Current Events Write-Up: Feud, Tim Keller, Benedict Option, Deficit Hawks, Introverts, Billy Graham Rule

Time for a Current Events Write-Up!  I missed last week because I was writing book reviews.

Romper: Is Pauline from "Feud" Based on a Real Person? The Ambitious Assistant Is a Fan Favorite, by Caralynn Lippo. 

I have been watching "Feud," which is about the conflict between actresses Bette Davis and Joan Crawford during and after the making of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?  Last Sunday's episode was especially good.  In that episode, Pauline, who was director Robert Aldrich's assistant, was trying to get people to read her script, and she expressed a desire to be a director herself.  But women being directors at that time was extremely uncommon.  Pauline was discouraged, but then she talked with Mamacita, Joan Crawford's personal assistant.  Mamacita talked about how women are increasing in population, and there will be a greater demand for women directors who can help make films and shows that appeal to women.  "Your time is coming," Mamacita solemnly tells Pauline.  That made me wonder if Pauline ever became a successful scriptwriter and director.  And that led me to this article.

Wikipedia: B.D. Hyman.

Another character in the "Feud" series was B.D. Hyman, who was Bette Davis' daughter.  She had a brief role in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?  I was curious to learn more about her, and I found that she became a born-again Christian, who wrote a book about the rapture. 

DalyFocus: Tim Keller's Reward Is In Heaven. It's Princeton that Loses the Prize, by Jim Daly.

Pastor Tim Keller was about to receive Princeton Theological Seminary's Kuyper award, then Princeton decided not to give him the award on account of his controversial stances.  I loved the last line of this post: "Princeton can keep its award, but in how he’s handled the 'slight,' Tim Keller is rewarding us by showing the Christian how best to respond in a post-Christian world."  That is something that I like about Tim Keller: he doesn't take himself too seriously.  As Daly says, "...the people who know and love Tim Keller are likely more bothered by this 'snub' than he is." 

Bob on Books: Review of The Benedict Option.

This is a good summary, review, and critique of Rod Dreher's The Benedict Option.

The Baffler: The Wrongest Profession: How economists have botched the promise of widely distributed prosperity—and why they have no intention of stopping now, by Dean Baker.

This is a critique of deficit hawkishness. 

Thought Catalog: 10 Things Being an Introvert Is Not an Excuse For, by Heidi Priebe.

Things for me to keep in mind!

Relevant Magazine: Twitter Tangles with the Billy Graham Rule.

When I saw this article, I thought, "Why can't Mike Pence set the boundaries that he wants, without having to put up with a bunch of leftist snark?"  But critics do well to highlight a possible problem: if men avoid women (i.e., not having a meal with them alone, not being in the same room with them alone) because they fear falling into an affair, will that close women off from job advancement opportunities?  I can still see a rationale for the Billy Graham Rule. When I was at Harvard Divinity School, we had a session on how pastors should not date parishioners, and we were encouraged to set boundaries.  But I can understand some of the concerns about the Billy Graham Rule.  Is there a reasonable middle ground?

Articles: How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul; Reading Little House as an Adult

I don't feel like doing an extensive Current Events Write-Up today, so I will just link to two articles that I found interesting.

The Atlantic: How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul:In the 1970s, a new wave of post-Watergate liberals stopped fighting monopoly power. The result is an increasingly dangerous political system. Written by Matt Stoller. 

 

This is a lengthy article, so I read it over the course of a month.  According to the article, a prominent plank among 1930's New Deal Democrats was a commitment to anti-trust policies: smaller business is better than big business.  In the 1960's, however, economist and Kennedy advisor John Kenneth Galbraith expressed hope that monopolies could promote social justice.  During the 1970's, when Democrats were elected to Congress in the aftermath of Watergate, many of these Democrats rejected the populist anti-trust beliefs of the 1930's Democrats.  Bill Clinton would amplify this 1970's non-populist stance as President.  

Book Riot: Reading "Little House on the Prairie" as an Adult, by Kelly Jensen.

 

I've been watching the Little House TV series lately.  I was wondering if I would enjoy the books.  From this post, the impression that I get is that the books are not like the TV series!  I'd still like to read them for myself, sometime. 

Current Events Write-Up: Rex Tillerson, "Fake News," the Bill of Rights, Alan Thicke, and More

I’ve got some current events and opinions links for this week!

The Trump Cabinet

President-elect Donald Trump selected Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State.

Pat Buchanan is happy with the decision, from the standpoint of supporting a more non-interventionist foreign policy: “Most businessmen are interested in doing deals, making money, and, if the terms are not met, walking away, not starting a war.  And here is the heart of the objection to Tillerson. He wants to end sanctions and partner with Putin’s Russia, as does Trump. But among many in the mainstream media, think tanks, websites, and on the Hill, this is craven appeasement. For such as these, the Cold War is never over.”

Robert Reich is concerned: “Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is the first nominee for that office whose résumé and wealth hinge on his partnerships with tyrants around the world.”

And prominent social conservative Tony Perkins lambastes Rex Tillerson, noting Tillerson’s socially liberal positions.

Moving on to the President-elect’s choice for Interior Secretary, Wes Siler of Outside has an article entitled “Trump’s Interior Pick Is the Last Hope for Our Public Lands: Former Navy SEAL Ryan Zinke Opposes the Republican Land Heist. He May Be the Best Environmental Hope We Have in This Administration.”  As you can tell, the article, overall, lauds Zinke, and what Siler says deserves just as much consideration as the anti-Trump narratives. Yet, near the end, the article briefly mentions aspects of Zinke’s stances that may be of concern to many environmentalists.

More on Trump

Bill Gates recently spoke with the President-elect, and Gates has expressed optimism: “But in the same way President Kennedy talked about the space mission and got the country behind that, I think whether it’s education or stopping epidemics … [or] in this energy space, there can be a very upbeat message that [Trump’s] administration [is] going to organize things, get rid of regulatory barriers, and have American leadership through innovation.”

Eleanor Clift was on the McLaughlin Group with Pat Buchanan for decades.  In a Daily Beast article, she talks about Buchanan’s reactions to the Trump campaign and the Trump transition.  I’m not endorsing everything Buchanan says, but I am interested in his analysis.

At the Literary Hub, Jordan Rothacker has an interview with John Reed, who wrote a parody sequel to George Orwell’s Animal Farm.  One of the lines I liked: “Do you realize that quite a few Marxists are in the upper echelons of global corporations? It’s because they understand the system.”  But here’s where Reed talks about Trump: “As much as I loathe Trump, he doesn’t like the new paradigm either. At least internationally. He’d prefer isolationism, which is not something he’ll be able to advance in slightest. This idea that we can export our power structure, and by so doing expand our economic dominance, is central to corporate strategy. I do suppose on the domestic front, Trump fits in rather precisely.”

Townhall had some articles on Trump’s trade policies.  Stephen Chapman is obviously not a fan, for his article is entitled “Trump’s Self-Defeating Trade Policy.” Chapman lucidly explains his position.  This part was especially helpful in explaining potential drawbacks to protectionism: “U.S. automakers use a multitude of imported components. Most of the cars built on our soil, in fact, contain more than 25 percent foreign parts. A lot of other products assembled here include materials or pieces made elsewhere.  As a result, any duties slapped on imports would inflate costs for American manufacturers, making it harder for them to sell both at home and abroad. It would even hurt other U.S. firms that buy and use imported goods in their operations. In an era of global supply chains, punishing foreigners amounts to punishing American companies and their workers.”

