Friday, June 5, 2015

Progressive Infatuation With Totalitarianism


... "So long as they refused to identify the nature of free trade and of a social system based on voluntary, uncoerced, unforced, non-sacrificial relationships among men, so long as the moral cannibalism of the altruist code permitted them to believe that it is virtuous and right to sacrifice some men for the sake of others—the intellectuals had to embrace the political creed of collectivism, the dream of establishing a perfect altruist society at the point of a gun.  They projected a society where all would be sacrificed to that conveniently undefinable idol "the public good," with themselves in the role of judges of what that "good" might be and of who would be "the public" at any given moment—an ideal society to be achieved by means of physical force; that is, by means of the political power of the state, by means of a totalitarian dictatorship.
      "The rest is history—the shameful, sordid, ugly history of the intellectual development of the last hundred and fifty years." ...
    — Ayn Rand, from her lecture 'The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age', which she delivered in March 1961


What irony.   On August 14, 1939, the open letter shown below was released praising the Soviet Union, in part, supposedly, as an opponent of fascism — and signed by various intellectuals, including numerous university professors, and even a professor of Christian Ethics (really) — and just over a week later, on August 23, 1939, the Soviet Union signed a nonaggression pact with Nazi Germany —
     http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/german-soviet-nonaggression-pact

The 'ten basic points' 'stressed'  in the letter are so ridiculous, it is difficult to believe that any mature adult would ever have believed them.  Consider point number one, for example —
1. The Soviet Union continues as always to be a consistent bulwark against war and aggression, and works unceasingly for the goal of a peaceful international order.
That is a strong claim to make about any country — never mind the Soviet Union under Stalin, and which, in a glaring contradiction, the letter described as a political dictatorship (see point number nine).  Yes, it is really true — many people, including university professors, with a former professor of Christian ethics at the 'Union Theological Seminary' among them, consider it possible for a political dictatorship to be 'a consistent bulwark against war and aggression'.

But clearly, none of the wildly exaggerated statements contained in this letter were based on actual knowledge — other than the surprising acknowledgement that the Soviet Union was a political dictatorship — which leaves one to wonder about the psychology of anyone who would sign it --

https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/cpusa/1939/08/0814-openletter.pdf
https://archive.is/J2603

To All Active Supporters of Democracy and Peace:
The text of an Open Letter calling for greater unity of the anti-fascist forces
and strengthening of the front against aggression through closer cooperation
with the Soviet Union, released on August 14 by 400 leading Americans.

As published in Soviet Russia Today, v. 8, no. 5 (Sept. 1939), pp. 24-25, 28.

ONE of the greatest problems confronting all those engaged in the struggle for democracy and peace, whether they be liberals, progressives, trade unionists, or others, is how to unite their various forces so as to achieve victory for their common goals.  The Fascists and their allies are well aware that democracy will win if its supporters are united.  Accordingly, they are intent on destroying such unity at all costs.

On the international scene the Fascists and their friends have tried to prevent a united anti-aggression front by sowing suspicion between the Soviet Union and other nations interested in maintaining peace.

On the domestic scene the reactionaries are attempting to split the democratic front by similar tactics.  Realizing that here in America they cannot get far with a definitely pro-fascist appeal, they strive to pervert American antifascist sentiment to their own ends.  With the aim of turning anti-fascist feeling against the Soviet Union they have encouraged the fantastic falsehood that the USSR and the totalitarian states are basically alike.  By this strategy they hope to create dissension among the progressive forces whose united strength is a first necessity for the defeat of fascism.

Some sincere American liberals have fallen into this trap and unwittingly aided a cause to which they are essentially opposed.  Thus, a number of them have carelessly lent their signatures to the recent manifesto issued by the so-called Committee for Cultural Freedom. This manifesto denounces in vague, undefined terms all forms of “Dictatorship” and asserts that the Fascist states and Soviet Russia equally menace American institutions and the democratic way of life.

While we prefer to dwell on facts rather than personalities, we feel it is necessary to point out that among the signers of this manifesto are individuals who have for years had as their chief political objective the maligning of the Soviet people and their government, and it is precisely these people who are the initiators and controllers of the committee.

A number of other committees have been formed which give lip service to democracy and peace while actually attacking the Soviet Union and aiding reaction.  Honest persons approached by such committees should scrutinize their aims very carefully and support only those groups genuinely interested in preserving culture and freedom and refusing to serve as instruments for attacking the Soviet Union or aiding Fascism in any other way.

The undersigned do not represent any committee or organization, nor do they propose to form one.  Our object is to point out the real purpose behind all these attempts to bracket the Soviet Union with the Fascist states, and to make it clear that Soviet and Fascist policies are diametrically opposed.  To this end we should like to stress ten basic points in which Soviet socialism differs fundamentally from totalitarian fascism.

1. The Soviet Union continues as always to be a consistent bulwark against war and aggression, and works unceasingly for the goal of a peaceful international order.

2. It has eliminated racial and national prejudice with in its borders, freed the minority peoples enslaved under the Tsars, stimulated the development of the culture and economic welfare of these peoples, and made the expression of anti-Semitism or any racial animosity a criminal offense.

3. It has socialized the means of production and distribution through the public ownership of industry and the collectivization of agriculture.

4. It has established nationwide socialist planning, resulting in increasingly higher living standards and the abolition of unemployment and depression.

5. It has built the trade unions, in which almost 24,000,000 workers are organized, into the very fabric of its society.

6. The Soviet Union has emancipated woman and the family, and has developed an advanced system of child care.

7. From the viewpoint of cultural freedom, the difference between the Soviet Union and the Fascist countries is most striking.  The Soviet Union has effected one of the most far-reaching cultural and educational advances in all history and among a population which at the start was almost three-fourths illiterate.  Those writers and thinkers whose books have been burned by the Nazis are published in the Soviet Union.  The best literature from Homer to Thomas Mann, the best thought from Aristotle to Lenin, is available to the masses of the Soviet people, who themselves actively participate in the creation of culture.

8. It has replaced the myths and superstitions of old Russia with the truths and techniques of experimental science, extending scientific procedures to every field, from economics to public health.  And it has made science and scientific study available to the mass of the people.

9. The Soviet Union considers political dictatorship a transitional form and has shown a steadily expanding democracy in every sphere. Its epoch-making new Constitution guarantees Soviet citizens universal suffrage, civil liberties, the right to employment, to leisure, to free education, to free medical care, to material security in sickness and old age, to equality of the sexes in all fields of activity, and to equality of all races and nationalities.

10. In relation to Russia’s past, the country has been advancing rapidly along the road of material and cultural progress in ways that the American people can understand and appreciate.

The Soviet Union has an economic system different from our own.  But Soviet aims and achievements make it clear that there exists a sound and permanent basis in mutual ideals for cooperation between the U.S.A. and the USSR on behalf of world peace and the security and freedom of all nations.  Accordingly, the signers of this letter urge Americans of whatever political persuasion to stand firmly for close cooperation in this sphere between the United States and Soviet Russia, and to be on guard against any and all attempts to prevent such cooperation in this critical period in the affairs of mankind.

Among the 400 Signers of the Open Letter Are:

Dr. Thomas Addis, Professor of Medicine, Leland Stanford University
Helen Alfred, Executive Director National Public Housing Conference
Prof. Newton Arvin, Professor of English, Smith College
Dr. Charles S. Bacon, Honorary President, American Russian Institute, Chicago, Ill.
Frank C. Bankcroft, Editor, Social Work Today
Bessie Beatty, writer
Maurice Becker, artist
Meta Berger, writer, widow of the first Socialist Congressman
Louis P. Birk, Editor, Modern Age Books, Inc.
T.A. Bisson, Reseach Associate, Foreign Policy Association
Allice Stone Blackwell, suffragist, writer
Katherine Devereaux Blake, teacher
Mark Blitzstein, composer
Anita Block, Theatre Guild playreader
Stirling Bowen, poet
Richard Boyer, staff writer, The New Yorker
Millen Brand, writer
Simon Breines, architect
Prof. Dorothy Brewster, Assistant Professor of English, Columbia University
Robert Briffault, writer
Prof. Edwin Berry Burgum, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California
Fielding Burke, writer
J.E. Bromberg, actor
Vea Caspary, scenario writer
Prof. Haakon Chevalier, Professor of French, University of California
Maria Christina Chambers, Research Professor of Biology, New York University
Harold Clurman, producer
Robert M. Coates, writer
Lester Cohen, writer
Prof. George B. Cressey, Chairman of the Department of Geology and Geography, Syracuse University
Kyle Crichton, editorial staff of Collier’s Weekly
Miriam Allen de Ford, writer
Paul de Kruif, writer
Pietro di Donato, writer
William F. Dodd, Jr., Chairman, Anti-Nazi Literature Committee
Stanley D. Dodge, University of Michigan
Prof. Dorothy Douglas, Department of Economics, Smith College
Muriel Draper, writer
Prof. L.C. Dunn, Professor of Zoology, Columbia University
Harriet G. Eddy, library specialist
Prof. Henry Pratt Fairchild, Professor of Sociology, New York University
Prof. Mildred Fairchild, Professor of Economics, Bryn Mawr College
Kenneth Fearing, poet
Allice Withrow Field, writer
Sara Bard Field, writer
William O. Field, Jr., Chairman of the Board, American Russian Institute
Irving Fineman, writer
Marjorie Fischer, writer
Angel Flores, writer, critic
Waldo Frank, writer
Wanda Gag, artist
Hugo Gellert, artist
Robert Gessner, Department of English, New York University
Prof. Willystine Goodsell, Associate Professor of Education (retired), Columbia University
Mortimer Graves, of the American Council of Learned Societies
Dr. John H. Gray, economist, former President of the American Economics Association
William Gropper, artist
Maurice Halperin, Associate Editor, Books Abroad
Earl P. Hanson, explorer, writer
Prof. Samuel N. Harper, Professor of Russian Language and Institutions, Chicago University
Rev. Thomas L. Harris, National Executive Secretary, American League for Peace and Democracy
Dashiell Hammett, writer
Ernest Hemmingway
Granville Hicks, writer
Prof. Norman E. Himes, Department of Sociology, Colgate University
Charles J. Hendley, President Teachers’ Union of the City of New York
Leo Huberman, writer
Langston Hughes, poet
Agatha Illes, writer
Rev. Otis G. Jackson, Rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Flint, Michigan
Sam Jaffe, actor
Orrick Johns, poet
Matthew Josephson, writer
George Kauffman, playwright
Prof. Alexander Kaun, Associate Professor of Slavic Languages, University of California
Fred C. Kelly, writer
Rockwell Kent, artist
Dr. John A. Kingsbury, social worker, Administrative Consultant, W.P.A.
Beatrice Kinkead, writer
Lincoln E. Kirstein, ballet producer
Arthur Kober, playwright
Alfred Kreymborg, poet
Edward Lamb, lawyer
Dr. Corliss Lamont, writer, lecturer
Margaret I. Lamont, sociologist
J.J. Lankes, artist
Jay Leyda, cinema critic
John Howard Lawson, playwright
Emil Lengyle, writer, critic
Prof. Max Lerner, Professor of Government, Williams College
Meridel LeSeuer, writer
Meyer Levin, writer
Prof. Charles W. Lightbody, Department of Government and History, St. Lawrence University
Robert Morss Lovett, Governor of the Virgin Islands, and Editor of The New Republic.
Prof. Halford E. Lucckock, Yale University Divinity School
Katherine DuPré Lumpkin, writer
Klaus Mann, lecturer, writer, son of Thomas Mann
Prof. F.O. Mathiessen, Associate Professor of History of Literature, Harvard University
Dr. Anita Marburg, Department of English, Sarah Lawrence College
Dr. George Marshall, economist
Clifford T. McAvoy, Instructor, Department of Romance Languages, College of the City of New York
Prof. V.J. McGill, Professor of Philosopy, Hunter College
Prof. Robert McGregor, Reed College
Ruth McKenney, writer
Darwin J. Meserole, lawyer
Prof. Herbert A. Miller, Professor of Economics, Bryn Mawr College
Harvey O’Connor, writer
Clifford Odets, playwright
Shaemus O’Sheel, writer, critic
Mary White Ovington, social worker
S.J. Perelman, writer
Dr. John P. Peters, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University Medical School
Dr. Emily M. Pierson, physician
Walter N. Polakov, engineer
Prof. Alan Porter, Professor of German, Vassar College
Geroge D. Pratt, Jr., agriculturalist
John Hyde Preston, writer
Samuel Putnam, writer
Prof. Paul Radin, Professor of Anthropology, University of California
Prof. Walter Rautenstrauch, Professor of Industrial Engineering, Columbia University
Bernard J. Reis, accountant
Bertha C. Reynolds, social worker
Lynn Riggs, playwright
Col. Raymond Robins, former head of American Red Cross in Russia
William Rollis, Jr., writer
Harold J. Rome, composer
Ralph Roeder, writer
Dr. Joseph Rosen, former head, Jewish Joint Distribution Board
Eugene Schoen, architect
Prof. Margaret Schlauch, Associate Professor of English, New York University
Prof. Frederick L. Schuman, Professor of Government, Williams College
Prof. Vida D. Scudder, Professor Emeritus of English, Wellesley College
George Seldes, writer
Vincent Sheean, writer
Viola Brothers Shore, scenario writer
Herbert Shumlin, producer
Prof. Ernest J. Simmons, Assistant Professor of English Literature, Harvard University
Irina Skariatina, writer
Dr. F. Tredwell Smith, educator
Dr. Stephenson Smith, President Oregon Commonwealth Federation
Hester Sondergaard, actress
Isobel Walker Soule, writer, editor
Lionel Stander, actor
Christina Stead, writer
A.E. Steig, artist
Alfred K. Stern, housing specialist
Dr. Bernhard J. Stern, Department of Sociology, Columbia University
Donald Ogden Steward, writer
Maxwell S. Steward, Associate Editor, The Nation
Paul Strand, producer and photographer
Prof. Dirk J. Struik, Professor of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert Tasker, scenario writer
C. Fayette Taylor, aeronautical engineer, head of Automotive Labs, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
James Thurber, artist, writer
Rebecca Janney Timbres, social worker, writer
Jean Starr Untermeyer, poet
Louis Untermeyer, poet
Mary van Kleeck, economist, Associate Director International Industrial Relations Institute
Stuyvesant van Veen, artist
J. Raymond Walsh, economist
Dr. William Henry Walsh, physician
Prof. Harry F. Ward, Professor of Christian Ethics, Union Theological Seminary
Lynd Ward, artist
Morris Watson, New York Newspaper Guild
Clara Weatherwax, writer
Max Weber, artist
Dr. Gerald Wendt, Director of Science and Education, New York World’s Fair
Rev. Robert Whitaker, clergyman and lecturer
Albert Rhys Williams, writer
Dr. William Carlos Williams, writer
Ella Winter, writer
Richard Wright, writer
Art Young, artist
Leane Zugsmith, writer

