price floors.

Check it out.

I have misgivings about Obama (esp his socialist predilections). But if he’s elected, a very good side effect is that opportunistic blowhards like Jesse Jackson will have greater difficulty using the race card. Further, the absurd inability to discuss “race” (a non-scientific classification if I’ve ever seen one) in a non-pandering way might actually be lifted, for everyone’s gain (except Jesse Jackson’s, of course).

If Obama becomes president that would bring us that much closer to the possibility of a color-blind society, where merit wins the day over skin color or other superficialities, and where opportunistic extortionists like Jackson have a smaller and smaller audience of people who actually take him seriously.

MarginalRevolution (well-known economics blog) has interesting write-up on left-wing and right-wing whiners and what motivates their whining, and claims that they don’t apply their values consistently. (That’s probably not a very good summary, so just read the article.)

Here’s an excerpt:

Take the so-called “right wing.”  I believe that some people on the right do not like those they perceive as “whiners.”  They do not want these whiners to rise in relative status.  That means they must argue against the whining and also they must argue against the presuppositions behind the whining.

If the whiners say that times are bad, the rebuttal is that times are pretty good or times will become better again.  But if the whiners want to increase government benefits (perhaps there is a victim to whine about), we hear about the need to tighten our belts and all the talk about good times is, at least temporarily, muted.  Fiscal discipline is now in order.

Take the so-called “left wing.”  Some of these people favor a kind of meritocracy.  They feel it is unfair that money so determines access in capitalist society and they do not want the monied class to rise in relative status, certainly not above the status of the smart people and the virtuous people.  It is important to fight for the principle that the desires of this monied class have a relatively low priority in the social ranking.  Egalitarianism is the rhetoric of the day, and readjusting the status of other Americans to the status of this monied class often receives more attention than elevating the very poorest in the world to a higher absolute level.

So, different things lead one partisan group to whine, or to defend an initiative or the status quo.

Solution: become independent, and force yourself to read perspectives by your “political opposition” (if you tend to side with one group over the other). The “other side” then becomes more humanized and real, for starters. Also, arguing against perspectives you don’t agree with becomes more genuine and more convincing (as it’s obvious that you’ve genuinely studied and considered both/all view points).

So who can I blame for high gas prices? Oil execs? The government? The president?

It seems obvious that the answer is…

• Huge (and increasing) demand from big emerging market countries (China, India, etc)
• Huge (continuing) consumption here in the US
• Weak US dollar

Other reasons include the OPEC cartel, of course, though their power lies much more in raising prices (easy) than in reducing them (raising output assumes they are capable of doing so in the first place, which is increasingly difficult during this renewed interest in re-nationalization of oil fields). Refining capacity is not substantially high here in the States (thanks to the “not in my backyard” mentality).

Yeah yeah, I know. I’ve heard the stories of people spending all their disposable incomes filling up their SUVs (geesh! do they use jet fuel?!). But rather than whine, maybe they should seriously consider switching to a Toyota Corolla. I drive a Corolla and, indeed, it doesn’t have much horse power. But even though it’s not even a hybrid, the mileage is amazing and the reliability is superb. The free market and good judgment led to this outcome, not the government.

—

Related commentary by Thomas Friedman of the NY Times can be found here. Excerpt:

The failure of Mr. Bush to fully mobilize the most powerful innovation engine in the world — the U.S. economy — to produce a scalable alternative to oil has helped to fuel the rise of a collection of petro-authoritarian states — from Russia to Venezuela to Iran — that are reshaping global politics in their own image.

This is basically Friedman’s positive correlation idea with oil prices and “petro-authoritarianism.” He ends with this:

“Call it the triple deficit,” said Mr. Rothkopf. “A fiscal deficit that will soon have us choosing between rationed health care, sufficient education, adequate infrastructure and traditional levels of defense spending, a trade deficit that has us borrowing from our rivals to the point of real vulnerability, and a geopolitical deficit that is a legacy of Iraq, which may result in hesitancy to take strong stands where we must.”

The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging. When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels.

Per a recent FP blog post, California immigrants less likely to commit very serious crimes.

Very interesting. First, what are the “non-serious” crimes, and how do immigrants compare to them? I’d be very curious about those stats as well.

Regardless, the fact that immigrants were far less likely than native-born Americans to commit major crimes is telling.

Some people think that “the left” and “liberalism” are two ways of saying the same thing. Absurd. The Left have abandoned classical liberalism long ago. Two articles highlight that distinction.

First, let’s start with Naomi Klein’s article (author of “The Shock Doctrine”):

Today, the basic promises of the ownership society have been broken. First the dot-com bubble burst; then employees watched their stock-heavy pensions melt away with Enron and WorldCom. Now we have the subprime mortgage crisis, with more than 2 million homeowners facing foreclosure on their homes. Many are raiding their 401(k)s–their piece of the stock market–to pay their mortgage. Wall Street, meanwhile, has fallen out of love with Main Street. To avoid regulatory scrutiny, the new trend is away from publicly traded stocks and toward private equity. In November Nasdaq joined forces with several private banks, including Goldman Sachs, to form Portal Alliance, a private equity stock market open only to investors with assets upward of $100 million. In short order yesterday’s ownership society has morphed into today’s members-only society.

The mass eviction from the ownership society has profound political implications. According to a September Pew Research poll, 48 percent of Americans say they live in a society carved into haves and have-nots–nearly twice the number of 1988. Only 45 percent see themselves as part of the haves. In other words, we are seeing a return of the very class consciousness that the ownership society was supposed to erase. The free-market ideologues have lost an extremely potent psychological tool–and progressives have gained one. Now that John Edwards is out of the presidential race, the question is, will anyone dare to use it?

I admit that Klein is able to phrase her arguments in the sort of matter-of-fact way that many other “progressives” are not. Hence, her arguments are more convincing to people who are not set in their ways on the subject, since they don’t perceive a strong emotional bias in her writing.

Now, let’s move on to Stossel’s perspective:

And as the Chinese and other people get richer, they improve their diets and eat more meat, putting pressure on world food prices.

So media handwringers suggest we should worry about the poor becoming rich.

Actually, we shouldn’t. It would be a sad world if one person’s economic success depended on another’s failure.

Before continuing, note here that Stossel dismisses the zero-sum thinking that many (actually, most) people have.

When the price of, say, oil goes up, entrepreneurs and inventors have a strong incentive to: 1) find more, 2) find alternatives, and 3) find ways to use oil more efficiently. You and I cannot foresee what they will invent, but that means nothing. Predictions about the end of progress have been issued countless times. There is no reason to think they will be right this time.

Assuming government stays out of the way. Our current “leaders” are full of promises about “protecting” workers and industries, creating new “green” industries, and starting worker-retraining programs. For example, Hillary Clinton promises government support for “research (to) stimulate the development of new technologies and life-saving medicines.” Mitt Romney wants “to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative — an Energy Revolution, if you will. It will be our generation’s equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon.”

The media lap it up, apparently believing that no one will produce unless our wise leaders create an inducement. Nonsense.

Note that Stossel points out that higher prices (due to emerging market prosperity) will be a driver for continued innovation, including by those “three billion new capitalists” who are entering the market. Short of an imminent world conflict over resources, we now have a larger pool of potential innovators and entrepreneurs.

So who’s right? Or are both perspectives valid to varying capacities?

My view is that progressives don’t get economics and don’t understand the historic impact of market economics to solve real-world problems (hunger, being just one example). Progressives tend to lean on governments to do too much, like provide the means of survival (and even luxuries) as entitlements. That’s a dangerous policy, and that’s why classical liberals (not the same as “liberals” in today’s jargon here in the US) have it right on economics. Leave it to market forces as much as possible and make sure government doesn’t get in the way.

When government becomes involved, market forces often become diluted in the bureaucracy. And although governmental policies could step in and alter the trajectory of market forces to the benefit of populist causes (environment, income disparity b/w rich & poor, etc), that sort of intervention by the Visible Hand of government can be very dangerous in the long run. Breaking competitiveness and innovation in the market place is not a precedent that I’d like to see in this country.

“Just” vs “Unjust” Wealth Disparity 

So what about Klein’s central claim about haves and have-nots? Income and wealth disparity is a very big deal in all parts of the world, rich and poor. But allow me to pose the following argument: that there is a distinction between “just disparity” and “unjust disparity.” In other words, if I don’t feel like working very hard at my job, I will earn much less than my peers. On the other hand, if I work very hard and, importantly, take the financial risk to start my own company, I might become very wealthy, more so than the average person.

So, is it “fair” that I become wealthy through my own initiative, risk, and sacrifice? Yes, it is. That’s “just disparity” by my definition. “Unjust disparity” is primarily a problem in parts of the world that are less economically developed and/or derive a significant share of their wealth from natural resources. In the case of countries with natural resource wealth, the government plays a prominent role in doling out money from those resources, often showing great favoritism to certain groups (including the government itself and “inner party” workers). Hence, government is often not a source of equalization of income/wealth, it is a creator of (unjust) disparity.

So do we want a system where economic incentives encourage diligence, innovation and risk-taking? If so, our model represents the quintessence of this, and is, in fact, the envy of the world in free-market capitalism. If, instead, we want a system where the government controls what we earn, then we should model our system after the “grand experiments” of the 20th century that were tried in the former Soviet Union, eastern Europe, Cuba, and N Korea. You can be the judge as to what system works best from the economic, political, and moral stand point.

Fascinating perspective by Thomas Sowell regarding what he refers to as classic greed masquerading as liberal environemntalism. His thesis here is that, in the name of environmentalism, some people in California are restricting new housing in or around their neighborhoods. These “open space” policies are in the name of the environment–the god of many liberal elitists–but that in fact they gain economically. I.e., by restricting the supply of houses that can be built, and with relatively constant demand, they inflate their own housing and property values. Sowell also notes that this disproportionately and adversely affects minorities.

I haven’t delved into this subject, but on the surface, the economics makes sense here. Any perspectives out there on this?