Pop Quiz:

Do you believe that an American life is more valuable than the life of a foreigner, immigrant, or illegal alien?

Do you believe that an American job is more valuable than the job of a foreigner, immigrant, or illegal alien?

Do you believe that Americans have a greater right to make the most of their lives, and to pursue economic opportunities, than foreigners, immigrants, or illegal aliens?

If you are religious, do you believe than an American soul is more important than the soul of a foreigner, immigrant, or illegal alien?

While some might answer yes to any of these questions, I think most of us would say no. And yet, what does that say about our laws, regulations, and churches, who implicitly answer yes to all of them?

Continue reading »

 

Imagine there’s two candidates for president, one that you strongly support (A), and one that you can’t stand (B). There’s no ambiguity here, you think candidate A will lead the country towards prosperity, and candidate B will create huge problems.

Now, imagine that a substantial subset of the population have policy preferences that match candidate B. In other words, they disagree with you, and with your candidate of choice. However, imagine that for whatever reason, they become confused, and end up voting for candidate A – maybe because of poor media coverage, or butterfly ballots, or similar sounding names, or whatever. Because of this, your candidate wins.

Here’s the question: Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

On the one hand, your candidate, who you think moves the country in the right direction with his/her policy won. On the other hand, the victory and subsequent movement of policy is against the desires of the majority of the population…

 

Ah, welcome to an unfriendly Congress, Mr. President.  During the Clinton presidency, we were regaled with scandal after scandal.  Congress seemed to like to do nothing better than to accuse the President, or his advisers, of withholding information, of being evasive, etc.  And, as you might expect, Clinton made every effort to shield himself from Congressional scrutiny behind the Constitutional separation of powers.  Most of the time, he failed to shield himself, his people testified, and nothing happened; but such is the nature of these things.

And now, it’s President Bush’s turn.  The absurd thing in this particular instance, having to do with the firing of eight United States attorneys by the Justice Department, is that the entire thing could have been avoided.  United States attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, which basically means that the president can hire and fire them at his own whim.  When the assistance attorney general was first asked about the firing of these men, he could have been evasive, and just sent a memo to Congress later on.  After all, by law, the President is not required to give a reason about firing these guys.  He could have fired them for insubordination, for having bad breath, or because they were all born on days ending in “y”.  In fact, there is a history of firing US attorneys en masse, and while this is a counter-productive and lousy tradition, it is perfectly legal.

Continue reading »

 

When you invest, as any broker will tell you, you want to diversify your holdings. You want to own a variety of stocks in a variety of firms, selling a variety of products, and you also want to own bonds in a variety of different markets. You want to invest some of your money in real estate, some in precious metals, some in housing, some in foreign markets, some in short-term investments, some in long-term investments, etc. The more investments you have, the more likely that your portfolio will survive an economic downturn. But, of course, if you are only investing $10,000, you can’t spread that money very far. So you join in with other hundreds or thousands of other people in different funds which pool all that money together and invest in a variety of things for you all. And the more people involved in any particular fund, the more that fund will be able to diversify its holdings, and the less reliant you are on any one person withdrawing from that fund at an inconvenient time. In other words, the ideal fund would have millions of people putting money into it, and then that fund would invest in millions of different things all over the world.

Insurance is much the same way. Take health insurance, for instance. People, on average, are reasonably healthy. They get a test done for something or another every year or two, maybe break a bone every decade, and that’s about it. There are exceptions, of course. The extremely young and the very old are both more likely to use health care resources, and then there are a few people with extremely serious chronic conditions (Type I diabetes, Crohn’s Disease, kidney failure, to name a few) that require absurd amounts of health care. But because we’ll all get old eventually, most of us will have children eventually, and any one of us could be diagnosed with a chronic condition at any time, we all have incentives to not exclude high risk people from health insurance completely. And so, again, you want to pool your risk; you want to get as many people as possible paying into your health insurance pot, so that way when one person has a child, or develops Crohn’s Disease, or goes into a nursing care facility, then there is plenty of money in that pot to cover them. After all, we all pay into that pool as if we were an average person, and the average person is reasonably healthy.

All of that is pretty basic micro-economic theory. And yet we’ve set up fundamental systems which fly in the face of that theory.

Continue reading »

 

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. — George Santayana

The problem is, if you look far enough back in history you can find examples of just about everything. Is our invasion of Iraq akin to the Athenians in Megara – which provided a buffer zone between Athens and Sparta and increased the security of the democracy? Or is our invasion more akin to the Athenians in Sicily – which weakened the Athenians to the extent that the enemies of Athens were able to take over and destroy the democracy.

I suppose this is why I’m somewhat skeptical of the above quote — any policy can be supported or refuted using historical arguments. The question is, how do we know which are the correct analogs in history? Can we use what we’ve learned of the past to avoid repeating our mistakes, or is the past too much of a jumbled mess?

© 2012 leftfielder.org Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha