Here is my first nominee for the silliest article written in the Washington Post all year. It's an article by Andrew Klavan decrying the liberal propaganda of Hollywood. Baically, he outlines how Hollywood is a censuring, fascistic propaganda machine for the far left, decidedly unpatriotic. Lets take a look at what Mr. Klavin takes issue with.
First of, as someone who is presumably economically conservative, Hollywood's first crime is not being dedicated enough to the profit motive and potentially having a point of view. I don't know why he cares that liberal devils don't make money, but he does.
"...only one war-on-terror film, the mediocre "Vantage Point," did good business. Why? Because it showed Americans as the good guys they are. If Hollywood were all about making money, it would do that a lot more often. "
According to Mr. Klavan, though, Hollywood does not attempt to express sincere points of view which cause it to make bad, unpatriotic movies, but rather its players desire to conform to the liberal Hollywood establishment. The majority of movies as far as I can see are in the vein of Iron Man, High School Musical, and Knocked Up. I may criticize some of Hollywood's output as well, but I can't see what the agenda is in superhero, pop singing goof-offs.
"To the true Hollywood power, liberal filmmakers speak nothing but slavish conformity . . . and after a while, they start to think it's the truth. "
Klavan's third point is that Hollywood is not actually liberal, because they censor un-establishment conservative opinions, outsource filming elsewhere (hey, I thought they weren't motivated by profit?), and attack Palin for being a woman. I can't really respond to these points because they involve logical inconsistencies with prior arguments Klavan has made and because he cites vague anecdotes on sexism and censorship to condemn a whole organism (Hollywood), when really the wholeness is sort of fictitious and is really comprised of a bunch of individuals.
Klavan's fourth point- again, hard to respond. He says Hollywood excludes conservatives by saying they have no talent. He jumps straight to equating this practice with the old color line in baseball, without providing evidence first that the discrimination actually exists. I think it occurs to him later that he had better make that argument, so he cites two movies which should get made and have not. My guess is that generally there are lots more scripts than movies actually made. Perhaps Mr. Klavan himself bears grudges. I sympathize- no one makes my screenplays either. But that's because I'm a shitty writer. Klavan's essay indicates that as well.
Now we come to Klavan's coup de grace- it's where he gets to define patriotism and tell us that Hollywood liberals hate America (again, supported by a couple of anecdotes). He says that being a patriot means loving one's country, and that liberals don't love the ocuntry. Here's a fun quote:
"Making anti-war films while American troops are under fire is not patriotic. Exporting movies that consistently show the United States in a bad light is not patriotic. Ceaselessly casting America and its government as the bad guy is not patriotic, either."
Since Mr. Klavan's definition of patriotism as loving your country is somewhat vague, let's analyze his definition further as evidenced by his assertions as to what is unpatriotic. The one theme tying the three statements above together is that criticizing actions that originate within our government is not patriotic. In order for this statement to retain logical consistency, I would ask Mr. Klavan to confirm these questions:
-If Obama becomes president and the democrats maintain power in both houses, will all of their actions be patriotic as well?
-Can one dissent from any policy taken by the federal government and be a patriot? Was slavery patriotic and Uncle Tom's Cabin (anti-government propaganda aimed at showing America in a bad light) unpatriotic?
-If you had lived in Germany, would decrying the blitzkrieg be unpatriotic? (no intent to draw parrallels between us and the Nazis, just wondering if criticizing a war can be patriotic so that we can thus have a reasonable dialogue about Iraq without being accused of treason)
My own view of loving my country, or loving any person, involves a desire for that entity to be the best that it can be. I would say that much of the actions Americans have been proud of are based on dissent and progress: universal suffrage, equal rights, etc... Klavan's reactionary conservatism hearkens more to what we regret as a country and is the impediment to making this country the best it can be.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
ACORN madness
I can't help but see the assault against ACORN as intellectually dishonest fear-mongering aimed at the growing sense of white victimhood that some Americans hold. ACORN is a group which focuses on registering voters of groups typically under represented at the polls- lower income and minority groups. They claim to have registered 1.3 million voters, 70% of which are minorties and and half of the under 30.
