This time you 'probably' can.
Talk about a snow job!
And the media elite continue with their covering up and/or biased reporting. (See 1a and 1b below.)
My rationale for why Romney/Ryan wins is based on several propositions:
a) Obama now has a record and a terrible one at that
b) Black Americans, Jews, Hispanics will still give him the majority of their votes but they will not turn out with the same enthusiasm because of his poor record, he is no longer the first black president and the turn off style of his campaigning. Move past the committed partisans and there is a large number who are fair minded and are turned off by Obama's Chicago style politicking.
Yesterday, Biden's blatant appeal, to his mostly black audience, may get them clapping but his attempt to 'get down' probably cost him a bunch of uncommitted votes. Biden proved once again what a buffoon he is and against Ryan he now looks even worse.
c) The economy ain't a winning ticket.
d) The deficit ain't a winning ticket.
e) Betting to and playing on the stupidity and baser instincts of Americans ain't a winning ticket either.
f) Finally, the bias of the media and press can only place the garbage in a protected wrapper but it cannot stop the smell. (See 1c below.)
---
Then we have a dose of hypocrisy as noted by Ben Stein. (See 2 below.)
'Lyin' about Ryan - it is turning into an art form. (See 2a below.)
---
I happen to be blessed for having met a lot of wonderful people in my life and one is a man who is now in his early 90's, and an authority on the history of The Supreme Court.
We spoke last night, after several back and forth telephone misses, about Chief Justice Robert's vote recently.
My friend, as I noted earlier, warned me that Roberts may vote as he did. I now find out Roberts did change his vote and Kennedy was committed to maintain his position because he was disgusted with the Solicitor General's argument. Could have been a 6 to 3 had Roberts stayed the course.
My friend is now watching to see how Roberts votes in the Oct 10, decision pertaining to a case involving a student suing Texas for bias (Fischer vs Texas I believe) as well as a case involving the 1965 Voting Act, If Kennedy votes to ignore the obvious unconstitutionality of Texas' position (my friend's interpretation)and concludes that Texas was not discriminating, then my friend believes Roberts will have signaled a shift from his previous consistent Conservatism to a far more Liberal stance. Stay tuned.
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Republicans Roll Over on Debate Moderators
A critical comment about Medicare by vice presidential pick Paul Ryan was curiously edited out of the “60 Minutes” interview which aired on Sunday night, HotAir.comreported.
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and Ryan were interviewed for the program by Bob Schieffer of CBS News, who referred to a newspaper headline in Florida saying Ryan hurts Romney in the state because of his Medicare plan.
“There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,” Romney told Schieffer. “What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it’s there for current seniors. No changes, by the way, for current seniors, or those nearing retirement. But looking for young people down the road and saying, ‘We’re going to give you a bigger choice.’ In America, the nature of this country has been giving people more freedom, more choices. That’s how we make Medicare work down the road.”
According to HotAir.com, the following remark by Ryan was cut and did not air but is crucial in explaining to viewers, especially Florida seniors, that his plan does not affect senior citizens and that his own mother is a Medicare senior.
“My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida,” Ryan said. “Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that they’ve organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms that have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late ’90s.”
HotAir.com called the broadcast cut “journalistic malpractice.”
“Ryan’s plan doesn’t affect those already eligible for Medicare,” Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com wrote. “In fact, one of the conservative criticisms of the plan was that he didn’t give current Medicare recipients the option to choose a private-insurance plan, as younger Americans will get once they become eligible. That’s a pretty newsworthy detail, no?”
1b)Why is Israel More Prosperous than the Palestinian:
The Ultimate Demonstration of Media Bias
By Barry Rubin - Aug 09, 2012
In almost 40 years of studying these issues I've never seen a better case
study of mass media bias and knee-jerk narrowness than an aspect of the
current flap about what presidential candidate Mitt Romney said during his
trip to Israel. I'm going to focus on a single point because it brings this
problem into sharp focus.
;
If you truly understand what you are about to read, I don't see how you can
accord most of the mass media any credibility when it comes to Israel ever
again. Briefly, Romney mentioned the gap between the Israeli and Palestinian
economies-ironically, he vastly understated the gap-and attributed it to
"culture" by which he meant, as Romney has said elsewhere, such things as
democracy, individual liberty, free enterprise, and the rule of law.
But I'm not talking about Romney here or the media's critique of him. What
is interesting is this: How do you explain the reason why Israel is so more
advanced in terms of economy, technology, and living standards? The media
generally rejected Romney's explanation and pretty much all made the same
point. To quote the Associated Press story, that was:
"Comparison of the two economies did not take into account the stifling
effect the Israeli occupation has had on the Palestinian economy in the West
Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem-areas Israel captured in 1967 where the
Palestinians hope to establish a state.
"In the West Bank, Palestinians have only limited self-rule. Israel controls
all border crossings in and out of the territory, and continues to restrict
Palestinian trade and movement. Israel annexed east Jerusalem in 1967, but
has invested much less heavily there than in Jewish west Jerusalem."
Or, in other words, it's all Israel's fault. Yet in choosing to blame
Israel, the media generally showed no interest at all in additional factors
which are equally or more valid.
I'm not suggesting that journalists and editors thought through the
following list of factors and deliberately decided not to mention them. I
think that these things never entered their minds. Yet how can that be? Some
of these points require knowledge of the situation on the ground and its
history. Still, many should be obvious to those who have read past newspaper
accounts or just use logic, not to mention research. \
Consider the points made below. You might count them for less but anyone
honest should admit that they add up to a compelling case:
1. The most devastating problem for the Palestinian economy has been the
leadership's refusal to make peace with Israel and to get a state. Most
notably, the opportunities thrown away in 1948, 1979, and 2000 doomed both
countries to years of suffering, casualties, and lower development. Today,
in 2012, both Palestinian leaderships-Fatah and Hamas-continue this
strategy. ;
2. Statistics show major advances in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during
the period of Israeli occupation. A lot of money also came in from
Palestinians working in Israel (or to a surprising extent on the Jewish
settlements).
3. The media should be expected to explain why Israel interfered at all
once, by around 1994, almost all West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were under
Palestinian rule. The reason, of course, was Palestinian violence against
Israel and Israelis. If there had not been such attacks, Israeli forces
would not have set foot in Palestinian-ruled areas. Stability would have
encouraged development and foreign investment. There would be no roadblocks.
Incidentally, roadblocks and restrictions on travel have changed constantly
and at times of relative quiet became almost non-existent. Of course, Israel
maintained control of the borders to prevent weapons from coming in.
4. There was a large transfer of funds (as provided in the Oslo agreement
but PA behavior did not make Israel violate the agreement) from Israel to
the PA regarding refunds on customs' duties and workers' fringe benefits.
5. The well-documented incompetence and corruption of the Palestinian
Authority. For example, there is no reliable body of law that a company
could depend on there. Bribes determine who gets contracts. Literally
billions of dollars have been stolen and mostly ended up in the European
accounts of Palestinian leaders.
6. And where did those billions of dollars come from? They came from
foreign donors who showered huge amounts of money on a relatively small
population. Yet, even aside from theft, the money was not used productively
or to benefit the people.
7. Because of the risks and attacks on Israel, the country stopped
admitting Palestinian workers except for a far smaller number. Tens of
thousands thus lost lucrative jobs and the PA could not replace these.
8. The unequal status of women in the Palestinian society throws away up
to one-half of the potential labor and talent that could otherwise have made
a big contribution to development.
9. And then there are the special factors relating to the Gaza Strip.
Under the rule of Hamas, a group committing many acts of terror and openly
calling for genocide against Israel, the emphasis was not put on economic
development but on war-fighting. The shooting of rockets at Israel created
an economic blockade. Note also, however, that Hamas also alienated the
Mubarak regime in Egypt which also had no incentive to help it, instituting
its own restrictions that were as intense as those of Israel.
10. The Palestinian leadership generally antagonized Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
and other oil-rich Arab states that were consequently not interested in
helping them develop.
11. Finally, compare the Palestinians to the Egyptians, Jordanians,
Syrians, or Lebanese. In those places the excuse of it's all Israel's fault
is hard to sustain yet the Palestinians have done as well or better than
those other Arabs who share a very similar political culture.
12. And incidentally remember that Israel also had to cope with war,
terrorism, and defense needs unequaled by the burden faced by any other
democratic state in the world. Moreover, it could not trade for most of its
history with any of its neighbors--and commerce is still limited--or any of
the countries in the Arabic-speaking world that surrounds it. In addition,
it has almost no natural resources. So while Israel received a lot of U.S.
aid most of that went into defense and not economic development. In other
words, Israel's has handicaps as impressive (or almost as marked) as the
Palestinian ones.
My goal here was not so much to present these twelve points but to ask the
question: Why is it that these factors were barely mentioned or not
mentioned at all in the media analyses of Romney's statement?
The answer, of course, is that most of the media is set on the blame-Israel
argument. Yet even given this truth, why do they have to do so virtually 100
percent of the time with nothing about the other side of the issue? This
applies to dozens of other questions such as why hasn't peace been achieved.
And in this as in many other cases, they virtually take the PA's talking
points as their themes and facts.
Often, one suspects there are a lot of people in the mass media and academia
who are totally uninterested in presenting anything other than an
anti-Israel narrative. This article doesn't mean to generalize about
everyone, of course, but you who are doing that know who you are, and you
readers know who they are!
-
Sol's wife was screaming at him: "Leave!! Get out of this house!" she ordered. As he was walking out the door she yelled, "I hope you die a slow and painful death!" So he turned around and replied "So now you want me to stay?"
---
|
Talk about a snow job!
I find this so sad. American Lindsey Vonn truly earned her Gold Medal for skiing downhill but had to forfeit it on Friday, JUNE 15, 2012.
.
The International Olympic Committee announced that it has taken back the gold medal previously awarded to American skier Lindsey Vonn and given it to U.S. President Barack Obama.
.
Olympic officials said Obama deserved the medal more than Vonn because no one has ever gone downhill faster than he has.
---
Review of Zingales' Second Part of "A Capitalism for the People."
I worked hard to finish the second part of " A Capitalism for the People" by Luigi Zingales, before I had knee replacement surgery.
---
Review of Zingales' Second Part of "A Capitalism for the People."
I worked hard to finish the second part of " A Capitalism for the People" by Luigi Zingales, before I had knee replacement surgery.
The first part, which I reported on previously, was devoted to identifying the problems leading America down the road of Crony Capitalism and away from American Capitalism.
The second part is devoted to solutions Zingales deems workable.
The author begins by presenting his original and basic thesis: Democracies constantly wrestle with the tension between right incentives and assuring the benefits produced, by the building of human capital, investing and hard work, are widely shared in order for people to maintain faith in the system's efficiency and fairness.
When we have pronounced income inequality it yields bad politics because support for meritocracy dwindles and this can, and usually does, result in redistribution of wealth. Primarily through taxation.
Zingales states that progress has victims and today, though we are experiencing more than normal progress, we are also experiencing a change in the nature of the economics of production because through technology we have entered a winner take all society where fixed costs of production are high and marginal costs very low. He cites the example of software. Difficult to produce initially but you can stamp out the rest very cheaply.
He attributes much of the gap between productivity and wages to the change taking place in the nature of markets. Consequently, Zingales concludes this gap does not accrue to capital (investors) but rather to high level executives. He then explains the Marxist economic view of the function of managers versus traditional economic thinking , ie traditional economists see managers as trainers, allocators and coordinators of the workforce. Marxists, tend to deny managers add any value at all and consider them as opportunistic rent seekers.