Seton Motley, on the other hand, had an article entitled “Actual Free Trade and Trump Trade Are Absolutely, Perfectly Compatible.”  At first, the article complains about GOP strategies in government.  But it had some interesting insights about trade: “Actual free trade deals – should be, like, eight pages. ‘This agreement eliminates the following tariffs, taxes and subsidies:….’ The Trans-Pacific Partnership – has reached (at least) 5,544 pages. That’s not a free trade deal – that’s a cronyism-packed, government-riddled nightmare mess.  And these ‘free trade’ deals – routinely ignore the anti-free trade practices of the nations with which we are trading. To wit: China. Trump has long and rightly pointed out how damaging to us is China’s currency manipulation. And China imposes all sorts of tariffs on all sorts of U.S. imports, which we continually, blithely ignore – in the name of one-way, America-damaging ‘free trade.'”

On ABC This Week

On ABC This Week last Sunday, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill had thoughts about how Democrats can “win back those rural, small-town voters…they have lost” (from George Stephanopoulos’ question).  She said:

“Well, I think it’s important that we show up. I think it’s important that we communicate directly with all those working people.  You know, I was really shocked this week that, after all of this talk about coal miners and all of this talk about Buy America, the Republicans and the House of Representatives gutted health care and pension protections for coal miners and removed the Buy America provision that had been put in the bill in a bipartisan basis.  So I think we have got to call out the Republicans, where their walk doesn’t match their talk, and I think we also have to make sure that we communicate clearly that we are the party that cares deeply in our core about working people in this country.”

Fidel Castro

The controversial Richard Falk had things to say about Fidel Castro and the Western media’s response to his death:

“I have been bemused by the captious tone and condescending assessments of mainstream media in the West reacting to Fidel Castro’s death on November 25, 2016. Typical was coverage in The Economist, which while acknowledging Castro’s epic historical role, and even grudgingly admitting that he achieved world class health care and universal education in his impoverished country, reached the ‘politically correct’ conclusion that these achievements were ‘outweighed by his drab legacy. Much of the human capital was wasted by his one-party system, police state, and stagnant centrally planned economy.’…In contrast to generally condescending appraisals in the West, I call attention to two extraordinary essays of appreciation written by cherished friends. One by Sri Lanka’s lead diplomat and cultural critic, Dayan Jayatilleka, published as an opinion piece in the Colombo Telegraph beneath a suitable headline, ‘A Farewell to Fidel: The Last of Epic Heroes,’ Nov. 26, 2016. Dayan not only celebrates Castro’s heroic revolutionary achievement in transforming Cuba from its gangster state identity in the Batista period to a vital outpost of Third World progressive ideals. He also underscores the admirable ethics of liberation violence that guided Castro’s revolutionary practice in ways that exhibited disciplined respect for the innocence of civilian life. For greater detail see Jayatilleka fine appreciative study, Fidel’s Ethics of Violence: The Moral Dimension of the Political Thought of Fidel Castro (London: Pluto Press, 2007). This conception of the ethics of political violence has been essentially absent from the manner in which the struggle between terrorist groups and sovereign states has been waged in various combat zones, especially since the 9/11 attacks. Jayatilleka’s assessments have been confirmed and extended in the recently published book by Nick Hewlett entitled Blood and Progress: Violence in the Pursuit of Emancipation (Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh Press, 2016).”

That part about “ethics of liberation violence” that respected innocent “civilian life” stood out to me.  How would one reconcile that with human rights abuses in Cuba?  Perhaps one can say that the victims were neither innocent nor civilian, in the eyes of the Castro regime, but were counter-revolutionary.  In any case, Castro’s articulation of an ethics of liberation violence does not surprise me, since Castro did think about issues, including religion.  But there are people who would probably disagree with the idea that Castro respected innocent civilian life.  Falk’s post is also interesting because it talks about different reactions to Castro’s death.

“Fake News”

Facebook is devising a new “fake news” policy, which would label and possibly marginalize “fake news” sites, on the basis of what “fact-checking” sites say (or so I understand the proposed policy).
William LaJeunesse of Fox News has an illuminating article entitled: “Facebook’s War on ‘Fake News’ Has Skeptics Asking: Who Decides?”  The article explains the concern some conservatives, and even some non-conservatives, have about Facebook’s policy, along with Mark Zuckerberg’s attempts to clarify it.

Historical Interest

It was Bill of Rights Day this last week.  Ed Feulner of Townhall had an article entitled “We Almost Didn’t Have the Bill of Rights.”


Feulner says that some people opposed the Bill of Rights because they thought people already had those rights, without the government needing to recognize them explicitly.  For the government to codify those rights would be to imply that the rights came from government, as opposed to being natural, or given by God.  If Feulner is correct, I wonder how that would correspond with the view that, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights restricted the federal government but not the state governments.  If a right is natural or given by God, would that not imply that a state should not be able to suppress it?  On a related note, see Steve Hays’ post, The Bill of Rights.

Death

Growing Pains actor Alan Thicke passed on this last week.  Thicke played the dad, Jason Seaver.    This article talked about the kind of dad he played.  I remember two episodes in particular.  On one, Mike, Jason’s oldest son (played by Kirk Cameron), saw the ghost of his uncle, jogging into the kitchen, just like the uncle did before dying.  Mike told Jason, and Jason calmly and wisely suggested that Mike find out what the ghost wants.  Jason was a psychologist, and yet he did not dismiss what Mike saw.  He listened, took Mike seriously, and was understanding.  On another episode, Mike gets a bad grade from his psychology professor, so Jason does Mike’s homework.  But that gets a bad grade, too!  So Jason has a debate with Mike’s psychology professor!

Tom Friedman: Left to Bernie, Right to the Wall Street Journal

I was watching ABC This Week this afternoon.  It’s part of my Sunday ritual.  I come back from church, and I watch the episode of ABC This Week that was taping while I was away.

Tom Friedman was being interviewed near the end of the episode.  I often heard Tom Friedman’s name when I was a student in New York City, at the beginning of the Iraq War.  Students and teachers around me liked to hold him up as some paragon of infallibility.  “THOMAS FRIEDMAN said…”  And, the way I am, when there’s a fad, I tend to go in the opposite direction!

I actually liked something that Thomas Friedman said this morning, though, as he transcended the usual left-right divide.  He said:

“Well, basically, my own politics, George, is I’m actually to the left I think of Bernie Sanders on some issues. I think in this world of accelerations, we’re going to need better and stronger safety nets. I mean for single-payer health care. But at the same time, I’d be right of The Wall Street Journal editorial page. I think we should abolish all corporate taxes and replace them with a carbon tax, a tax on bullets, a tax on sugar and a tax on small financial transaction tax.

“Our challenge, and the challenge of politics going forward, is to get I think stronger safety nets, because this world is going to be too fast for a lot of people, George, and to pay for them, we need to get radically entrepreneurial.

“One side always emphasized the radical entrepreneurship, one just the safety nets and the two have got to co-evolve together.”

See here for a transcript of the episode.

That reminds me of a point that Bruce Bartlett made in his 2009 book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward.  Bartlett is an economist who served in the Reagan Administration, yet he has come to despise much of the American right.  In this book, Bartlett notes that there are countries in Europe that have a strong safety net, and yet their corporate taxes and taxes on capital are less than what the U.S. has.  Instead, they have a VAT and higher taxes on gasoline and alcohol.  See my write-up here.

Whether Friedman’s plan would work, I do not know.  Speaking for myself, I voted for Measure 97 in Oregon, which would have increased the corporate tax, had it passed (which it did not).  I would prefer for people who have money to pay more, rather than for those who struggle financially to be hit with higher sales taxes.  (Yet, critics of 97 warned that the higher corporate tax would be passed on to consumers, while proponents of 97 offered the reassurance that competition would prevent that from happening.)  On the other hand, I do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.  Plus, I don’t think it is a good idea for one economic class to do all of the rowing—-not that it does, entirely, but I just get leery when progressive politicians talk about creating all of these programs to help people and saying that they will pay for the programs by taxing the rich heavily.

In any case, I appreciate Friedman’s open-mindedness.

Book Write-Up: Socialism, by Michael Harrington

Michael Harrington.  Socialism.  New York: Saturday Review Press, 1972.  See here to buy the book.

Michael Harrington was an American democratic socialist.  Some have argued that his book about American poverty, The Other America, helped inspire the Great Society in the 1960s.  I read The Other America in 1996.  I was a conservative at the time, and I read Marvin Orlasky’s The Tragedy of American Compassion, which some have claimed was an inspiration for President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives policy.  I read The Other America to get a left-leaning perspective on poverty.

I recently learned about Harrington’s book Socialism from a commenter on my blogger blog.  In 2013, I blogged through W.A. Swanberg’s award-winning biography of six-time Socialist Presidential candidate Norman Thomas.  Some of these posts have gotten a lot of views lately, and the reason may be that Bernie Sanders’ Presidential candidacy has made people curious about socialism.  I was struggling in reading Swanberg’s book to understand what exactly socialism was.  For example, is it totally against private property?  Many of the European countries labeled “socialist” have private industries.  Plus, even American socialist platforms have seemed to presume that, under the society that they advocated, people would own things.  The commenter mentioned Michael Harrington’s book on socialism.  Harrington dedicated his book to Norman Thomas.

A key point that comes out in Michael Harrington’s book on socialism is this: left-wing ideology is far from monolithic, and Michael Harrington is not entirely happy with how it has been implemented.  In prominent cases, Harrington notes, it has led to the oppression and exploitation of people by the government.  This is the case with many Communist regimes, and Harrington argues that these regimes actually violate the teachings of Karl Marx, who, Harrington argues, had more of a peaceful, democratic view of revolution and society than many might think.  In a number of cases, Harrington argues, socialism, social democracy, or left-wing policies have left in place the class system.  The result has been that society, including the leftist ideas as implemented, continue to benefit the wealthy, the powerful, and the well-connected rather than (or more than) the people who need help.  This has been the case with the nationalization of industries and the welfare state.

Harrington tries to diagnose what has gone wrong and offers suggestions on what may work.  According to Harrington, a reason that Communism has not worked well is that many countries in embracing it have skipped a key stage of Marx’s historical scenario: capitalism.  Although Marx believed that capitalism would self-collapse, he thought that it would generate abundance, and then the abundance would be equitably distributed under Communism.  For the proletariat to control the means of production and use them for society’s benefit, in short, there need to be means of production.  But a number of countries that embraced Communism did not really have a capitalist stage of economic development: they had many peasants, but not a lot of producers.  Some, such as the Soviet Union, tried to make up for that, and they did not exactly do so nicely or efficiently.  Harrington supports socialism in prosperous countries such as the U.S. and Europe.  Moreover, he wants to include the Third World in the world economy in a non-exploitative manner.  For example, he is critical of imposing high tariffs on products from the Third World.

Harrington believes that socialism can work.  He points to the Tennessee Valley Authority as an example of socialism at its best: it makes money that it uses for its capital, and it provides low-cost electricity to people.  Harrington states at one point that the TVA is a better socialistic model than the post office!  Harrington also is not so naive as to believe that the U.S. can transition to socialism cold-turkey, but he maintains that feasible steps can be taken in that direction.  Steps can be taken so that businesses answer more to people and communities than their shareholders.  The tax system can be structured so that money is redistributed more equitably.  Harrington responds to the Wall Street Journal‘s argument that such proposals stifle innovation, invention, and job creation by contending that a number of investors profit parasitically rather than contributing to the well-being of people and society.

Harrington mentions Dostoevsky’s statement that socialism is too idealistic and disregards human nature.  Harrington states that Westerners perhaps are as they are because they have been conditioned by capitalism for years.  Harrington notes what he considers to be steps in the right direction, such as young people living in communes and rejecting materialism.  Harrington is critical of the totalitarian Communist regimes that tried to re-educate people from their capitalist assumptions, but he still seems to think that re-education may need to occur.  Perhaps he thinks that it can occur peacefully.

This book was published in 1972, and it is interesting to see what was on people’s radar then, and to compare that with what is on people’s radar now.  Income inequality and the struggles of the middle class were issues then, as they are now.  Harrington also mentions global warming, which he says may result in floods in 2070.  Knowing the outcome of what Harrington mentions was also interesting.  Harrington states that we will have to see how Salvador Allende’s Chile turns out.  This was written before Pinochet took over in a coup.

This is a worthwhile book to read.  I appreciated Harrington’s honest critique of how socialism and left-wing policies have been implemented.  I am not a libertarian myself, but the libertarian argument that government intervention has its drawbacks does resonate with me, and some of what Harrington was saying spoke to the part of me that feels that way.  I do believe that socialism is rather idealistic, that people need a reward to create and produce.  At the same time, I also think that successful models can be implemented that benefit people and society.

Paul Krugman: Trump Is Right About Economics

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/paul-krugman-trump-is-right-on-economics.html

NCPA: Occupational Licensing and Health Spending

The NCPA is conservative, but I like some of what it says about health care: reasons that costs are so high, and ways to bring the costs down.

healthblog.ncpa.org/occupational-licensing-and-health-spending/

The Social Principles, Austrian Economics, and Inflation

The United Methodist Church that I have been attending for the past couple of months has been going through the UMC’s Social Principles in its Sunday School class.  Last week, one of the people in the class was talking about economics.  We were in the section of the Social Principles about “The Economic Community,” and economics is a subject of interest for one of the regular attendants of the Sunday School class.  He has read a lot about the subject, and, essentially, he adheres to the Austrian school of economics.  He describes himself as a libertarian, which means that there are two libertarians in the class.

I understood some of what he was saying, but not everything.  He is against the government borrowing a lot of money and creating money out of thin air, since that leads to inflation.  He is for personal savings and thinks that even private citizens should be reluctant to go into debt.  He laments that Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable by gold, and he believes that John F. Kennedy’s assassination may have related to JFK challenging the Federal Reserve (see here).  He is critical of lowering interest rates, saying that interest rates are a critical indicator of whether one should save or go into debt.  He also said that booms can lead to busts and that 2% economic growth a year is sustainable.

The progressives in the group were not challenging what he was saying, and I think that was because they identified with some of it.  He was criticizing the Iraq War and how that led to lots of debt because the government preferred to go into debt to pay for it rather than to collect a war tax.  That would definitely resonate with progressives, who think that the Iraq War was a bad idea.  He was saying that there are people with vested interests in the current economic system.  That resonated with a progressive in the group who opposes Citizens’ United, even though the two of them may disagree on Citizens’ United.  And he was criticizing going into debt and not having enough savings, and I am sure that a number of progressives can respect that as common-sense wisdom—-when one can save and avoid debt, that is.

Often, critics of Austrian economics have maintained that inflation right now is not much of a problem.  Bruce Bartlett said more than once during the Obama Presidency that all this money is out there but that people are not spending much of it, and so the abundant money supply is not contributing to inflation; rather, deflation is the problem.  Yesterday, I was watching a video by Robert Reich that was saying that the Federal Reserve should not raise interest rates (my friend Laurie discusses the video on her political blog).  Reich was saying that low interest rates stimulate the economy and allow people to spend more money on necessities rather than debt, and he also said that, overall, inflation is currently not a problem.  He said that high prices are a problem in certain big companies where competition is lacking, but not overall.  Reich was making this point because the conventional economic wisdom has long been that there is an inverse relationship between inflation and interest rates.

Indeed, according to this chart, inflation is low.  At the same time, I have difficulty saying that inflation is not a problem.  I know that, during the four years that I was living in upstate New York, my Mom and her husband complained often about the high prices of groceries, and how the prices continued to rise.  That was difficult for us, especially in a time when every single dollar mattered.  Now that we live in Washington and shop at a grocery store that has low prices, that is not as much of a problem for us, and there is a little more flexibility in our finances.  But high prices were a problem for us, for a long time.

Book Write-Up: Keynes Hayek, by Nicholas Wapshott

Nicholas Wapshott.  Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics.  New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 2011.  See here to buy the book.

John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek were economists who profoundly impacted the twentieth century, and whose influence is still present today.  In Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics, Nicholas Wapshott discusses their economic views, their personalities, their relationship with each other, and their influence.

Keynes was a British economist who believed that the government should attempt to create full employment through public works programs.  He also supported low-interest loans for businesses and tax cuts to stimulate demand.  For Keynes, if people had more money in their pockets, then they would spend more, and that would stimulate the economy.  While Keynes thought that the government should resort to deficit spending in slow times to improve the economy, he believed that the government in prosperous times should step back and focus more on paying off its debt.  For Keynes, the government spending a lot in prosperous times could contribute to unnecessary inflation.  Keynes’ thought influenced the Presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon.  Even Presidents who shied away from Keynesian principles in their rhetoric—-such as Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush—-still had policies that could be described as Keynesian, at least partially.

Hayek was  an Austrian economist, and he was skeptical of Keynesian principles.  For one, Hayek thought that giving low-interest loans to people and businesses that did not save enough could prove disastrous, for what would happen when the loans stopped coming?  Would the businesses go belly-up?  Second, Hayek feared that Keynesian policies were inflationary in their support for deficit spending and artificially stimulating demand.  According to Nicholas Wapshott, Hayek was averse to inflation, having experienced its negative effects in Austria.  And third, Hayek did not support Keynes’ belief that the government should seek to influence or tinker with the economy.  For Hayek, the government should stay out of the economy in times of slowdown or catastrophe and allow it to arrive at a state of more equilibrium.  Hayek also believed that the economy was too complex of an animal for the government to successfully shape, meaning that government influence could have unforeseen, and potentially negative, consequences; for Hayek, prices were the best indicator of what consumers wanted and what the market was willing to produce, and they were the ground at which consumers and producers found agreement.  Moreover, in his influential, and controversial, book, The Road to Serfdom, Hayek argued that government attempts to command the economy could lead to totalitarianism, for, if the government could control people’s economic livelihood, what else could it control?  Hayek appealed to Nazi Germany as an example of the kind of danger that he was warning about.  Hayek was marginal for some time because people were enamored with Keynes, plus Hayek’s economic works could be pretty abstruse.  The Road to Serfdom gained Hayek more fame and renown, but it also alienated him from academia due to its controversial nature.  Yet, Hayek would have a profound influence on Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and later the Tea Party movement in America.

To associate Hayek with the political right would be too simplistic, however, for a variety of reasons.  Hayek was supportive of the government having social programs for society’s vulnerable, and he also embraced some form of national health insurance.  At the same time, Hayek was very libertarian in areas and did not think that Reagan and Thatcher went far enough (even though Thatcher practically worshiped the ground that Hayek walked on!).  Hayek was rather critical of conservatism on account of its nationalistic impulses.  Although Hayek and Milton Friedman overlapped in supporting less government, there were differences between the Austrian school of which Hayek was a part and Friedman’s Chicago school.  Hayek focused on microeconomics, whereas Friedman believed that society could influence the economy by regulating its money supply; for Friedman, the Federal Reserve could stimulate the economy by increasing the money supply, but it should not do so too much lest it cause hyper-inflation.  And Ayn Rand considered Hayek’s work to be rubbish (for some reason)!

In addition to describing their economic thought, Wapshott paints a picture of Keynes and Hayek as people.  Keynes for a long time had homosexual relationships, yet he fell in love with a Russian ballerina.  Keynes was a compassionate man: he hated war, he thought that the Treaty of Versailles harshly punished Germany, and he wanted everybody to have a job.  Keynes could also be intimidating and make people feel inadequate, and yet, as Wapshott states, Keynes was open to changing his mind and admitting when he thought he made a mistake.  Hayek was the sort of person I wanted to root for, for he had somewhat of a rags to riches story, in terms of his journey from relative obscurity to growing influence.  That gives a lot of us hope, doesn’t it?

There were parts of the book that I found particularly interesting.  For one, Wapshott said that Dwight Eisenhower put into effect Keynesian principles, but he did so by appealing to national security: let’s build a national highway system, because that will allow us to transport military supplies during the Cold War!  Second, Wapshott referred to Hayek’s response to a critic.  A critic was pointing to Sweden as an example of a country that had strong government influence in the economy and yet was prosperous and far from authoritarian.  Hayek responded that Sweden was prosperous because it was untouched by World War II, and he argued that there was less freedom in Sweden than many may think!  Overall, the critiques of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom were intriguing to me, for the claim that large government influence in the economy could lead to authoritarianism, or even totalitarianism, is widespread in conservatism and libertarianism (or such is my impression).  Some critics of Hayek argued that this would not be the case in countries that had strong democratic traditions; some contended that the private sector, too, could be rather authoritarian.

In terms of which economic perspective I agree with more—-Keynes or Hayek—-I will say that I can understand Keynes’ logic more than that of Hayek after reading Wapshott’s book.  There are still gaps in my understanding of Hayek’s thought.  I can understand Keynes’ rationale that giving people more money to spend will stimulate demand, and that it is better to give people public sector jobs to do useful work than for them to be on the dole.  At the same time, Keynesian policies can be risky, in my opinion: the government is going into debt, with the hope that the debt will somehow improve the economy and pay for itself down the road.  That is not a sure thing.   Keynesian policies can also be inflationary if they stimulate demand without also trying to increase supply.  The existence of stagflation in the 1970’s—-high unemployment and high inflation—-makes me wonder if perhaps Hayek was correct in saying that there are so many considerations when it comes to the economy, and so we cannot package everything into a neat Keynesian package of cause and effect.  And yet, I liked Wapshott’s quotation of someone who said that we are all Keynesians in foxholes: that, in times of economic catastrophe, few politicians want to let nature take its course, but they would prefer for the government to do something to stimulate the economy.

I was surprised to learn that I had already read another of Wapshott’s books: Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage.  The book had long been in my mind as an excellent book, on account of its stories and discussion, but the name of the author was not in my mind.  I was glad to read another of Wapshott’s books.

Book Write-Up: Bulls, Bears and Golden Calves

John E. Stapleford.  Bulls, Bears and Golden Calves: Applying Christian Ethics in Economics.  Third Edition.  Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015.  See here to buy the book.

John E. Stapleford is an economist and a professor emeritus at Eastern University (which is where progressive evangelical Tony Campolo attended and taught).  In this third edition of Bulls, Bears and Golden Calves, Stapleford addresses economic issues from his Christian perspective, as he attempts to determine how biblical principles may apply to them.  Such issues include compensation of CEOs, income inequality, domestic and international poverty, welfare programs, and free trade.

Firmly categorizing Stapleford as a liberal or a conservative is difficult, for Stapleford explores different positions and nuances.  Some may read this book and think that Stapleford contradicts himself in areas, particularly on government intervention in the economy.  If there is a common thread in this book, it is probably that good Christian character will produce positive economic results, both at home and abroad.  Regarding the situation at home, Stapleford argues that divorce, single parenthood, and broken families have contributed to poverty and income inequality.  On this, I wish that Stapleford had interacted with studies that argue the contrary—-that economic struggles lead to family breakdown rather than vice versa (Robert Reich has argued this), or that divorce has not had disastrous economic consequences (Susan Faludi has made this argument).  Stapleford was often judicious in examining different viewpoints, so I was disappointed that he was not as rigorous in this when it came to family economic issues.

On the situation abroad, Stapleford promotes conversion to Christianity as a way to help ameliorate the problem of poverty in the Third World, for that could foster a mindset conducive to economic growth.  Stapleford does well to discuss possible factors that have inhibited the success of foreign aid programs and charities, and he recommends books about this that may be helpful.  At the same time, Stapleford should have addressed more the plausibility of trying to persuade people to change their culture.  Stapleford did offer some anecdotes about this, but not a reference to large-scale studies (as far as I could tell).

Overall, a person without much familiarity with economics can understand this book.  I get lost when it comes to the vocabulary of high finance (and even low finance), but I follow the news fairly regularly, and I could comprehend the vast majority of this book.  At the same time, there were occasions in which I was hoping for a little more detail or clarity.  For example, Stapleford makes the point that countries that trade want more exports than imports, and this would explain why some countries have tried to lessen imports (i.e., through currency devaluation).  I get why countries want more exports—-they want people abroad to buy their products—-but why would they devalue their own currency to discourage their residents from buying imports, and even domestically-produced products, for that matter?  If they are exporting a lot, why should they worry about imports?

This book is the third edition.  While there were times when Stapleford mentioned the 2008 financial crisis, there was one time when he could have brought it up but did not.  Stapleford speaks favorably about the Community Reinvestment Act, which a number of conservatives have blamed for the 2008 financial crisis.  Stapleford should have interacted with their view, at least to refute it.

Stapleford said some things that I already knew, though the studies that he cites may be helpful if I am interested in documentation.  He also had a firmer position on some issues than others.  For example, he argues against the lottery and critiques the view that the lottery provides more funds for schools.  Those interested in a documented and well-argued articulation of such a position will probably find Stapleford’s discussion helpful.

In terms of discussions that I particularly appreciated in this book, I, as a progressive, liked Stapleford’s discussion of how IMF attempts to impose austerity policies on the Third World were inappropriate and unsuccessful.  Stapleford himself believes that, overall, low public debt, a tight monetary policy, and fiscal restraint on the part of the government lead to higher productivity, but he clearly explains why such an approach was counterproductive for the Third World.  Overall, Stapleford tries to apply biblical principles to economic issues, but, to his credit, he usually shies away from a dogmatic one-size-fits-all approach, including when he contrasts the economy of biblical times with later capitalism.

I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.

Book Write-Up: The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes

Amity Shlaes.  The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression.  HarperCollins, 2007.

I enjoyed Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression.  Whereas her biography of Calvin Coolidge was rather heavy, her prose in The Forgotten Man was light, and she explained economics in a manner that even non-economists like me could understand.  Moreover, she made the people in The Forgotten Man seem real.  Her biography about Coolidge had a lot of information, but I finished that book not really feeling that I knew Coolidge that well.  The Forgotten Man, however, was different because it had a stronger narrative and characterization.

Shlaes writes largely from a conservative perspective.  She favors lowering the tax rate on the rich and on corporations, since they are the ones who invest and create jobs.  She favors more of a supply-side than a demand-side emphasis, favoring the producers rather than assuming that the consumers having more money to spend will lead to economic growth.  She leans towards free-trade.  On monetary policy, she strikes me as rather flexible.  She is not keen on the Federal Reserve tightening the money supply too much, for deflation can lead to problems, especially for people who borrowed money (they essentially owe more than they borrowed).  At the same time, she notes that President Franklin Roosevelt’s undermining of the gold standard did not help matters, for other countries thought that destabilized the currency.

Shlaes’ perspective is evident in her narration of the Great Depression.  According to her, the tax increases by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt hindered economic growth, while attempts by these two Presidents to keep wages up so that consumers would have money to spend did not significantly ameliorate the dire economic situation; neither did their public infrastructure projects, for that matter.  The New Deal targeted businesses (big and small), and that discouraged investment, since why would people invest if they did not know what the government would do to them next?  The Federal Reserve during the Hoover Presidency was too tight in its monetary policy, according to Shlaes, and that stifled investment.  Shlaes also agrees with economists who argue that the Smoot-Hawley tariff was part of the problem, for she contends that this tariff increased production costs, discouraged European countries from buying American products, and hindered Americans from buying European products, which would have helped Europeans earn money so they could pay off their debt to the U.S.  While Shlaes is critical of many of President Franklin Roosevelt’s policies, she does praise him for helping to bring about lower tariffs.  She also thinks that FDR’s Security and Exchange Commission was a good idea, since that policed Wall Street abuse.  She says that many thought that FDR was letting the fox watch over the hen house when he appointed Joseph Kennedy to head the SEC, but that this actually turned out to be a good decision: Kennedy knew the tricks of the trade, so he could do a good job policing Wall Street!

Another problem with the New Deal, Shlaes argues, is that Roosevelt could not make up his mind.  Some elements of the New Deal contradicted each other.  Roosevelt got tired of people receiving relief, so he created government jobs so that unemployed people could work.  He wanted the workers to receive a good wage, and yet he also wanted to balance the budget because he thought that would improve the economy.  Meanwhile, he signed the Wagner Act, which promoted unionization and allowed strikes.  But that could be pretty problematic when WPA workers decided to strike!  There also appeared to be some waffling on whether bigger was better: do we want big business, or do we want smaller businesses (and anti-trust rules) that compete with each other?

Shlaes acknowledges that the economy steadily improved under the New Deal.  It just never returned to pre-1929 levels!  The Depression lagged on until World War II.  At the beginning of each chapter, Shlaes gives readers the unemployment rate for the year, and also the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

I cannot say that I found myself disliking most of the characters of the book.  The leftists who were enamored (and, in some cases, later disappointed) with the Soviet Union struck me as well-meaning idealists.  The same goes for the New Dealers, who tried to improve people’s situations and came up with innovative ideas, such as living units for migrants.  Wendell Wilkie sought to protect private electric companies from Tennessee Valley Authority competition, which was understandable on his part, and yet I cannot say that the TVA came across as that bad in Shlaes’ book (though she did seem to disagree with it), since it provided cheap electricity to poor families.  Other characters include Andrew Mellon, who was under investigation for tax evasion yet managed to find a common cause with FDR by helping to establish a National Art Gallery, donating his fine collection of art.  The African-American evangelist Father Divine also is prominent in the book: he was critical of New Deal relief programs, but he also helped the poor, pressured Roosevelt to take an anti-lynching stance, and even moved onto what used to be Franklin Roosevelt’s property.  (Eleanor Roosevelt said that she welcomed him as a neighbor!)

If there was one character I disliked, it was this one New Deal lawyer who was going after the Schechters, Jewish chicken sellers who were accused of violating National Recovery Administration rules.  The lawyer made a big deal about Mr. Schechter’s lack of education, which struck me as cruel and elitist.  For that matter, I also did not care for the pro-Roosevelt journalists who exploited anti-Semitism in defending the prosecution of the Schechters (who, it appears, were probably supporters of Roosevelt, notwithstanding the NRA’s attack on them).

The Forgotten Man is an interesting and thoughtful book.  Personally, what Shlaes says and what Robert Reich says (about the need for a strong consumer base) both make sense to me, even though they have different perspectives.  Investment is necessary, but so are a lot of consumers with money to spend!

Movie Write-Up: Inequality for All

I watched the Robert Reich documentary, Inequality for All, a couple of nights ago.  In this documentary, Robert Reich was arguing that the decline of the middle class in the United States is not good for the economy or society.  When the middle class is struggling to make ends meet, that means less consumption, which leads to further economic ills (i.e., companies laying people off because the companies are selling less, less tax revenue because there are fewer taxpayers, less education to help people compete in the face of globalization, etc.).  Moreover, Reich contends that the current political polarization is due (at least in part) to rising economic inequality.

What was ironic about the documentary was that, in some cases, the people agreeing with Reich were the rich, whereas those arguing with him were the poor.  Warren Buffett agreed that he should be paying more taxes.  Someone Reich interviewed who made a six-figure salary was saying that he hardly pays any taxes, and that significant chunks of his money serve no social value at all.  However, when Reich was speaking to factory workers, a couple of them were challenging Reich.  One was suggesting that Reich was attacking the American way of life.  Another factory worker was saying that he is not as smart as the rich are, which is why he is a laborer, but he said that the rich deserve to make all the money that they do.

There were plenty of exceptions to this rule, though.  Reich interviewed a Mormon family, which is conservative on social and cultural issues, but which was lamenting that it had to work so many hours only barely to get by.  Reich interviewed plenty of people who were struggling, even though they worked multiple jobs.  On the other side, there was another person in the documentary who was actually defending corporate downsizing, saying that sometimes corporations need to lay people off in order to survive.

Something else that caught my attention on the documentary was when Reich was saying that the rich benefit from a strong middle-class, too, that it is not a zero-sum game.  This is an important point, in my opinion, because Reich and people who believe along his lines are often accused of class warfare, of exploiting envy towards the rich, of wanting everyone to be economically equal.  But that’s not the case.  When there is a strong middle class, people are buying more products, and that helps the rich.  And I agree with something that Elizabeth Warren said when she was running for Senate: yes, it’s all right for the rich to make the money that they do, but they should put some of it into the system (i.e., education, infrastructure) so that others can have the opportunities that they had.

This is a worthwhile documentary to watch.

Is Bill Cosby Right? 9

I finished Is Bill Cosby Right? (Or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?), by Michael Eric Dyson.  In this post, I’ll talk about Dyson’s discussion of the economic situation of African-Americans.

Dyson acknowledges the economic improvements in the lives of many African-Americans, as more African-Americans become professionals, business-owners, and managers, and as the median household income for African-Americans rose between 1967 and 2003.  Yet, problems persist, and in some cases have become worse.  There was a 6 percent decline in median income for African-American households between 2000 and 2003.  The African-American unemployment rate when Dyson was writing was 10.1 percent.  The poverty rate for African-American households was over 24 percent.  As the number of African-Americans with manufacturing jobs went down by 18 percent between 1992 and 2002, more African-Americans entered the service sector—-”including professions like data processing, advertising, and housekeeping—-which employs 43 percent of the black workforce” (page 63).  These jobs, according to Dyson, “have shown weak growth and provide fewer benefits”, and thus only 52 percent of African-Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, and less than 40 percent “have private pension plans” (page 63).  Over half of African-American families “live in major metropolitan areas”, and over 12 percent of the African-American population depends on public transportation, the cost of which is rising.  While there is an African-American middle class, Dyson argues, it “had a far less sure grasp of economic security” (page 62), and African-Americans on average lag behind whites in income and in how many receive employer-sponsored health insurance, while being ahead of whites in terms of poverty and employment in the service sector.  Dyson says that disparities in wealth lead to disparities in the quality of education that children receive, in terms of resources, the skills of teachers, and the quality of curricula.

I find Dyson’s statistics to be realistic.  Granted, most African-Americans are not poor, but it is far from rosy even for many who are not.

I should also say something about the second part of Dyson’s title, Or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?  Dyson is rather critical of elements of the African-American middle class.  On page 218, he states: “And many black folk who have climbed upward are morally and intellectually irresponsible when they benefit from affirmative action—-not because they lack talent, but because they possess it and have been historically denied the opportunity to exercise it—-and then blast the black poor who have not received the slightest benefit from this measure of compensatory justice.”  More than once in this book, Dyson says that Cosby’s controversial “Pound Cake Speech” before the NAACP reflects the embarrassment of the middle and upper-economic class African-Americans at African-Americans among the lower economic classes, something that has existed for years.

A question that one can ask is: Does Dyson believe that African-Americans should conform more to white standards in order to advance?  He acknowledges that the purpose of curricula that consider ebonics is to help African-American children to learn white American English, and he does not seem to me to deem that to be a bad thing.  Dyson also praises Jesse Jackson for criticizing lyrics that demean women.  At the same time, Dyson does appear to admire elements of African-American culture that turn off whites, and many middle-class and upper-economic-class African-Americans as well: rap, baggy pants, the hip-hop culture, unusual names, etc.  Perhaps his hope is that these things can be preserved, even as poor African-Americans are given more opportunities for economic advancement.