The recent GOP rhetoric against ACORN ("quasi-criminals) and its ties to obama are summarized in today's Washington Post article. ACORN's detractors accuse it of a "systematic effort to undermine the election process" due to factually reported instances of voters being registered more than one time and fake names being submitted for registration.
Matthew Yglesias has tracked the issue quite well and has provided some deconstruction of the GOP arguments. Some of the counterarguments:
-ACORN cannot throw away registration cards by law and regularly alerts registration administrators of suspect cards.
-Any significant operation that seeks to collect data is subject to occasional error, and discrediting these operations as fraudulent is dishonest; taken to its conclusion would necessarily censure any voter registration drives.
-In the end, there is very little evidence that significant voting fraud occurs (which requires more than just bad registration info to be submitted). If we are committed democrats who see voting as a right, the fact that more people can attend the polls would seem to outweigh the negligible, almost non-existent fraud at the polls.
In the end, it seems to me that the constituencies screaming about ACORN have been the ones historically aligned with poll taxes and other measures meant to systematically reduce vote participation among certain groups. Within segments of the GOP, the anti-ACORN speeches combined with people associating Obama with Muslims, terrorists and Rev. Wright, the worshipping of Palin as a hockey-mom "like us," the anti-immigrant fervor, and the Wall St. versus Main St. rhetoric all point towards fears that the Union is headed towards being led and supported by people who do not like the belong in a Norman Rockwell painting, and therefore must share antithetical values to ours.
I always thought that the beauty of America is that its heritage is founded on intellectual and moral values granting all men the rights"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What makes this country unique is its relative lack of dependence on a heritage of ethnicity, fatherland, and language. We are a project in universalism.
But I'll let Bill O'Reilly express the view that the white Christian male power structure is both core to us and threatened- he does it better than I can:
The recent GOP rhetoric against ACORN ("quasi-criminals) and its ties to obama are summarized in today's Washington Post article. ACORN's detractors accuse it of a "systematic effort to undermine the election process" due to factually reported instances of voters being registered more than one time and fake names being submitted for registration.
Matthew Yglesias has tracked the issue quite well and has provided some deconstruction of the GOP arguments. Some of the counterarguments:
-ACORN cannot throw away registration cards by law and regularly alerts registration administrators of suspect cards.
-Any significant operation that seeks to collect data is subject to occasional error, and discrediting these operations as fraudulent is dishonest; taken to its conclusion would necessarily censure any voter registration drives.
-In the end, there is very little evidence that significant voting fraud occurs (which requires more than just bad registration info to be submitted). If we are committed democrats who see voting as a right, the fact that more people can attend the polls would seem to outweigh the negligible, almost non-existent fraud at the polls.
In the end, it seems to me that the constituencies screaming about ACORN have been the ones historically aligned with poll taxes and other measures meant to systematically reduce vote participation among certain groups. Within segments of the GOP, the anti-ACORN speeches combined with people associating Obama with Muslims, terrorists and Rev. Wright, the worshipping of Palin as a hockey-mom "like us," the anti-immigrant fervor, and the Wall St. versus Main St. rhetoric all point towards fears that the Union is headed towards being led and supported by people who do not like the belong in a Norman Rockwell painting, and therefore must share antithetical values to ours.
I always thought that the beauty of America is that its heritage is founded on intellectual and moral values granting all men the rights"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What makes this country unique is its relative lack of dependence on a heritage of ethnicity, fatherland, and language. We are a project in universalism.
But I'll let Bill O'Reilly express the view that the white Christian male power structure is both core to us and threatened- he does it better than I can:
Monday, October 13, 2008
I'm a grumpy old man
So they're opening something in Annapolis called the Annapolis "Towne Centre."