Bosses are valuable but compensation of top ones is not aligned with their productivity and unless monitored can earn a disproportionate share of the value created by the whole organization.
There are always winners and losers but current changing market forces are creating many losers and a few conspicuous winners. Not the best recipe to maintain social consensus.
He then names future winners and losers and highlights computer scientists as already having lost and because of rising foreign competition professions next are accountants, lawyers, doctors and teachers as the most prominent examples.
Zingales also argues that a head start is particularly beneficial in a 'winner take all society' and distortions produced by superstars tends to perpetuate itself.
Further downsides of a winner take all society and unevenness of the presence of a head start is that they diminish hope and thus increase anxieties. This risk is likely to spread to the middle class.
There is another economic cost of super stars - political. In a 'winner take all society' the winner is not necessarily the best and the resulting equilibrium can become dangerous. Large firms are politically powerful but not necessarily the most efficient. They have strong incentives to manipulate in order to maintain their power through political means, ie lobbying for one.
Consequently, a 'winner take all' economy tends to breed crony capitalism.
A natural political response is protectionism which is not the solution. The problem does not arise from free trade but from the nature of technology.
The second natural 'fix' is the effort to slow down, impede or stop technological change and Zingales cites the example of stage coach operators intervening having demanded all steam locomotives be preceded by a horseman waving a flag for "security reasons."
The author then cites Obama's stimulus as acceptable in alleviating, perhaps, a problem of a short term nature but when structural, as ours are, it makes matters worse, as it has.
Zingales also attacks cronyism that exists in his own profession - education. The problem, he argues, is not lack of money but inefficient teaching methods (Boy, do I agree here.) The real measure of a teacher's productivity is their ability to improve student performance. and here he argues for a system of teacher selection that is quality based. He points out that elimination of America's worst teachers would enhance GDP by almost 1%.
Why are we where we are vis a vis the sad plight of public eduation. Here again, Zingales has no trouble in naming the cause, - massive state involvement allowing lobbying and cronyism to capture unearned rewards for incumbents (read teach unions.) Zingales believes education should involve state funding but not state provided and that a voucher system would help. Vouchers offer access for low income students to better schools and thus, helps address the profound inequality in starting points that exists in and is caused by a 'winner take all' economy. The need for a safety net is, in Zingales' opinion, obvious because without one people will not try when the cost of failure is high.
Like I have argued, he also links unemployment with retraining.
In essence, whenever Zingales offers answers they generally are based on the introduction or the providing of a a stimulative solution calling for competition.
Zingales discusses the role of moral based ethics in the market place. One of the key ingredients is trust because trust facilitates transactions and saves monitoring and enforcement costs. In an economic sense, trust comes in two forms - personal and generalized. Zingales thinks of trust in the broader sense and calls it 'civic capital.'
Zingales acknowledges that most economists recoil at the introduction of ethics into their discipline. However, Zingales argues business schools should have a keen interest in the long term survival of "American" capitalism and therefore, they should lead the effort to establish and impose some minimal norms for business. He asks: " Is making money the only metric we should reward and admire in business leaders?"
Boy, when Zingales takes on lobbying he really explodes. Here again, he acknowledges lobbying plays an important role in explaining and/or providing valuable information because, in many cases, lobbyists are expert technicians.( I am reminded of the D.C. luncheon visit I had with Sen. Sam Nunn who spoke glowingly of the positive benefit he and his staff received from AIPAC and he encouraged me to join when I returned to Atlanta. I now am actively engaged in adding to the local ranks of AIPAC membership.)
But there is a downside to lobbying and lobbyists because they, all too frequently, capture the agency responsible for oversight. Furthermore, lobbyists have money at their disposal and there is no offset for the unfocused groups in society, ie. in D.C. 'truth becomes just another special interest and a poorly funded one.'Who is lobbying for the other side?
Harking back to social norms, Zingales points out they have an advantage over top down laws or regulations because their mechanism of enforcement is decentralized. American common law serves a somewhat similar purpose as social norms. Ignorant voters provide valuable openings and advantages for lobbying.
Zengales concludes empirical evidence suggests lobbying is excessive and corrupting and should be curbed. Yes, in a free competitive society countervailing forces always exist but Zengales is not willing to rely totally upon social norms which only go so far.
One approach to solve the problem of legislators and regulators being captured by special interests it to call for simplification of regulations.. Experts have a vested interest in complexities because it provides loop holes,and increases their value as expert. He points to the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that ran 2319 pages whereas The Glass-Steagall Act was 37 pages and served our nation well for 77 years.
The biggest negative is the smokescreen over-regulatory costs which are seldom figured into the equation. Simplification equates with citizen participant capitalism. Simplicity also facilitates accountability and makes enforcement easier to accomplish when a regulatory agency has not been captured. When it comes to enforcement, Zingales argues for zero tolerance. Trade offs lead to erosion of standards.
Zingales' discussion of taxation is interesting. He acknowledges the justification for individual exemptions but in the aggregate believes they are harmful. Writing as an economist he observes taxation is the equivalent of subsidizing leisure, ie the more you tax the less work people engage in and he really sparks one's attention when he suggests if you want tax simplification then make sure the rules apply to Congress as well. Rooting out accounting gimmicks is best achieved by ensuring government follows the same rules that apply to publicly traded companies . Not novel idea but I do not think the reader should hold their breath.
(If government added back unfunded off balance sheet liabilities our debt would balloon from $16 trillion to well over $70 trillion - a staggering amount that would probably have the effect of dispiriting the entire nation even further than Obama has to date.)
Finally, Zingales encourages whistle blowing as another method of cost effective regulation and urges giving citizens the right to sue and recover where subsidies are paid unfairly. He acknowledges these measures would not be totally effective in curbing lobbying because lawyers would find ways to skirt but they would place some restraints to the benefit of society.