Published by 1000 Flowers Publishing, Corvallis, OR, 2005. • Free reproduction permitted.
Edited by Tim Davenport.


Thursday, June 4, 2015

Delicious Irony At SkepticalScience.com

The comment shown below from a psychologist, and the accompanying response at skepticalscience.com, are absolutely fascinating.  Notice that the response given helps prove the point made by the psychologist in her comment.

BarbaraB politely points out that herding is evident in the debate over global warming, and that you cannot disagree with global warming alarmists without retribution, and that skepticism is justified.

The response is to denigrate the comment as trolling, with the threat to remove other comments that make similar observations — a form of retribution.

Whatever the accusation of trolling is actually supposed to mean, that response is a kind of ad hominem fallacy, which does nothing to address the legitimacy of the comment.

And notice that the reference to 'the mainstream position on climate science',  in the response to BarbaraB's  comment, is also a clear use of the ad populum fallacy — as if the mainstream position has been clearly established and is beyond dispute, and as if being mainstream somehow makes a particular position more convincing or impervious to criticism.

Now that is as clear an expression of herding as you can get — if you think holding a mainstream position makes you more reasonable and justified in a particular belief, you are confessing a profound inability to think.

See Charles MacKay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds', if you take comfort in being part of the mainstream.


https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm#107534

BarbaraB at 15:38 PM on 29 October, 2014
Just a psychologist so I'm sure I don't count here, but I do know something about people and the herd instinct which I think is working here to a large extent. There is also, I am not a theologist, some evidence of the sin of greed. So many billions of dollars changing hands over a theory, really just a theory which looks more like a religion since you can't oppose it without retribution. Wise men should be skeptical.

I am quite relaxed about the climate getting warmer, I like summer better than winter, don't you? The people with coastline properties are probably those terrible "rich" people anyway whom we have all been told are sucking on our vital juices for their own benefit. Terrible people.

Response:
[Dikran Marsupial] Welcome to SkS (psychologists are most welcome). Please take time to read the comments policy, SkS is intended to be a site for productive discussion of climate science and closely related topics, but it is not a forum for the sort of trolling that is all too common on climate blogs. Further comments of this nature will be deleted. If you disagree with the mainstream position on climate science, then I would encourage you to pick a specific argument (see the list of climate myths on the bar to the left) and explain your objection clearly. I'm sure you will find plenty of people here willing to discuss the science with you in a rational and friendly manner, provided that you behave in a similarly mature manner.


BarbaraB comment on 'OISM Petition Project' page at skepticalscience.com.




Saturday, May 30, 2015

Hillary's Idiot Fanbase

This is just another absurd example of a public display of confusion getting treated as if it is newsworthy.  And, of course, if it is a woman displaying the confusion, and anyone points it out, then it is acceptable to label them a misogynist.  It's our old friend the ad hominem fallacy again — when you are unable to address criticism, at least try to discredit those who level it.  And who would not believe that if you criticize the behavior of a particular woman, you must hate all women?

Here is a post at national.suntimes.com, from May 29, 2015, entitled 'Lena Dunham fights of 'misogynistic BS' with semi-nude Lil' Kim', in regard to Dunham being criticized for supposedly reflexively supporting Hillary Clinton for president simply because she is a woman. (see the image of that post below)
     http://national.suntimes.com/national-celebrity/7/72/1202842/...lena-dunham-fights-misogynistic-bs/
     https://archive.is/lVxMc

Just hours after that post appeared at national.suntimes.com, abcnews.go.com added to the spin on Dunham's Instagram post with this: 'Lena Dunham Takes on 'Misogynistic' Hillary Clinton Haters With Risque Photo of Lil' Kim' — it's an interesting title, considering that the Dunham quotes included in that post made no mention of a response to Hillary personally.  There's nothing new here — just another non-intrepid reporter with a non-objective exposé about pointless nonsense.
     http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lena-dunham-takes-misogynistic-hillary-clinton-haters-risque/story?id=31402484
     https://archive.is/ZZS4x

What is tragically amusing about this is that nothing of substance is written in any of these posts.

The writer of the post at national.suntimes.com used the phrases 'fights off' and 'strong words' to describe what Dunham wrote, but Dunham wrote nothing to justify either her support for Hillary, or the notion that it is somehow misogynist to accuse a woman of voting along gender lines — as if it is ridiculous to even suggest that anyone would vote along gender or racial lines.

On the contrary, Dunham demonstrates that she is voting along gender lines when she writes —
Yes I think it’s time for a female president but I’m not part of a witch’s cabal that senses ovaries and suddenly MUST VOTE.  Plus if I was gonna vote for someone just because she was female it would be this chick, written in on all my ballots always.
Is she kidding?  This begs the painfully obvious question: 'Why is it time for a female president, rather than the most qualified president from the available candidates?'  In short, why would anyone use race or gender as a criterion when voting?  And why would you announce your support for a particular candidate, before you even knew who was going to be running?  Dunham is obviously contradicting herself here, by writing that she does not reflexively vote for a particular gender, but then states she wants a president of a particular gender.

Of course, it is never time for a president with any particular characteristics, other than the characteristics ethical and competent (don't hold your breath waiting for that).

It is telling that Dunham makes a feeble attempt to give substance to her support for Hillary, but fails miserably —
Hey, just a head’s up: accusing women of supporting Hillary just because she’s female is misogynistic BS- women are smart enough to make decisions based on a number of factors: policy, track record, campaign strategy.
If Hillary is so deserving of the kind of unwavering support that Dunham describes, why is it difficult to name any specific Hillary accomplishment that justifies that support?   And notice that Dunham lists 'campaign strategy' as a decision factor — really?   Again, is she kidding?  Why on earth would anyone support a politician because of a campaign strategy?

And also notice that Dunham favorably quotes the rapper Lil' Kim — who, like many talentless performers, must resort to vulgarity and exposing themselves to get attention.  It shouldn't really come as a surprise, given the utter stupidity of her music.  For example, consider these other lines from 'Notorious K.I.M', the same Lil' Kim song that Dunham partially quoted in the post below (you might want to have a bucket handy, in case you feel the urge to throw up) —
...
Everybody wanna Shyne off of BIG
Get it, Shyne try-na sound like him when they rhyme
You ain't a murderer
Nigga please come off that
I'm next up to bat motherfuckers get their jaws tapped
Bum ass nigga don't even know how to bust a gun ass nigga
You dumb ass nigga
Rappers acting out the late Frank White's path
Once they get in jail they get fucked in the ass
Never snitch, never send a nigga to jail
I'd rather find him by a boat doing the deadman's float
We gangsters, Real gangsters b
Gun in the greenroom up at BET
We gangsters, Real gangsters nigga
Kill you and cut the head off your babysitter
We gangsters, We gangsters bitch
Even more dangerous now we're filthy rich
...
I know that there are women who deserve respect (so I'm not a misogynist), but it is only because I have met numerous women who are nothing like Lena Dunham or Lil' Kim — if one only encountered women who behaved like Lena Dunham and Lil' Kim, why should one think women were worthy of repsect?

It would be nice to believe that Dunham is not fairly representative of today's electorate, but the long careers of many corrupt politicians — both Republican and Democrat (Hillary among them) — dramatically contradicts that belief.


https://instagram.com/p/3RPMyJC1H1/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lena-dunham-takes-misogynistic-hillary-clinton-haters-risque/story?id=31402484
http://national.suntimes.com/national-celebrity/7/72/1202842/hillary-clinton-lena-dunham-fights-misogynistic-bs

Lena Dunham supposedly fighting back, posts photo of partially nude woman.