There's an intersting paradox here. My guess is that the name's spelling hearkens back to some idyllic past, an 18th century one with the streets full of $8 latte coffee shops, gourmet dog bscuits, and Whole Foods "sooper-marquettes." Who are they fooling?
Perhaps these inane names will actually make it easier for those moving around to know where a more authentic place is. In the future, the naming conventions signal us to avoid the Towne Centres with their "Ye Olde Shoppes", perhaps avoid a Georgetowne, and head to Georgetown or Adams Morgan instead.
Link on Towne Centre here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101003041.html
There's an intersting paradox here. My guess is that the name's spelling hearkens back to some idyllic past, an 18th century one with the streets full of $8 latte coffee shops, gourmet dog bscuits, and Whole Foods "sooper-marquettes." Who are they fooling?
Perhaps these inane names will actually make it easier for those moving around to know where a more authentic place is. In the future, the naming conventions signal us to avoid the Towne Centres with their "Ye Olde Shoppes", perhaps avoid a Georgetowne, and head to Georgetown or Adams Morgan instead.
Link on Towne Centre here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101003041.html
Isn't he a little young?
Does anyone find the appointment of 35 year-old Neel Kashkari as the person in charge of administering a $700B financial bail out plan a bit odd? I don't claim to know much about Mr. Kashkari and his credentials (apparently he's worked on Wall Street since 2001 and is a pretty smart guy). But this is someone whose only knowledge of finance is during the boom years, and, well, seven years of experience doesn't seem like a long time.
I can't help but be reminded of the US's initial reconstruction efforts in Iraq, well documented by the WaPost at the time, in which twenty-somethings with nice resumes at the Heritage Foundation were sent run the ministries of the occupied nation. We found out then that slim resumes with ideological purity and personal connections to their political elders didn't translate to tactical managerial success. Are we risking the same now?
I can't help but be reminded of the US's initial reconstruction efforts in Iraq, well documented by the WaPost at the time, in which twenty-somethings with nice resumes at the Heritage Foundation were sent run the ministries of the occupied nation. We found out then that slim resumes with ideological purity and personal connections to their political elders didn't translate to tactical managerial success. Are we risking the same now?
Bail out corruption
When I first heard the bail out plan, I was a sceptic, to put it mildly. A proposal to transfer billions of dollars of taxpayer money to the lords of Wall Street sounded like another Republican program to benefit their constituencies under the umbrella of economic patriotism. The last 8 years have shown over and over again how the GOP is not a party of ideology, but one to whom socialism and the large hand of government are easily accommodated when in the service of their partisans (military, oil companies, seniors, the very wealthy among others).
I became supportive of the plan as the financial explosion seemed to call for aggressive measures and due to Congressional improvements to the bill, such as ensuring that the public takes part in any financial upside through bad asset purchases at fair value and the acquisition of warrants (rights to purchase financial ownership) in the institutions supported.
A plan to limit executive pay in the supported institutions proved attractive as well. However, since then, a revelatory WSJ article (which has barely received any media attention) has greatly disturbed my faith in the integrity of the plan and its potential efficacy:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122360084563521627.html
"Mr. Kashkari [overseer of the Fed's $700B bailout program] told participants in the call [to Wall street executives] that lawmakers' interest in limiting executive compensation was "emotional" and "probably the most difficult part of the negotiation" with Congress. When one industry participant said the caps might discourage participation, Mr. Kashkari noted their limited scope, which he called "a pretty modest hindrance to you coming into the program."
Millions of Americans who had no role in the financial meltdown, i.e. paying homeowners not employed by the sector, have been willing to support the package due to the indusputable fact that we are all in this together. In contrast, incredibly wealthy millionaires who brought this crisis upon us and who face no real future hardship in any real sense of the word balk at making any sacrifices. Note that we are simultaneously asked to believe by Mr. McCain that these same ultra-wealthy folks are deserved of a tax cut due to their dedication to building an economy that benefits all. While I am not one for class warfare rhetoric, anecdotes such as the above certainly play better to a far left view that acquiring great wealth is just as often done by non-value add exploition of the current system.