After commenting on taxation the author then turned to identifying good versus bad taxation acknowledging the supposed oxymoronish humor in describing any taxation as good.
He repeats his theme: 'that any redistribution destroys incentives to work, to invest to excel and furthermore, reduces incentive even to come to America.' Beyond stating his economic reasons he also opposes it on moral grounds. He observes that wherever socialism and redistribution have ruled crony capitalism eventually follows.
A pro-market agenda is preferable to redistribution and therefore, taxes have three purposes:
a) raise money which the author believes is necessary in order for government to have the resources to carry out its minimal responsibilities.
b) modify incentives
c) redistribute income
He is willing to accept 'b' in the event the alternative is worse,taking the form of such as restrictions or prohibitions.
As for 'c' he has serious doubts and, in fact, suggests restricting the tasks of government will go a long way towards reducing the tax burden. As for taxing the rich he acknowledges that many are delighted to do so but only if the rich make more than they do.
Even taxation for purposes of raising revenue, which he accepts as a legitimate function of government in order to carry out its obligations, has a distorting effect on incentives. Therefore, Zingales favors Pigouvian type taxation named after Arthur Pigou. Pigou's thrust was to correct distorted incentives not to raise revenue thus, a double benefit in that it improved efficiency thus, saving the need for distortionary taxes to pay for government expenses. He cites the tax on tobacco as Pigouvian in nature.
Since government , which is us, does not create wealth, it simply redistributes it destroying some in the process.
As for subsidies, Zingales argues it should be considered in tandem with some other tax that raises the necessary revenue because income redistribution's goal is generally an intellectual justification which uses a social argument to make it appealing. Benefits of subsidies is concentrated whereas the cost is distributed widely thus lobbying in favor of subsidies is stronger than lobbying against them. The author proposes banning ANY FORM OF SUBSIDIES AND RESTRICTING GOVERNMENT POLICY TO PIGOUVIAN TAXES BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF REGULATORY CAPTURE.
Furthermore, Pigouvian taxes can be used to penalize excessive lobbying and as a substitution for regulation. This, in turn, reduces information needed to regulate, is comparatively transparent and the system is less likely to be captured by vested interests.
Zingales spent a lot of creative effort suggesting ways to reform finance.
He pointed out, we have layered regulation over the years and this has created flaws. Agencies step on each others toes, fail to coordinate etc. resulting in the financial mess we are trying to work through.
Zingales suggests centralization and the establishment of three agencies with a 'small ' oversight board.
Each agency would be singularly responsible for the ultimate goal of government intrusion in the finance sector, ie price stability, protection again fraud and abuse and finally system stability.
His specific recommendations are sensible and creative and considering the fact that what we have now does not seem to work, Congress would be well advised to investigate and debate his thoughts. Since Rep. Ryan endorsed Zengales' book and wrote a praiseworthy comment on the back side of the cover should Ryan be elected I would expect a push in this regard would be in order.
Zingales follows his discussion of improving our financial markets with a discussion of data and the failure of his own profession and politicians to provide the missing link. ie the design of the rules of the market itself.
The genius of the free enterprise system is competition - Adam Smith's "invisible hand." To achieve the freest , most competitive and honest markets it is incumbent upon the political process to generate rules that increase the size of the pie instead of benefiting powerful groups and degenerate into crony capitalism. A laissez -faire attitude falls short of this need.
That said, Zingales reverts back to his basic belief that government intrusion should be limited, simple and thus easy to understand , capable of monitoring and of easy opposition where warranted. "Democracy is as essential to free markets as free markets are to democracy."
The author believes data is a major challenger to power and therefore, data must be subjected to rigorous examination. The Internet has provided a boost for doing so because it makes date readily available .
Unfortunately the political market is distorted by asymmetries in power, by voter ignorance on economic matters and thus without the demand for competition politicians can escape its promotion. This is another circumstance, distorted political markets, favoring crony capitalism.
The author calls upon his own profession to develop a form of 'academic muckraking' as a partial solution to make politicians respond in the absence of other forces.
In the concluding chapter entitled: "Pro Market, Not Pro Business" the author summarizes his main thesis and connects them with his proffered solutions.
a) Intellectual freedom cannot exist without economic freedom and vice versa.
b) Both need values that legitimize them.
c) When "greed became good' Caplitalism lost its moral anchor.
d) Concentrated economic and political power leads to suppression of intellectual freedom.
e) As a consequence of the 2007 -2008 financial crisis, confusion over the debate between a pro-market system and a pro-business system has become confused and the debate blurred.
f) The genius of the capitalistic system is competition not private property or profit motive.
Where do we look for the 'good and necessary rules if we believe in the danger of regulatory, political and intellectual capture?
a) Democratic governance works best when it does not demand too much of the citizenry.
b) Accountability based on access to government and business data is critical to protect free markets. Much of it is deemed proprietary and thus hard to come by but the Internet has lowered barriers.
c) Whistle blowing should be encouraged and rewarded.
d) Level the playing field of lobbyists through class action suits.
e) Re-establish a market-based ethic through emphasis on civic norms. In this regard the author believes 'political correctness' has been useful. (I understand and agree up to a point but I believe, all to often, a positive force morphs into an extreme one . When it does it loses legitimacy. I believe PC'ism has reached the point where it destroys logic and common sense solutions in far too many instances.)
f) Academia has a responsibility to society to engage the political system and not, as it now is so much the case , become its captive.
Long review of the second section but hope my effort was worthy and encourages you to read this rather extraordinary book.The author is not a dreamer though his solutions call for the very best and that could prove a stretch for a society and political structure that has become more inward than healthy and more a captive of cronyism!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans roll over and play dead according to a steamed Arnold Ahlert. You decide. (See 1 below.)
After commenting on taxation the author then turned to identifying good versus bad taxation acknowledging the supposed oxymoronish humor in describing any taxation as good.