Sunday, May 24, 2015

The 'Trust Fund' Tolls For Thee

Here's a description of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds on the Social Security website, in the 'SUMMARY OF THE 2014 ANNUAL REPORTS'  from the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees.  Pay special attention to the second paragraph, and recall that any investment in U.S. Government securities puts money in the U.S. Government's general fund to be spent — that is, both the principle and interest payments for U.S. Government securities (whether marketable or not), are made from the earnings of U.S. taxpayers --

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2014/index.html

...
What Are the Trust Funds?  Congress established trust funds managed by the Secretary of the Treasury to account for Social Security and Medicare income and disbursements.  The Treasury credits Social Security and Medicare taxes, premiums, and other income to the funds.  There are four separate trust funds.  For Social Security, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund pays retirement and survivors benefits and the DI Trust Fund pays disability benefits.  (OASDI is the designation for the two trust funds when they are considered on a theoretical combined basis.)  For Medicare, the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund pays for inpatient hospital and related care.  The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund comprises two separate accounts: Part B, which pays for physician and outpatient services, and Part D, which covers the prescription drug benefit.  In 2013, 47.0 million people received OASI benefits, 11.0 million received DI benefits, and 52.3 million were covered under Medicare.

The only disbursements permitted from the funds are benefit payments and administrative costs.  Federal law requires that all excess funds be invested in interest-bearing securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.  The Department of the Treasury currently invests all program revenues in special non-marketable securities of the U.S. Government which earn a market rate of interest.  The balances in the trust funds, which represent the accumulated value, including interest, of all prior program annual surpluses and deficits, provide automatic authority to pay benefits.
...


Now notice these paragraphs from the same page, and especially the statement that deficits in these programs contribute to U.S. Federal budget deficits, and that the redemption of trust fund bonds provides no new net income to the Treasury --

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2014/index.html

...
What are the Budgetary Implications of Rising Social Security and Medicare Costs?  Concern about the long-range financial outlook for Medicare and Social Security often focuses on the depletion dates for the HI and OASDI trust funds—the times when the projected trust fund balances under current law will be insufficient to pay the full amounts of scheduled benefits.  A more immediate issue is the effect the programs have on the unified Federal budget prior to depletion of the trust funds.

Chart D shows the excess of scheduled costs over dedicated tax and premium income for the OASDI, HI, and SMI trust funds expressed as percentages of GDP.  Each of these trust funds’ operations will contribute increasing amounts to Federal unified budget deficits in future years.  General revenues pay for roughly 75 percent of all SMI costs.  Until 2030, interest earnings and asset redemptions, financed from general revenues, will cover the shortfall of HI tax and premium revenues relative to expenditures.  In addition, general revenues must cover similar payments as a result of growing OASDI deficits through 2033.

In 2014, the projected difference between Social Security’s expenditures and dedicated tax income is $80 billion.  For HI, the projected difference between expenditures and dedicated tax and premium income is $25 billion.  The projected general revenue demands of SMI are $248 billion.  Thus, the total General Fund requirements for Social Security and Medicare in 2014 are $352 billion, or 2.0 percent of GDP.  Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and transfers from the General Fund provide no new net income to the Treasury, which must finance these payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

Projected SMI/OASDI/HI General Revenue Funding, Percent of GDP
...


The last sentence in the quote above deserves to be repeated, since so many people wish to pretend that the Social Security and Medicare 'trust funds' hold assets that are helpful to taxpayers, rather than simply a claim on their wages —
Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and transfers from the General Fund provide no new net income to the Treasury, which must finance these payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.
This is probably the clearest statement that will ever come from the government that the bonds in the trust funds do not represent an asset to taxpayers.  As stated above, if the redemption of trust fund bonds is expected to generate any funds to be spent (as one would expect), the only way to finance that spending is through increased taxation or additional borrowing.

Without additional taxation or borrowing, the dollar amounts of the bonds in the trust funds cannot be spent — so the only way to prevent the trust fund bonds from triggering new taxation or borrowing is to throw them away (i.e. not redeem them).

In short, the trust fund bonds simply act as an accounting tool — a way to track the debt owed by U.S. taxpayers, that they must pay in order for future recipients of Social Security and Medicare to actually receive meaningful benefit payments.

If you are a U.S. taxpayer, the U.S. government trust funds do not make payments to you — you make payments to them.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

The World Owes Me A Living

Here's an article on Salon.com, from April 2015, entitled 'I secretly lived in my office for 500 days', in which the writer actually attempts to build a rationalization for having others pay his housing costs.  The author writes of living in his company office for 500 days, and describes it as 'a unique solution to overpriced housing woes'

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/30/i_secretly_lived_in_my_office_for_500_days/

I secretly lived in my office for 500 days
TERRY K.   THURSDAY, APR 30, 2015 04:00 PM PDT
...
Living at the office remains a unique solution to overpriced housing woes. But there are alternatives. Many working folks, balancing skyrocketing cost-of-living with grounded wages, are employing their own varying degrees of minimalism. From starving artists living in their vehicles to the middle class moving into tiny homes, from dumpster-dwelling college professors to Volkswagen “vanimal” Major League Baseball players, how Americans are defining “home” is changing at all levels of the socioeconomic scale.
...


Decades ago the attitude expressed by the author of the article quoted above would have been considered laughably ridiculous.  For example, here's an old Disney cartoon about a fable entitled 'The Grasshopper and the Ants', that provides a humorous warning against the kind of irresponsibility the author is advocating —

The moral of that fable is pretty obvious — except, perhaps, to those who desperately want to pretend that it is somehow moral for others to work to support them.