As troubling to me is the lack of incentive alignment between those running the companies and their equity holders. Most would agree at this point that the greatest source of the current financial crisis stems from the agents of speculators and lenders putting vast amounts of capital on the line while the agents themselves have no skin the game. I.e. 1) The mortgage broker fudges the paperwork to get a loan approved and thus gets his commission, 2) the mortgage underwriter then focuses on the sale-ability of the asset not its inherent value and is able to find a securitization buyer among investors, thus earning his commission. Both of these operators had compensation upside by getting loans made, with none of the downside of ownership when the loans go bad.
In the case of whether bank executives choose to have their companies participate in the bail out, for some, the decision may appear as whether to gamble at keeping a $50M package accepting that their bank may or may not fail, or choosing to take the bail out and a smaller comp package that assuredly benefits the survival of their company.
It's time for the shareholders and their board representatives to put an end to this extortion. Let's really start to question the matra that boards need to pay their executives excessive amounts in order to attract the talent needed for a prospering company (rather than the pushback that executive use their insider positions to bully and extort the shareholders). In fact, I have a suggestion to the bank boards. My propsal will allow them to save enormously on CEO compensation in a way that ensures that the shareholders achieve added value immediately. I offer myself, at a measly pittance of one million dollars, to come in and seize the reins of leadership and ensure that I squeeze out every dollar of government subsidies for the shareholders.
Board members, feel free to leave you contact information in the comments below and I'll get right back to you.
I became supportive of the plan as the financial explosion seemed to call for aggressive measures and due to Congressional improvements to the bill, such as ensuring that the public takes part in any financial upside through bad asset purchases at fair value and the acquisition of warrants (rights to purchase financial ownership) in the institutions supported.
A plan to limit executive pay in the supported institutions proved attractive as well. However, since then, a revelatory WSJ article (which has barely received any media attention) has greatly disturbed my faith in the integrity of the plan and its potential efficacy:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122360084563521627.html
"Mr. Kashkari [overseer of the Fed's $700B bailout program] told participants in the call [to Wall street executives] that lawmakers' interest in limiting executive compensation was "emotional" and "probably the most difficult part of the negotiation" with Congress. When one industry participant said the caps might discourage participation, Mr. Kashkari noted their limited scope, which he called "a pretty modest hindrance to you coming into the program."
Millions of Americans who had no role in the financial meltdown, i.e. paying homeowners not employed by the sector, have been willing to support the package due to the indusputable fact that we are all in this together. In contrast, incredibly wealthy millionaires who brought this crisis upon us and who face no real future hardship in any real sense of the word balk at making any sacrifices. Note that we are simultaneously asked to believe by Mr. McCain that these same ultra-wealthy folks are deserved of a tax cut due to their dedication to building an economy that benefits all. While I am not one for class warfare rhetoric, anecdotes such as the above certainly play better to a far left view that acquiring great wealth is just as often done by non-value add exploition of the current system.
As troubling to me is the lack of incentive alignment between those running the companies and their equity holders. Most would agree at this point that the greatest source of the current financial crisis stems from the agents of speculators and lenders putting vast amounts of capital on the line while the agents themselves have no skin the game. I.e. 1) The mortgage broker fudges the paperwork to get a loan approved and thus gets his commission, 2) the mortgage underwriter then focuses on the sale-ability of the asset not its inherent value and is able to find a securitization buyer among investors, thus earning his commission. Both of these operators had compensation upside by getting loans made, with none of the downside of ownership when the loans go bad.