Is Bill Cosby Right? 7

In my latest reading of Is Bill Cosby Right? (Or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?), Michael Eric Dyson praises Jesse Jackson for acknowledging the importance of personal responsibility within the African-American community, while also working to address the structural problems that keep poor African-Americans down.  Jackson has been politically active because he realizes that laws and government policies affect the lives of poor African-Americans, yet he has also promoted literacy and has organized churches to mentor first-time offenders lacking a family.  Jackson also has a Wall Street Project, whose aim is to help bring capital to the ghetto, which can increase the local tax base and thus bring more money into the area’s public school system.  I hope that his efforts are bearing fruit.

Is Bill Cosby Right? 6

In my latest reading of Is Bill Cosby Right? (Or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?), Michael Eric Dyson discusses different views regarding the causes of poverty.  Some blame the poor individual, as if he or she is at fault for not working hard enough.  Some blame society for the lack of opportunities.  Still others appeal to luck as an important factor.  According to Dyson, there are many who may carry around in their minds more than one of these views.  Someone from the African-American middle-class, for example, may pat himself on the back for the hard work that he believes brought him to where he is, and yet he also recognizes that there is structural racism that was a barrier for him, and that is a barrier for other African-Americans.

On page 196, Dyson has a paragraph about the role of religion in influencing the self-perception of some poor people.  Some poor people feel bad because the prosperity Gospel says that those whom God blesses and favors will be materially prosperous, and they look at themselves, see their lack of material prosperity, and wonder if God loves them, or if they are doing something wrong.  Others consider their poverty a blessing or as God’s good will.  Still others believe that God wants to help them to fight for an improvement in their social or economic condition, “if not for themselves, then for their children’s sake.”

I thought about the Book of Proverbs as I read this.  I have been reading Proverbs for my Daily Quiet Time, and what I notice is that it manifests a variety of attitudes about the poor.  It conveys the message that those who do not work hard will likely end up poor, yet it acknowledges that oppression and injustice often hold people down economically.  It is optimistic, however, that God will intervene and punish the oppressors.  Does God intervene by helping the poor in their political or organizational push to improve their conditions, according to Proverbs?  I haven’t seen that in Proverbs so far.  The idea in Proverbs seems to be that God unilaterally steps in and punishes oppressors.  It does not favor people sitting back and letting God do all the work, however, for it promotes charity and generosity for the poor as something that pleases God, and that God will likely reward.

There are times when the Book of Proverbs appears to romanticize poverty, as if it is part of a simple, humbler lifestyle, which contrasts with the pride and the strife among the rich and powerful.  But there are other parts of Proverbs that are quite honest about the misery of poverty, especially in terms of the lack of social support that poor people have because people scorn them for their poverty.  This may be to promote compassion towards them, to encourage people to work hard so they don’t end up poor (and what about the working poor?), or both.

Two Nations 3

My latest reading of Andrew Hacker’s 1992 (updated for 1995) book, Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal focused on inequality in income and employment.  In Losing the Race, John McWhorter argued that most African-Americans are not poor, and that a reason that statistics indicate a vastly lower median income for African-Americans than for white Americans is that poor African-American single-parent families are pulling the median down.  I have not yet read anything in Hacker’s book that indicates that most African-Americans are poor (although, as I’ve said before, one-in-four African-Americans in poverty is still high), but he does appear to be arguing that African-Americans struggle financially more than whites do on average.

Hacker compares the median income of African-American males with that of white males and finds that the former is lower.  African-American unemployment, while not encompassing the majority of African-Americans, is still higher than white unemployment and is in the double-digits.  African-Americans are represented in the double-digits in more menial professions, while in the single-digits in upper-class professions.  Hacker acknowledges the existence of an African-American middle-class but says that, often, both parents are working in these families, whereas there are more white families in which one parent can stay at home.
What is interesting in some of the statistics that Hacker presents is that African-American working women make more on average than African-American working men.  Hacker states on page 107 that “If black women have fared better, it is because more of them have been seen as suitable for office positions”, and that “Professional and clerical occupations generally call for attitudes and aptitudes associated with the white world.”

Because Hacker wrote this book in the 1990′s, I searched online for later statistics.  See here for this article, which has 2012 statistics.  The African-American unemployment rate is 10%, which is still the double-digits and is higher than the overall unemployment rate.  It does appear that African-Americans have made significant gains in terms of entering into white-collar professions.  And working African-American women are still doing better overall than employed African-American men.

Something else that stood out to me in Hacker’s book is his discussion of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a welfare program.  Contrary to the myth that the program promotes long-term dependency, Hacker argues that more than half of recipients voluntarily leave the program before the third year.  Nowadays, there is Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), and here is a discussion of how many who leave the program are faring.  The article appears to be arguing that they’re not faring very well.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 9

On page 287 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves states:

"If that deficit spending would entice more private spending, by both corporations and consumers, then the Republican president was now ready to buy into the pump-priming theories of John Maynard Keynes, the British economist, patron saint of liberal economists and big-spending politicians.  But that did not change the fact that most of the men around him were still conservatives who had always seen inflation as the true devil."

When I read this, I thought about the West Wing episodes, "Memorial Day" (from Season 5) and "NSF Thurmont" (from Season 6).  In these episodes, President Jed Bartlett and his Chief-of-Staff, Leo McGarry, are on different pages on how to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  In Bartlett's earlier days in the White House, Leo was his mentor when it came to foreign policy, for President Bartlett was not as experienced in that field.  By the end of Season 5, however, President Bartlett had his own ideas about the Middle East, and Leo recognized that it may have come to the point where President Bartlett might not value his counsel, for the two of them were on different pages.

This reportedly occurs in real life, too.  President George W. Bush supposedly relied on Vice-President Dick Cheney's counsel on foreign policy in the early days of his Administration, but it got to the point where the two of them diverged.  Cheney supported strikes on Syria, for example, whereas President Bush did not.  I've even read talk that Bush was briefly considering replacing Cheney with Senator Bill Frist!  On certain issues, Bush and Cheney were on different pages.

I read an article recently about how Christians become apostates (non-Christians).  One factor that the author mentioned is that the Christians surround themselves with non-believers, such as atheists or non-Christian Jews.  That may be a contributing factor, but I think that there are many cases in which it's the other way around: that a person becomes uncomfortable with the Christian faith, due to intellectual doubts or other factors, and that person then finds that he or she does not quite fit into the Christian community anymore.  That person then seeks out people who are on the same page.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 8

On pages 262-263 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves talks about inflation:

"But Nixonomics was shot down by Nixon----and by some bad luck.  The 'Nixon Game Plan,' as it was called in the beginning, was pretty basic Republican economics...The idea was to hold down federal spending while the Federal Reserve Board restricted money supply enough to cut demand enough to raise unemployment enough to moderate wages and prices enough to stabilize inflation."