Someone must work to support you, and if you do not, you will either become another's dependent, or you will die.

But in certain circles today, such dishonesty and dependency is celebrated — as if the attitude that gives rise to it contains an important insight.

In that regard, consider this quote from the same article, where the author, who described living at the office as 'a solution to overpriced housing woes', ascribes an entitlement mentality to landowners

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/30/i_secretly_lived_in_my_office_for_500_days/

...
But something seemed off. Having spent over a year rent-free, I realized I valued how I spent my expenses differently. Dropping over a grand every month on a single budget item felt like it ought to result in overwhelming returns. Instead, the housing options were bland. Each had a laundry list of glaring flaws—aging units with no parking, thin walls with no outdoor space, poor walkability and a long commute. What’s more was the sense of entitlement on behalf of many landowners, like I was doing them a favor by handing over 40 percent of my income for a glorified doghouse. The transaction felt oddly imbalanced, a product of seriously misplaced supply and demand.
...


I have to assume the author's writing is bad here, and he intended to write: 'like they were doing me a favor when I handed over 40 percent of my income' — since that passage doesn't make sense otherwise, and certainly not in the context of an article that conveys the attitude that no one should have to pay rent.

This comment from the author: 'the sense of entitlement on behalf of many landowners', is especially revealing of his mentality, when you honestly consider what is at stake in a rental agreement.  And that comment is beyond parody when you consider it was written by someone who thinks they should be able to live in Southern California near the ocean, for almost nothing — now that's an entitlement mentality.

In general, renters take almost no risk in entering into a rental agreement (or lease) — they can fully inspect a rental property before moving in, and they sign a document that fully specifies the conditions they must abide by to rent the property.  If the property is in poor condition, or the terms of the rental agreement are undesirable, a prospective tenant can simply decline to rent a given property.  Even if it turns out that the landlord is not responsive after a renter moves into a rental, the tenant can simply not pay the last month's rent in order to spend a portion (if not all) of their deposit, before moving (by not having to pay for those days in a new rental).  The tenant does risk having an eviction on their credit report, as well as the loss of part of their deposit, if they end up in a dispute with a landlord — but that risk is trivial in comparison to what the landowner faces.  Bad tenants often don't pay the last month's rent as a matter of course — they simply secure a new rental before the current landlord can put an eviction on their record, so their ability to move isn't affected.

The landowner, on the other hand, is risking an asset that is potentially worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars by allowing a tenant to live in it.  It doesn't take much damage to generate multiple months of repair costs in most rentals — so even if a tenant who causes such repair expenses gives a normal notice, and the landlord keeps their deposit, the landlord won't be able to collect any additional amounts owed without the expense and trouble of taking the tenant to court (assuming the tenant doesn't pay those costs voluntarily).  In any case, it's the landowner who is taking a risk in renting to a particular tenant, so, yes, the landowner is doing the tenant a favor in renting to them.  If a tenant considers a potential rental property to be a 'glorified doghouse', as the author quoted above put it, then they need to consider taking on additional roommates to make the rental cost of a nicer property more affordable.  Short of that, their only other choice is to move to a more affordable location, where the rents are lower (of course, that will bring other offsetting disadvantages — which is why the rents will be lower).

In Southern California most real estate is expensive, and even more so for properties within a few miles of the ocean (where the author of the article quoted above was living) — this is generally one of the most desirable areas in the world.   To quote the author again: '... a product of seriously misplaced supply and demand'?   Is he kidding?   What should one expect in a densely populated, fully developed area (both economically and structurally), with strict zoning laws, and with an average daily high temperature that is rarely more than 5° from 68°?

That's what happens when large numbers of people compete for a scarce, highly desirable resource — the price goes up.

That is exactly what everyone should want to happen.  Why?  Because fluctuating prices are the reason free markets are so effective at allocating scarce resources — as prices rise for a given resource, it forces people to conserve that resource (like people taking roommates in the case of rental properties), because they can't afford to consume what they would have at a lower price, as well as the rising price encouraging people to produce more of that resource, in order to profit from the price increase.

It's a pity that the author quoted above won't write an article on the zoning and rent control laws that limit the supply of housing in Southern California, and by necessity drive up rents — but of course, it's more politically correct to pretend that someone who worked for years to acquire an expensive asset has an entitlement mentality because they won't act as if they are grateful to take a risk on a prospective tenant.

And it's a pity that today a silly old Disney cartoon contains much more wisdom than the typical article on a prominent media web site.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Pretending Employers Control Wages

Here's an article at Salon.com, from December 2013, entitled 'The “middle class” myth: Here’s why wages are really so low today', with the wildly promising subtitle: 'Want to understand the failures of the "free market" and the key to getting a decent wage? Here's the real story'
     http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/
     https://archive.is/sVvSu

Not surprisingly, especially for an article dealing with the wages of low paid workers, the article does nothing to explain what it purports to, instead offering the trite rationalization that the decline of union participation is the root of every worker's problems.

This paragraph quoted below gives the main premise of the article, and is the only real substance the article contains.  The bulk of the article gives examples of various union employees who earned higher wages than similar non-unionized workers, as if that alone proves this premise --

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/
https://archive.is/sVvSu

The “middle class” myth: Here’s why wages are really so low today
EDWARD MCCLELLAND   MONDAY, DEC 30, 2013 10:00 AM PST
...
The argument given against paying a living wage in fast-food restaurants is that workers are paid according to their skills, and if the teenager cleaning the grease trap wants more money, he should get an education. Like most conservative arguments, it makes sense logically, but has little connection to economic reality. Workers are not simply paid according to their skills, they’re paid according to what they can negotiate with their employers. And in an era when only 6 percent of private-sector workers belong to a union, and when going on strike is almost certain to result in losing your job, low-skill workers have no negotiating power whatsoever.
...