He repeats his theme: 'that any redistribution destroys incentives to work, to invest to excel and furthermore, reduces incentive even to come to America.' Beyond stating his economic reasons he also opposes it on moral grounds. He observes that wherever socialism and redistribution have ruled crony capitalism eventually follows.
A pro-market agenda is preferable to redistribution and therefore, taxes have three purposes:
a) raise money which the author believes is necessary in order for government to have the resources to carry out its minimal responsibilities.
b) modify incentives
c) redistribute income
He is willing to accept 'b' in the event the alternative is worse,taking the form of such as restrictions or prohibitions.
As for 'c' he has serious doubts and, in fact, suggests restricting the tasks of government will go a long way towards reducing the tax burden. As for taxing the rich he acknowledges that many are delighted to do so but only if the rich make more than they do.
Even taxation for purposes of raising revenue, which he accepts as a legitimate function of government in order to carry out its obligations, has a distorting effect on incentives. Therefore, Zingales favors Pigouvian type taxation named after Arthur Pigou. Pigou's thrust was to correct distorted incentives not to raise revenue thus, a double benefit in that it improved efficiency thus, saving the need for distortionary taxes to pay for government expenses. He cites the tax on tobacco as Pigouvian in nature.
Since government , which is us, does not create wealth, it simply redistributes it destroying some in the process.
As for subsidies, Zingales argues it should be considered in tandem with some other tax that raises the necessary revenue because income redistribution's goal is generally an intellectual justification which uses a social argument to make it appealing. Benefits of subsidies is concentrated whereas the cost is distributed widely thus lobbying in favor of subsidies is stronger than lobbying against them. The author proposes banning ANY FORM OF SUBSIDIES AND RESTRICTING GOVERNMENT POLICY TO PIGOUVIAN TAXES BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF REGULATORY CAPTURE.
Furthermore, Pigouvian taxes can be used to penalize excessive lobbying and as a substitution for regulation. This, in turn, reduces information needed to regulate, is comparatively transparent and the system is less likely to be captured by vested interests.
Zingales spent a lot of creative effort suggesting ways to reform finance.
He pointed out, we have layered regulation over the years and this has created flaws. Agencies step on each others toes, fail to coordinate etc. resulting in the financial mess we are trying to work through.
Zingales suggests centralization and the establishment of three agencies with a 'small ' oversight board.
Each agency would be singularly responsible for the ultimate goal of government intrusion in the finance sector, ie price stability, protection again fraud and abuse and finally system stability.
His specific recommendations are sensible and creative and considering the fact that what we have now does not seem to work, Congress would be well advised to investigate and debate his thoughts. Since Rep. Ryan endorsed Zengales' book and wrote a praiseworthy comment on the back side of the cover should Ryan be elected I would expect a push in this regard would be in order.
Zingales follows his discussion of improving our financial markets with a discussion of data and the failure of his own profession and politicians to provide the missing link. ie the design of the rules of the market itself.
The genius of the free enterprise system is competition - Adam Smith's "invisible hand." To achieve the freest , most competitive and honest markets it is incumbent upon the political process to generate rules that increase the size of the pie instead of benefiting powerful groups and degenerate into crony capitalism. A laissez -faire attitude falls short of this need.
That said, Zingales reverts back to his basic belief that government intrusion should be limited, simple and thus easy to understand , capable of monitoring and of easy opposition where warranted. "Democracy is as essential to free markets as free markets are to democracy."
The author believes data is a major challenger to power and therefore, data must be subjected to rigorous examination. The Internet has provided a boost for doing so because it makes date readily available .
Unfortunately the political market is distorted by asymmetries in power, by voter ignorance on economic matters and thus without the demand for competition politicians can escape its promotion. This is another circumstance, distorted political markets, favoring crony capitalism.
The author calls upon his own profession to develop a form of 'academic muckraking' as a partial solution to make politicians respond in the absence of other forces.
In the concluding chapter entitled: "Pro Market, Not Pro Business" the author summarizes his main thesis and connects them with his proffered solutions.
a) Intellectual freedom cannot exist without economic freedom and vice versa.
b) Both need values that legitimize them.
c) When "greed became good' Caplitalism lost its moral anchor.
d) Concentrated economic and political power leads to suppression of intellectual freedom.
e) As a consequence of the 2007 -2008 financial crisis, confusion over the debate between a pro-market system and a pro-business system has become confused and the debate blurred.
f) The genius of the capitalistic system is competition not private property or profit motive.
Where do we look for the 'good and necessary rules if we believe in the danger of regulatory, political and intellectual capture?
a) Democratic governance works best when it does not demand too much of the citizenry.
b) Accountability based on access to government and business data is critical to protect free markets. Much of it is deemed proprietary and thus hard to come by but the Internet has lowered barriers.
c) Whistle blowing should be encouraged and rewarded.
d) Level the playing field of lobbyists through class action suits.
e) Re-establish a market-based ethic through emphasis on civic norms. In this regard the author believes 'political correctness' has been useful. (I understand and agree up to a point but I believe, all to often, a positive force morphs into an extreme one . When it does it loses legitimacy. I believe PC'ism has reached the point where it destroys logic and common sense solutions in far too many instances.)
f) Academia has a responsibility to society to engage the political system and not, as it now is so much the case , become its captive.
Long review of the second section but hope my effort was worthy and encourages you to read this rather extraordinary book.The author is not a dreamer though his solutions call for the very best and that could prove a stretch for a society and political structure that has become more inward than healthy and more a captive of cronyism!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans roll over and play dead according to a steamed Arnold Ahlert. You decide. (See 1 below.)
And the media elite continue with their covering up and/or biased reporting. (See 1a and 1b below.)
My rationale for why Romney/Ryan wins is based on several propositions:
a) Obama now has a record and a terrible one at that
b) Black Americans, Jews, Hispanics will still give him the majority of their votes but they will not turn out with the same enthusiasm because of his poor record, he is no longer the first black president and the turn off style of his campaigning. Move past the committed partisans and there is a large number who are fair minded and are turned off by Obama's Chicago style politicking.