In the case of whether bank executives choose to have their companies participate in the bail out, for some, the decision may appear as whether to gamble at keeping a $50M package accepting that their bank may or may not fail, or choosing to take the bail out and a smaller comp package that assuredly benefits the survival of their company.
It's time for the shareholders and their board representatives to put an end to this extortion. Let's really start to question the matra that boards need to pay their executives excessive amounts in order to attract the talent needed for a prospering company (rather than the pushback that executive use their insider positions to bully and extort the shareholders). In fact, I have a suggestion to the bank boards. My propsal will allow them to save enormously on CEO compensation in a way that ensures that the shareholders achieve added value immediately. I offer myself, at a measly pittance of one million dollars, to come in and seize the reins of leadership and ensure that I squeeze out every dollar of government subsidies for the shareholders.
Board members, feel free to leave you contact information in the comments below and I'll get right back to you.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Generation warfare: youth call to arms!
Usually when we talk about economics, we consider two parties in an exchange. A buyer and a seller. Prices going up obviously help the seller and hurt the buyer. In total, price movements seem to be a a wash. Therefore, when we talk about prices in the business press, it can't be said whether price increases are good or bad, right?
In practice, a newspaper speaking to an every day citizen can and does make value judgements about some price movements. For instance, The US consumes much more oil than it produces, so oil pricesincreases on domestic consumers don't have matching domestic gains. Even when price increase gains are kept domestically, a journalistic still reasonably frames that price change as a negative turn of events. For instance, food price increases can stress all families, while very few of us farm. Therefore, we understand that the journalist frames the issue as 98% of us would see it.
Now let's talk about home prices. As home prices fall, who loses? Home owners, i.e. wealthier older people. Who gains? Poorer people who no longer desire to rent, younger people looking for their first home, vacation home buyers. All gains from home price decline are domestic, and and these gaines are not constrained to a small population of Americans. Therefore, why are falling home prices presented as a bad thing?
Yes, precipitous declines in home prices destabilize the economy. But that's not the whole story. The politicians and the business journalists speaking about the decline are obviously the ones disproportionately affected by home prices: i.e. older, wealthier individuals. The world in which they live is permeated by homeowners; the dinner tabel discussions touch upoin their falling equity. Essentally, the demographic that owns homes is framing the entire discussion over the issue of falling values. As long as this persists, the perspective of those who benefit from lower prices will not be heard and will not influence public decision making.
So all you young people out there, let me tell you how you get totally FUCKED. What is happening is that government is borrowing funds to bail out homeowners and capital lenders. This is explicitly meant to keep home prices up, making things more expensive for you. They are working to make sure they squeeze more money out of you folks in your 20's who will buy a house. And to add insult to injury, the subsidies made to make things more expensive for you are borrowed, and will be paid back at a later date, when you in your 20's are more likely to be in your prime earning years and the current home owners are retired. Wake up, young renters! Everyone is working to fuck you.
Here a couple of policy suggestions that don't screw younger renters:
-Let inflation rise so that housing prices can stabilize nominally but will be cheaper to wage earners.
-Significantly increase the capital gains tax on home sales to pay for the bail out.
But first off, I'd like to begin making our voice heard in that falling home prices is not an automatic disadvantage to everyone. Speak up, and let's begin reframing the housing discussion away from its exlcusive attention on the owners.
In practice, a newspaper speaking to an every day citizen can and does make value judgements about some price movements. For instance, The US consumes much more oil than it produces, so oil pricesincreases on domestic consumers don't have matching domestic gains. Even when price increase gains are kept domestically, a journalistic still reasonably frames that price change as a negative turn of events. For instance, food price increases can stress all families, while very few of us farm. Therefore, we understand that the journalist frames the issue as 98% of us would see it.
Now let's talk about home prices. As home prices fall, who loses? Home owners, i.e. wealthier older people. Who gains? Poorer people who no longer desire to rent, younger people looking for their first home, vacation home buyers. All gains from home price decline are domestic, and and these gaines are not constrained to a small population of Americans. Therefore, why are falling home prices presented as a bad thing?
Yes, precipitous declines in home prices destabilize the economy. But that's not the whole story. The politicians and the business journalists speaking about the decline are obviously the ones disproportionately affected by home prices: i.e. older, wealthier individuals. The world in which they live is permeated by homeowners; the dinner tabel discussions touch upoin their falling equity. Essentally, the demographic that owns homes is framing the entire discussion over the issue of falling values. As long as this persists, the perspective of those who benefit from lower prices will not be heard and will not influence public decision making.
So all you young people out there, let me tell you how you get totally FUCKED. What is happening is that government is borrowing funds to bail out homeowners and capital lenders. This is explicitly meant to keep home prices up, making things more expensive for you. They are working to make sure they squeeze more money out of you folks in your 20's who will buy a house. And to add insult to injury, the subsidies made to make things more expensive for you are borrowed, and will be paid back at a later date, when you in your 20's are more likely to be in your prime earning years and the current home owners are retired. Wake up, young renters! Everyone is working to fuck you.
Here a couple of policy suggestions that don't screw younger renters:
-Let inflation rise so that housing prices can stabilize nominally but will be cheaper to wage earners.
-Significantly increase the capital gains tax on home sales to pay for the bail out.
But first off, I'd like to begin making our voice heard in that falling home prices is not an automatic disadvantage to everyone. Speak up, and let's begin reframing the housing discussion away from its exlcusive attention on the owners.
Malthus Today
Common wisdom says that Malthus's pessimism is dead. Malthus predicted that agricultural productivity would not keep pace with demographic growth in 19th and 20th century. He did not foresee the great productivity improvements made in farming since his time, innovations that made food readily available to vast proportions of a greatly larger populations.
So, for a while we rested comfortably thinking that we can improve productivity indefinitely to handle population growth.
I think it's time to revisit that assumption.
Malthus believed that people's instincts to have children will ultimately ensure that we have the greatest possible numbers of humans on earth, necesarily living an existence that is the barest possible. In short, humanity will tend towards massive numbers of the impoverished.
I can't help but think that he may yet be proven right. It very well may be that all of the benefits of scientific and industrial advances will be thrown away. All our material progress may be completely wiped out by population growth. Let's take a look at some of the problems today:
-Global warming: doesn't seem like it would be a problem with half as many of us driving.
-Gas and commodity prices: India and China will never reach current levels of material wealth. There isn't enough stuff. Prices have to rise.
-Food prices: eat meat now while you can. Beef converts land and solar energy too inefficiently to feed the coming multitudes.
-Pristine nature- we're everywhere. Middle class lakeside colonies? Thing of the past. too many people competing.
Let's face it- we have a fixed supply of some goods. I really don't have much doubt that we will be materially much poorer 50 years from now than we are today.
So, for a while we rested comfortably thinking that we can improve productivity indefinitely to handle population growth.
I think it's time to revisit that assumption.
Malthus believed that people's instincts to have children will ultimately ensure that we have the greatest possible numbers of humans on earth, necesarily living an existence that is the barest possible. In short, humanity will tend towards massive numbers of the impoverished.
I can't help but think that he may yet be proven right. It very well may be that all of the benefits of scientific and industrial advances will be thrown away. All our material progress may be completely wiped out by population growth. Let's take a look at some of the problems today:
-Global warming: doesn't seem like it would be a problem with half as many of us driving.
-Gas and commodity prices: India and China will never reach current levels of material wealth. There isn't enough stuff. Prices have to rise.
-Food prices: eat meat now while you can. Beef converts land and solar energy too inefficiently to feed the coming multitudes.
-Pristine nature- we're everywhere. Middle class lakeside colonies? Thing of the past. too many people competing.
Let's face it- we have a fixed supply of some goods. I really don't have much doubt that we will be materially much poorer 50 years from now than we are today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)