The fallacy here is obvious — this statement from the author: 'they're paid according to what they can negotiate with their employers', is simply an assumption by the author that employers face no competition for workers, and can pay them as little as they choose, regardless of the value of their labor, unless the workers join a union.

Of course, it's obvious that in conditions of high unemployment, when there are often many applicants for the same job, an employer can sometimes fill positions for a very low wage, since job applicants that are having difficulty finding a job will be willing to accept a lower wage (it's better than nothing).  But how will joining a union in this situation give a job applicant more negotiating power?  As long as there are a large number of unemployed workers, even employed union members will have little bargaining power with employers, since every worker is more easily replaced when unemployment is high.

When there are many more job seekers than jobs, the majority of employers are not attempting to hire at all, and for those employers that are, the only way for applicants to be competitive is to be willing to accept a lower wage than other workers with the same skills.

Recall that in August 1981, former President Ronald Reagan refused to negotiate with the striking 'Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO)', citing the oath those employees took not to strike.  Over 11,000 air traffic controllers refused to return to their jobs and were replaced.  Here's Reagan reading a statement to the press on August 4, 1981, giving air traffic controllers 48 hours to return to their jobs —
     http://www.history.com/speeches/reagan-fires-striking-air-traffic-controllers

How one views Reagan's action isn't relevant here — the point is that being a member of the union did nothing to give the air traffic controllers more bargaining power.  They were replaceable because there were a large number of people who were willing and able to do their job without the pay increase the union was demanding.

And by definition, in periods of low unemployment there will be few (if any) applicants for a particular job, so in this situation the only choice employers have, if they wish to attract applicants, is to offer an above market wage.

But as much as people want to pretend that low-skilled workers can have high paying jobs — if they can just force an employer to pay them enough — there is no escaping the obvious fact that no one is willing to pay a lot for something that anyone can do.  And this is the root of this absurdity that labor unions can make low-skilled workers well off by increasing their negotiating power, rather than by increasing the value of their work to those who are willing to purchase it.

Since low-skilled workers can't produce anything of great value (hence the term, low-skill), they are worth very little to anyone looking to purchase their services — if such workers attempt to charge a high wage, while knowing that there are many others who can provide the same service, and possibly for less, such workers risk unemployment.  But ultimately, it is the prices that customers are willing to pay for a particular good or service that determines wages, rather than the greed or generosity of employers.

A labor union may be able to achieve above market wage rates for its members for some period of time (even years), but ultimately the end result is that the affected industries become less competitive, increasing the incentives to customers to switch to alternative products, or to companies that are able to eliminate the inefficiencies of union labor.

In that regard, consider this ironic quote from the same article quoted above regarding the loss of jobs in an industry that was traditionally unionized --

http://http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/

...
The greatest victory of the anti-labor movement has not been in busting industries traditionally organized by unions. That’s unnecessary. Those jobs have disappeared as a result of automation and outsourcing to foreign countries. In the U.S., steel industry employment has declined from 521,000 in 1974 to 150,000 today.

“When I joined the company, it had 28,000 employees,” said George Ranney, a former executive at Inland Steel, an Indiana mill that was bought out by ArcelorMittal in 1998. “When I left, it had between 5,000 and 6,000. We were making the same amount of steel, 5 million tons a year, with higher quality and lower cost.”
...


It's strange that in an article praising the supposed benefits of labor unions, the author would acknowledge a productivity and quality increase that resulted from a massive elimination of union labor — and at the same time fail to acknowledge the role the union had in making the business less competitive, and the even more obvious point, that every business should be striving to eliminate such inefficiencies.

The author used the term 'anti-labor movement', as if there is some group of people that do nothing but attack labor, but in the most fundamental sense we are all anti-labor, because we are all trying to purchase the highest quality goods and services for the lowest possible price — and as demonstrated by ArcelorMittal, the steel company the author mentioned above, high quality at a low price isn't easily achieved with union labor.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Global Warming Zealots and Intellectual Dishonesty

One common criticism of the idea that CO2 emissions must be reduced is that plant growth is improved under higher levels of CO2, so rising levels of CO2 contribute to increased crop yields.  Commercial greenhouse growers know this is true, since they must purchase large quantities of CO2, when they can't produce the quantities required by their growing operations.  Consider the case of 'Houweling's Tomatoes', which at one time annually purchased 1,000 tonnes of liquid CO2 for their 20-hectare greenhouse facility in Delta, B.C.
Houweling Nurseries Ltd. (dba, Houweling Tomatoes) operates a 20-hectare greenhouse facility in Delta, B.C., producing both fresh tomatoes and propagated vegetable seedlings for other greenhouse vegetable growers. The heat and CO2 requirements are supplied by five natural gas fired boilers which have an estimated efficiency of approximately 84%. The estimated emissions produced by the current operation of the natural gas fired boilers is 23.7 tonnes annually.

The boilers operate throughout the day to produce heat which is stored in a 1.5 million gallon reserve tank and subsequently used as required in the greenhouse. Some amounts of the CO2-enriched exhaust is used to promote a healthy crop and vegetable production. An additional 1,000 tonnes of liquid CO2 is purchased for our seedling propagation department, as the CO2 generated from the current system is not acceptable for growing seedlings.   ...

This led Houweling's to install a system which produces 21,400 tons of CO2 annually (the equivalent of more than 4,000 cars), in order to save energy, and increase their crop production —

http://www.houwelings.com/files-2/energy-project.php
Houweling's greenhouse project with CO2 generation.