Yesterday, Biden's blatant appeal, to his mostly black audience, may get them clapping but his attempt to 'get down' probably cost him a bunch of uncommitted votes. Biden proved once again what a buffoon he is and against Ryan he now looks even worse.
c) The economy ain't a winning ticket.
d) The deficit ain't a winning ticket.
e) Betting to and playing on the stupidity and baser instincts of Americans ain't a winning ticket either.
f) Finally, the bias of the media and press can only place the garbage in a protected wrapper but it cannot stop the smell. (See 1c below.)
---
Then we have a dose of hypocrisy as noted by Ben Stein. (See 2 below.)
'Lyin' about Ryan - it is turning into an art form. (See 2a below.)
---
I happen to be blessed for having met a lot of wonderful people in my life and one is a man who is now in his early 90's, and an authority on the history of The Supreme Court.
We spoke last night, after several back and forth telephone misses, about Chief Justice Robert's vote recently.
My friend, as I noted earlier, warned me that Roberts may vote as he did. I now find out Roberts did change his vote and Kennedy was committed to maintain his position because he was disgusted with the Solicitor General's argument. Could have been a 6 to 3 had Roberts stayed the course.
My friend is now watching to see how Roberts votes in the Oct 10, decision pertaining to a case involving a student suing Texas for bias (Fischer vs Texas I believe) as well as a case involving the 1965 Voting Act, If Kennedy votes to ignore the obvious unconstitutionality of Texas' position (my friend's interpretation)and concludes that Texas was not discriminating, then my friend believes Roberts will have signaled a shift from his previous consistent Conservatism to a far more Liberal stance. Stay tuned.
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Republicans Roll Over on Debate Moderators
By Arnold Ahlert
 | |
Either Mitt Romney and the Republican party doesn't get it about the media, or they're just plain stupid. Yesterday, the moderators for the presidential debates were announced. PBS's Jim Lehrer gets the first presidential debate on October 3rd in Denver, CO. Next up is CNN's Candy Crowley in Hempstead, NY on October 22nd. Last and not least, CBS's Bob Schieffer moderates the final debate on October 22nd in Boca Raton, FL. ABC's Martha Raddatz moderates the one VP debate on October 11th in Danville, KY.
Leftists masquerading as even-handed, one and all. Virtually guaranteed to frame both the issues and the questions in the best possible light for Democrats in general, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden in particular. And of course the glaringly obvious question: why no Fox News?
It can't be ratings related. Fox smokes both PBS and CNN. Furthermore, one would think ABC's recent track record of media malfeasance, as in speculating that James Holmes, the alleged mass murderer in Aurora, CO, was a Tea Party member would put them on the radar of a Republican ticket that just picked a man with Tea Party convictions as its Vice Presidential candidate. What is the likelihood of Paul Ryan getting a fair shake from ABC's Martha Raddatz?
The bet here is less than zero.
So what gives? Our crybaby president can run around saying Fox News isn't a "real network" even as he rests assured that he won't have to face any moderator that might, just might, ask him a question that makes him uncomfortable? Or is it even worse than that, as in the administration making it clear—on the QT, of course—that their standard-bearer wouldn't appear in a debate moderated by someone who might force Obama to deviate from his script?
The fix is already in, with the media breathlessly excited about CNN's Candy Crowley being the first female moderator of a presidential debate in 20 years. This is the same women who claimed on the air last Saturday that Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan "looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish."
The only death wish going on here is Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan walking into a loaded game without so much as a peep of defiance. Perhaps they may have second thoughts when they hear the reports that CBS's "60 Minutes" apparently edited their interview, leaving out the part when Ryan talked about his mother being on Medicaid and how his plan "preserves" benefits for her and other seniors.
But even if they have to remain above the fray, where is the rest of the Republican Party? Why are they settling for four lefties controlling the agenda in one of the most important elections in modern times? Don't they remember the combination of vapidity and hostility demonstrated during the Republican presidential debates? Newt Gingrich was able to swat some of those questions down, much to the delight of the crowd. Do I have to tell Republicans that Mitt Romney is no Newt Gingrich, or that the stakes this time are far higher?
It's not too late to change this dynamic. Either demand that a moderator from Fox News, or the Wall Street Journal be included in the mix, or tell the powers that be at ratings "giants" PBS or CNN that they can have their debate with Barack Obama—while Mitt Romney appears on Fox at the exact same time. Wanna bet on who gets the bigger audience?
Once again for terminally clueless Republicans: this presidential election, like every presidential election, is a two-against-one battle. It's your party on one side, Democrats and the mainstream media on the other. It's one thing not to get a fair shake and have to deal with It. it's quite another to embrace it with open arms.
A lot of Americans were convinced that picking Paul Ryan to run for VP was a "bold" choice. It's time to go bold against the MSM. Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden have gotten a pass for almost four years. It's long past time that both of them be forced to answer something other than the endless array of softball questions the media typically asks them—when they both asking questions at all. And not just the one or two these moderators will ask just to prove they're not biased.
The hell they're not. Grow a spine, Republicans.
1a)Point by Ryan
By Patrick Hobin
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and Ryan were interviewed for the program by Bob Schieffer of CBS News, who referred to a newspaper headline in Florida saying Ryan hurts Romney in the state because of his Medicare plan.
“There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,” Romney told Schieffer. “What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it’s there for current seniors. No changes, by the way, for current seniors, or those nearing retirement. But looking for young people down the road and saying, ‘We’re going to give you a bigger choice.’ In America, the nature of this country has been giving people more freedom, more choices. That’s how we make Medicare work down the road.”
According to HotAir.com, the following remark by Ryan was cut and did not air but is crucial in explaining to viewers, especially Florida seniors, that his plan does not affect senior citizens and that his own mother is a Medicare senior.
“My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida,” Ryan said. “Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that they’ve organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms that have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late ’90s.”
HotAir.com called the broadcast cut “journalistic malpractice.”
“Ryan’s plan doesn’t affect those already eligible for Medicare,” Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com wrote. “In fact, one of the conservative criticisms of the plan was that he didn’t give current Medicare recipients the option to choose a private-insurance plan, as younger Americans will get once they become eligible. That’s a pretty newsworthy detail, no?”
1b)Why is Israel More Prosperous than the Palestinian:
The Ultimate Demonstration of Media Bias
By Barry Rubin - Aug 09, 2012
In almost 40 years of studying these issues I've never seen a better case
study of mass media bias and knee-jerk narrowness than an aspect of the
current flap about what presidential candidate Mitt Romney said during his
trip to Israel. I'm going to focus on a single point because it brings this
problem into sharp focus.
;
If you truly understand what you are about to read, I don't see how you can
accord most of the mass media any credibility when it comes to Israel ever
again. Briefly, Romney mentioned the gap between the Israeli and Palestinian
economies-ironically, he vastly understated the gap-and attributed it to
"culture" by which he meant, as Romney has said elsewhere, such things as
democracy, individual liberty, free enterprise, and the rule of law.
But I'm not talking about Romney here or the media's critique of him. What
is interesting is this: How do you explain the reason why Israel is so more
advanced in terms of economy, technology, and living standards? The media
generally rejected Romney's explanation and pretty much all made the same
point. To quote the Associated Press story, that was:
"Comparison of the two economies did not take into account the stifling
effect the Israeli occupation has had on the Palestinian economy in the West
Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem-areas Israel captured in 1967 where the
Palestinians hope to establish a state.
"In the West Bank, Palestinians have only limited self-rule. Israel controls
all border crossings in and out of the territory, and continues to restrict
Palestinian trade and movement. Israel annexed east Jerusalem in 1967, but
has invested much less heavily there than in Jewish west Jerusalem."
Or, in other words, it's all Israel's fault. Yet in choosing to blame
Israel, the media generally showed no interest at all in additional factors
which are equally or more valid.
I'm not suggesting that journalists and editors thought through the
following list of factors and deliberately decided not to mention them. I
think that these things never entered their minds. Yet how can that be? Some
of these points require knowledge of the situation on the ground and its
history. Still, many should be obvious to those who have read past newspaper
accounts or just use logic, not to mention research. \
Consider the points made below. You might count them for less but anyone
honest should admit that they add up to a compelling case:
1. The most devastating problem for the Palestinian economy has been the
leadership's refusal to make peace with Israel and to get a state. Most
notably, the opportunities thrown away in 1948, 1979, and 2000 doomed both
countries to years of suffering, casualties, and lower development. Today,
in 2012, both Palestinian leaderships-Fatah and Hamas-continue this
strategy. ;
2. Statistics show major advances in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during
the period of Israeli occupation. A lot of money also came in from
Palestinians working in Israel (or to a surprising extent on the Jewish
settlements).
3. The media should be expected to explain why Israel interfered at all
once, by around 1994, almost all West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were under
Palestinian rule. The reason, of course, was Palestinian violence against
Israel and Israelis. If there had not been such attacks, Israeli forces
would not have set foot in Palestinian-ruled areas. Stability would have
encouraged development and foreign investment. There would be no roadblocks.
Incidentally, roadblocks and restrictions on travel have changed constantly
and at times of relative quiet became almost non-existent. Of course, Israel
maintained control of the borders to prevent weapons from coming in.
4. There was a large transfer of funds (as provided in the Oslo agreement
but PA behavior did not make Israel violate the agreement) from Israel to
the PA regarding refunds on customs' duties and workers' fringe benefits.
5. The well-documented incompetence and corruption of the Palestinian
Authority. For example, there is no reliable body of law that a company
could depend on there. Bribes determine who gets contracts. Literally
billions of dollars have been stolen and mostly ended up in the European
accounts of Palestinian leaders.
6. And where did those billions of dollars come from? They came from
foreign donors who showered huge amounts of money on a relatively small
population. Yet, even aside from theft, the money was not used productively
or to benefit the people.
7. Because of the risks and attacks on Israel, the country stopped
admitting Palestinian workers except for a far smaller number. Tens of
thousands thus lost lucrative jobs and the PA could not replace these.
8. The unequal status of women in the Palestinian society throws away up
to one-half of the potential labor and talent that could otherwise have made
a big contribution to development.
9. And then there are the special factors relating to the Gaza Strip.
Under the rule of Hamas, a group committing many acts of terror and openly
calling for genocide against Israel, the emphasis was not put on economic
development but on war-fighting. The shooting of rockets at Israel created
an economic blockade. Note also, however, that Hamas also alienated the
Mubarak regime in Egypt which also had no incentive to help it, instituting
its own restrictions that were as intense as those of Israel.
10. The Palestinian leadership generally antagonized Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
and other oil-rich Arab states that were consequently not interested in
helping them develop.
11. Finally, compare the Palestinians to the Egyptians, Jordanians,
Syrians, or Lebanese. In those places the excuse of it's all Israel's fault
is hard to sustain yet the Palestinians have done as well or better than
those other Arabs who share a very similar political culture.
12. And incidentally remember that Israel also had to cope with war,
terrorism, and defense needs unequaled by the burden faced by any other
democratic state in the world. Moreover, it could not trade for most of its
history with any of its neighbors--and commerce is still limited--or any of
the countries in the Arabic-speaking world that surrounds it. In addition,
it has almost no natural resources. So while Israel received a lot of U.S.
aid most of that went into defense and not economic development. In other
words, Israel's has handicaps as impressive (or almost as marked) as the
Palestinian ones.
My goal here was not so much to present these twelve points but to ask the
question: Why is it that these factors were barely mentioned or not
mentioned at all in the media analyses of Romney's statement?
The answer, of course, is that most of the media is set on the blame-Israel
argument. Yet even given this truth, why do they have to do so virtually 100
percent of the time with nothing about the other side of the issue? This
applies to dozens of other questions such as why hasn't peace been achieved.
And in this as in many other cases, they virtually take the PA's talking
points as their themes and facts.
Often, one suspects there are a lot of people in the mass media and academia
who are totally uninterested in presenting anything other than an
anti-Israel narrative. This article doesn't mean to generalize about
everyone, of course, but you who are doing that know who you are, and you
readers know who they are!
1c) A Romney first: over 40% of youth vote back him
For the first time since he began running for president, Republican Mitt Romney has the support of over 40 percent of America's youth vote, a troubling sign for President Obama who built his 2008 victory with the overwhelming support of younger, idealistic voters.
Pollster John Zogby of JZ Analytics told Secrets Tuesday that Romney received 41 percent in his weekend poll of 1,117 likely voters, for the first time crossing the 40 percent mark. What's more, he said that Romney is the only Republican of those who competed in the primaries to score so high among 18-29 year olds.
"This is the first time I am seeing Romney's numbers this high among 18-29 year olds," said Zogby. "This could be trouble for Obama who needs every young voter he can get."
Zogby helped Secrets dig deeper into his weekend poll, which we reported on earlier. The poll had Romney and Obama tied at 46 percent.
Zogby has been especially interested in the youth vote this election. In 2008, 66 percent chose Obama over Sen. John McCain,the highest percentage for a Democrat in three decades. But their desire for hope and change has turned to disillusionment and unemployment. Zogby calls them "CENGAs" for "college-educated, not going anywhere."
In his latest poll, Obama receives just 49 percent of the youth vote when pitted against Romney, who received 41 percent. In another question, the independent candidacy of Gary Johnson is included, and here Obama wins 50 percent, Romney 38 percent and Johnson 5 percent.
But while taking Johnson out of the equation in the past has seen a surge in support for Obama, now the numbers for Romney--and undecideds--increase.
Zogby speculates that Romney's selection of 42-year-old Rep. Paul Ryan helped turn more younger voters to him. "It could be his youthfulness," said Zogby of Ryan. Plus, he said, more younger voters are becoming libertarian, distrustful of current elected officials and worried that they are going to get stuck with the nation's looming fiscal bill.
"They want change," said Zogby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2) Paradoxical Quote of The Day From Ben Stein:
"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."
Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are
citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to
buy insurance because they are citizens."
2a )Lyin about Ryan
2a )Lyin about Ryan
By Rich Lowry
Democrats believe fervently in the folly of Paul Ryan’s ideas, yet somehow can’t speak about them truthfully.
They are confident they can destroy Ryan—not because they think they can win the debate over his proposals on the merits, but because they are certain they can distort those proposals with impunity.
Mitt Romney’s inspiring (and inspired) choice of the Wisconsin budget maven as his running mate had commentators on both sides welcoming a clear choice for the country. Romney had done us a favor, they said, in ensuring such a stark clash of visions. The League of Women Voters would approve.
This Hallmark sentiment is nice, though naïve. The battle of ideas will be as unsightly and dishonest as the battle over Bain Capital. If Democrats will lie about Mitt Romney killing a woman, it’s only a matter of scale to lie about him unloosing a near-genocidal assault on America’s seniors.
Immediately upon Ryan’s selection, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina released a statement that recalled author Mary McCarthy’s put-down of left-wing playwright Lillian Hellman: “Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’”
Messina scored Ryan for his “budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy” (except that there aren’t tax cuts, budget-busting or otherwise), for bringing to an “end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system” (except there’s no voucher, and Medicare benefits would stay exactly the same), and for “shifting thousands of dollars in health-care costs to seniors” (except the Ryan plan doesn’t apply to today’s seniors, nor will it shift costs onto the seniors of the future).
The Democrats never want to admit three things about Ryan’s Medicare plan. First, that it doesn’t affect anyone over age 55 and won’t kick in for another 10 years. Conceding this makes the job of frightening elderly voters trickier, so it is best ignored.
Second, that the current version of the Ryan plan gives future beneficiaries the option to keep traditional Medicare. They will choose among a menu of insurance plans, including a fee-for-service federal option, all of which will be required to offer at least the same level of benefits as Medicare now. The federal government will pay everyone’s premiums up to a level matching the second-lowest-priced plan in a given area. There’s no reason a beneficiary will have to pay more (although he can choose a pricier plan and pay the difference).
Third, that Ryan and President Barack Obama cap overall Medicare spending at the same level. The president is adamant that the growth of Medicare is unsustainable – and rightly so. Everyone acknowledges the program is the foremost driver of our long-term debt. Both Ryan and the president use the same formula of roughly GDP growth plus inflation for setting Medicare’s global budget. The difference is that the president wants a bureaucratic board to get the savings through arbitrary limits on prices that ultimately will limit access to care, while Ryan wants to get the savings through competition and choice.
The Democrats’ demagoguery should be further crimped by the fact that they voted $700 billion in cuts in Medicare to fund Obamacare, not in the far-off future but right now. Ryan preserved the cuts in his budget but set them aside for the Medicare trust fund. Mitt Romney wants to repeal Obamacare in its entirety, including the Medicare cuts.
What the Ryan plan offers, most fundamentally, is a vision of a reformed entitlement state that won’t require massive new tax increases or debt to fund. For all the talk of the “radicalism” of his budget, it keeps taxes at a slightly higher level of GDP than they have averaged over the past several decades. Ten years from now, federal spending still would be at a higher level of GDP than it was at the end of the Clinton years.
This vision – now at the center of the campaign – deserves a serious, honest debate, and will assuredly not get it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
No comments:
Post a Comment