Well, I suppose that's one way to get wages down: to increase unemployment so that more people are competing for jobs, and employers can then offer lower wages because people will be willing to work for virtually anything.  But that doesn't sound particularly humane.  Of course, the end-goal would be lower inflation, which would allow people to buy more and for their dollars to stretch farther.  Perhaps the idea is that then the economy would pick up, as people took advantage of the lower prices, and employment would go back up.

Of course, Nixon did not follow this policy consistently, for there were times when he favored expanding the money supply to improve the economy, whereas Federal Reserve chairman Arthur Burns favored a more restrictive monetary policy.

Does restricting the money supply and increasing interest rates necessarily lead to lower inflation?  It can, as occurred during Paul Volker's tenure as Federal Reserve chairman.  But perhaps one can also argue that an expanded money supply and lower interest rates can stimulate the economy, result in increased production of goods, and thus enable supply to overtake demand, thereby controlling inflation.  But, then again, what if businesses choose to take advantage of high prices to make money?  Would there be an incentive for them not to produce in such a manner that supply would overtake demand?

Anyway, those are my non-economist economic ramblings for the day.

Reinventing Richard Nixon 6

My latest reading of Daniel Frick's Reinventing Richard Nixon challenged the revisionist claim that President Richard Nixon significantly advanced the well-being of African-Americans.

According to Frick, more public schools became desegregated when Nixon was President simply because Nixon was enforcing the Supreme Court decision of Alexander v. Holmes County.  Frick states that "Put simply, Nixon had no choice but to act as he did" (page 155).  On page 158, Frick notes that the unemployment rate for African-Americans jumped from 6.4 percent in 1969 (when Nixon became President) to "as high as 10 percent in 1972" (page 158).  Frick also states that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1974 (Nixon's last year in office), 22.6 percent of African-Americans between the ages of eighteen and sixty-four were in poverty.  African-American men between 1969 and 1979 merely gained $21 for every $1,000 that white men earned, whereas they had gained $82 between 1959-1969.  Frick then notes that the ten years after 1969-1979 (the decade that would include the Reagan years) were even worse in terms of the gain in African-American income in comparison to what white men made: it was $22.

Joan Hoff, in her revisionist book Nixon Reconsidered, offers other, more positive statistics.  On page 97, she refers to independent surveys that Nuestro Business Review and Black Enterprise conducted in 1981, which showed that "56 of the top 100 black firms had been established 'between 1969 and 1976, 30 of them in the years of 1969 through 1971 when the federal minority enterprise program [under Nixon] was being launched.'"

I did a search on the African-American poverty rate.  I could not find specifically the poverty rates by year for African-Americans between the ages of 18 and 64.  Here and here, though, are charts about the African-American poverty rate over the past five decades, or so.  Essentially, during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, the African-American poverty rate plunged dramatically, though it still remained in the double digits.  Under Nixon, it increased slightly, then decreased slightly, then increased slightly again, and then decreased.  It would later make a dramatic rise under Carter (probably due to the recession), and it continued to rise under Reagan until 1983 or so, when it fell.   Through all of this time, it was in the double digits.

UPDATE: On page 267, Frick states: "Even Nixon's successes in affirmative action served this scheme.  [Presumably, the scheme is taking political advantage of divisions.]  The Philadelphia Plan, which worked to increase the number of blacks gaining unionized employment in the construction industry or the administration's program to give a predetermined number of federal contracts to businesses owned by minorities allowed Nixon to pit blacks against organized labor."

Reinventing Richard Nixon 1

I started Daniel Frick's Reinventing Richard Nixon: A Cultural History of an American Obsession.

My latest reading was about how Richard Nixon's story about himself reflected rags-to-riches stories in American culture.  There was Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, in which Benjamin Franklin goes to a city and is all alone, with only a few loaves of bread to eat, and yet Franklin manages to make a success of himself.  There were Horatio Alger novels, which portrayed street urchins who rose to a position of middle-class respectability.  And there were Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People and Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking, which essentially communicated that people could attain success by having the right attitude and by practicing certain strategies.

Nixon depicted himself as one who got ahead through hard work.  There was a rugged individualistic tone to Six Crises; for example, Nixon portrayed himself as the main protagonist in the Alger Hiss case, as he chose not to reveal that Father Cronin fed him information about Alger Hiss before Hiss even appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC).  (Cronin would deny in 1990 that this was the case, after years of saying otherwise, but Frick notes that Cronin even in that particular interview says that he helped Nixon out.  I should also note that Anthony Summers, on page 490 of The Arrogance of Power, asks how Cronin was even able to retract his long-standing claim in 1990, for Cronin in January 1991 "was in a home for the aged, deaf, and...unable to hold a cogent conversation.")  Even later, Nixon would portray himself as a lone sage.  A 1972 campaign poster showed an apparently solitary Nixon staring outside of a White House window; the thing is, that picture originally had Henry Kissinger standing close to Nixon and speaking to him, but Kissinger got cropped out of that picture in the campaign poster.

Frick acknowledges that there was more nuance in the rags-to-riches motif from which Nixon may have been drawing.  Benjamin Franklin and a protagonist in one of the Horatio Alger novels, for instance, needed outside support, for some prominent people helped Franklin out of debt, and the Horatio Alger protagonist advanced after he saved a prominent man's son from drowning.  They didn't get ahead all by themselves.  I would add that Dale Carnegie's book presumes that people need others, which is why one might want to win friends and influence people.  (Carnegie himself, however, says that he's presenting a way of life of giving to people, not merely a strategy to get ahead.)  Frick likens the Nixon narrative to Westerns, in which a lone hero comes forward and saves the day.

The narrative that Nixon rose through hard work came into play at Nixon's funeral, as Bob Dole said that Nixon got ahead by working longer and harder than anyone else.  According to Frick, Dole was depicting America as a land of opportunity, in which anyone could get ahead, and he was tying Nixon with Americanism.  But Frick says that some might have deemed even Dole's comments to be divisive.  Nixon arguably started his political career by portraying his opponent as insufficiently patriotic.  Was Dole doing something similar, by implying that being a patriotic American coincided with appreciating Richard Nixon as one who epitomized American values?  Frick notes later in the book that Richard Nixon's Six Crises came out at around the same time as Michael Harrington's book on poverty, entitled The Other America, and also Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique.  Is Frick implying that there was a growing acknowledgment that things were not as rosy in America as Nixon was indicating in Six Crises: that America was not a place where everyone could get ahead through hard work?  (That's not to suggest that Harrington and Friedan were responding to Six Crises.)

On the topic of getting ahead through hard work, I see some value in that narrative.  I agree with the Puritan Frick quotes who asked how one could go to sleep at night without having done a hard days work.  I'm all for working hard and persevering because that increases the chance of me arriving at success.  What I don't like is people appealing to that narrative to imply that everyone who is poor is somehow at fault, for there are plenty of people who are poor yet work long and hard.  I one time read a conservative friend of mine appeal to his father's folksy wisdom about being a hard-working employee in arguing that the minimum wage should not be increased.  I agree with that friend's father that an employee should show his or her worth to an employer by working hard.  But that should have nothing to do with the debate over whether or not to raise the minimum wage.  When an economy does not pay people enough to support themselves or their families, then that is problematic, and no amount of folksy wisdom will change that.