Here's a video describing Houweling's greenhouse operation in Camarillo, California, which uses the same GE cogeneration system



Here are quotes regarding Houweling's growing operation from an article at seeker.com, entitled 'Capturing CO2 With Tomates'.  The owner of 'Houweling's Tomatoes', Casey Houweling, states that adding CO2 is required to keep the plants growing — and notice how dramatic the per acre yield is when compared with traditional farming — the video linked to on the Houweling website states an increased production of up to 40% from the CO2 generation
  https://www.seeker.com/capturing-co2-with-tomatoes-1765929007.html
  http://archive.is/LdEhc
...
"In a greenhouse, if we don't add C02," Houweling said, "the plants will pull down the level so much they will stop growing."

Houweling says the addition of the co-generation plant makes his greenhouse facility almost 100 percent energy-efficient. He recycles 90 percent of his waste, captures rainwater for irrigation, and has deployed five acres of solar panels. The greenhouse-grown tomatoes also use less land than traditional row farming. That is a further energy savings, according to Scott Nolen, product line leader for General Electric.

"He can grow as much food on 150 acres as his neighbor in 5,500 acres," Nolen said.
...

But it isn't difficult to find websites and blogs with postings like these, which use only conjecture to dismiss the benefits of increased levels of CO2
     http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
     http://archive.is/EWZhO
     http://www.skepticalscience.com/carbon-fertilization-effect.html
     http://archive.is/WXSZ5
     http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/co_2-fertilization/
     http://archive.is/EksBe
     http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/06/04/the-co2-fertilization-effect-wont-deter-climate-change/
     http://archive.is/oUklu

For example, consider this quote from skepticalscience.com

https://archive.is/XPyIS
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
...
It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, 'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.
...


That almost sounds reasonable, but it is just a wild guess, and it is contradicted by real experiments in open environments.  Namely, the often cited Duke free-air CO2 enrichment site, which shows that increasing CO2 alone increases plant growth, despite plant dependence on other elements like nitrogen.

Notice this quote from a research paper regarding tree growth in the Duke free-air CO2 enrichment site

https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/np10.pdf   http://archive.is/xajj0
https://earth.stanford.edu/jacksonlab/publications
http://archive.is/SBedu
...
• Generally, elevated [CO2] caused sustained increases in plant biomass production and in standing C [carbon], but did not affect the partitioning of C among plant biomass pools.  Spatial variation in net primary productivity and its [CO2]-induced enhancement was controlled primarily by N [nitrogen] availability, with the difference between precipitation and potential evapotranspiration explaining most interannual variability. Consequently, [CO2]-induced net primary productivity enhancement ranged from 22 to 30% in different plots and years.
...


The point here is not that global warming is false, but the ridiculous way that zealots who advocate action to stop it defend their view.

The quote from skepticalscience.com above is the obvious expression of a preconceived agenda, in that it attempts to dismiss real world experience with sweeping generalizations which guess about the possible conditions everywhere in the earth's environment.  And the comment regarding an 'increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops', immediately brings to mind the crops grown in California's central valley, which require external water supplies to be produced — not to mention the massive amount of the earth's land mass that is currently too cold to farm.

Those whose hold truth above any other consideration do not talk or write in the manner of the article quoted above at skepticalscience.com — that is, they acknowledge it when their opinions cannot be demonstrated.

Many people reading this will quickly dismiss it as another example of so-called 'climate change denial' — which is in itself a comical politically correct denigration, in that no one has ever denied climate change.  But even if some have, the charge of 'climate change denial'  is simply an ad hominem fallacy that does nothing to demonstrate that anything being proposed by global warming zealots will actually change the earth's climate in a way that is beneficial to humans.

This truly is a comical aspect of the hysteria in certain circles over global warming.  Whether or not the earth's climate is in a long term warming trend is not the relevant question — the relevant question is: 'Can humans control the long term temperature trend of the entire planet, and can they improve the conditions of human soceities by doing so?'

Even if you can prove that global warming is occurring, and that humans are contributing to it, it still does nothing to address the question posed above.  The earth (as well as every other planet) is part of a large complex system, and most of what happens to it is on a scale that is far beyond the control of human societies.  This is the ultimate folly of the cries to action over global warming — even if you can prove a long term temperature trend is in place, it is impossible to prove that any action to alter that trend will do anything positive for any individual's life — which is the only thing that matters.

This reminds me of an old Soviet joke I read about in an article on reason.com
A schoolboy asks his father if Marxism-Leninism is a science, and his father answers:
“I reckon not, son.  When scientists do experiments, it’s always on animals, not humans.”
This is in essence what global warming zealots are arguing for — that all human societies should be theirs to experiment with.

If it seems too demanding to require actual proof of a benefit from the prescriptions of global warming zealots, I'd ask: 'Why would anyone ever expect less?'  That is, how is it that the entire population of the earth should be subject to the guesses and assumptions of some minority of people, when that minority cannot demonstrate that anything they are demanding will create a long term benefit?  Why should any group of people put that kind of extraordinary faith in others?  There's no reasonable way to defend such a view, even if global warming is true.

Everyone knows that the earth's temperature changes over time, and that the earth's climate may be in a long term warming trend — but how many are willing to reorder human societies using government force, based on the conjecture of a group of morally presumptuous individuals, who want their guesses to trump actual experience?

It is not the criticisms of the claims of global warming zealots that should make one suspicious of those claims — it is the intellectually dishonest way that many global warming zealots defend their claims.

Global warming zealots give the impression that they actually enjoy the so-called 'deniers', because it is the 'deniers' that feed the zealot's pretentious facade of moral superiority.  And even worse, global warming zealots give the impression that they enjoy having some issue they can use to argue that they should be able to control people's lives.

But the zealots rarely give the impression that they are actually concerned about the wellbeing of human societies.