Strauss-Kahn,_Dominique_(official_portrait_2008)

So what did he say?  Well, as usual, his improvable opinion, has to wrapped up in provable facts; the “global imbalance” (whole thing here via International Business Times):

…while the recovery is underway, it is not the recovery we wanted. It is a recovery beset by tensions and strains—which could even sow the seeds of the next crisis.

True.  Not only true, but also the reason why Egypt can’t be obviously predicted, as even the protesters are fighting amongst themselves.

Why?

Because the protests were born out of economic conditions and not a desire for freedom or Sharia Law.  This is why you can see the same unrest in Yemen, Jordan, the Sudan, and other countries.

This isn’t to say that a small faction, even a weak faction in Egypt like the Muslim Brotherhood, could never end up in charge.  They could.  They could use the fractured protesters against themselves towards their own aims and possibly turn Egypt into an Islamic state much like Iran.

This is a real fear.  & combine this possibility with two major changes coming to the Middle East:

1.  Iran getting *nuclear weapons with little more than talk from the international community; demonstrating they believe they are in a comfortable position of strength.

*(in 2015 or  2012, whether you believe public reports from Israel or the UK respectively)

2.  *Possible withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, leaving Iran very strong militarily.  They will immediately become the largest and most capable military force than all others in the region (great article via Stratfor).

*(Iraq doesn’t wish to be controlled by Iran anymore than the US wants this to happen.  So it’s possible the Iraqi parliament votes to keep US troops in country for insurance.)

People are naturally worried.  Either one of these alone is reason enough to fear instable states might flow towards Iran’s ideology, but when combined with everything else, concern is warranted.

The media of course has done what they do best.  Put up a false dichotomy by breaking this into only two sides; Egypt is becoming either an Islamist State or a Free Paradise.  The facts on the ground don’t support any particular conclusion at this time, but it’s tougher to write about that.

Just remember when reading the press reports that just a few short years ago most of these people were telling all of us how great Iran would become after the Green Revolution…. but I digress.

Our IMF Chief continues, using the factual and obvious instability in many countries, by warning of global imbalances, specifically (speech cont’d):

Growth in economies with large external deficits, like the U.S., is still being driven by domestic demand. And growth in economies with large external surpluses, like China and Germany, is still being powered by exports. As the IMF warned in the years leading up to the crisis—and as the G-20 has emphasized—these global imbalances….

Which is another fact.  There are trade imbalances between many countries with respects to China and Germany.  But then his facts stop, even though his words do not.

He moves forward by acting as if the two countries are the same.  Both seen as part of this “problem” based upon one and only one factor, which he ultimately blames for the global recession.  Not just is it to blame for the current state of the global economy, but he also predicts this imbalance could (speech cont’d):

….put the sustainability of the recovery at risk.

His evidence for this is factual data that China’s recovery might be too overheated for long term sustained growth.  But by using the factor of trade imbalances as a primary filter, he erroneously conflates the two countries all while ignoring significant differences, such as freedom and rule of law.

Both of which we know and for which we can demonstrate, are the main sources of poverty, disease, and starvation in the world.

To name but one obvious example, it’s not that Zimbabwe’s citizens aren’t capable of producing the food and other products they need.  It’s the oppressive government system, with central control, built upon the premise of equality, actively prevents their own citizens from succeeding.

And the same goes with China, as the reason China will likely be stepping into economic troubles  very soon, even with their exports on the rise as other countries recover (including Germany), isn’t because of some Ghost of Magical Imbalance.  The true global imbalance is money; caused by governments like China propping up such economically and socially oppressive systems.

As their centrally controlled systems fail to provide stability and by design their corrupt government officials fail to provide security through consistent application of the rule of law,  even their own citizens don’t invest domestically (DA post here, source NBER here).

In a freer China, where the rule of law was followed, where property rights were secure, domestic investment would be an obvious.  With China currently however….

But all of this is seemingly ignored by the IMF Chief as he concludes all this evidence helps make his case.  This one-factor view of things allows him to not only ignore real differences, but also allows him to not have to argue his primary assertion.

Because if one wishes to argue about any imbalance, people listening would expect to hear reasons for the current imbalance, followed by reasons why that balance is wrong, and ending with some idea of what better balance would look like.

All relevant to his assertion, but all missing from his speech.  As the assertion is difficult to prove.

For example, contemplate deciding how to rate Germany’s exports of hand crafted automobiles against China’s exports of inexpensive tea – if both exports are roughly the same dollar value are they equal?  if not, why not?

Or contemplate the 1980′s US automobile & electronics markets which lost to Japan – should that imbalance have been fixed by force or through competition?

But then that’s the entire reason to use instability in the Middle East and North Africa, combined with some idea about the sameness of China’s & Germany’s economies, to give an unsustainable opinion.

Because it sounds good and it’s easy…. so long as you don’t actually contemplate the assertions made.

]]> http://detailedabstractions.com/2011/02/03/imf-chief-says-global-recession-caused-by-ghosts/feed/ 2 http://detailedabstractions.com/2011/01/27/infinite-monkey-theorems-3/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=infinite-monkey-theorems-3 http://detailedabstractions.com/2011/01/27/infinite-monkey-theorems-3/#comments Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:53:21 +0000 Michael S. Langston http://detailedabstractions.com/?p=2040

Infinite Monkey Theorems

Things worth reading…   

or at least pondering and forgetting quickly… 

So… how good is China’s new stealth fighter?  Not sure, but I’d start by asking this guy(here via MSNBC): 

HONOLULU — A former B-2 stealth bomber engineer was sentenced to 32 years in prison Monday for selling military secrets to China in the latest of several high-profile cases of Chinese espionage in the U.S.

US economics…

Businesses have not yet started hiring as UE claims are up.  Some of it is due to delays due to weather were people who would’ve claimed last week didn’t, but still not a good sign (here via BizTimes.com):

New applications for U.S. jobless benefits jumped by 51,000 to 454,000 last week, the U.S. Labor Department reported today, up from 403,000 during the previous week….

The four-week average of new claims, climbed 15,750 to 428,750, the highest level in two months, the Labor Department said. 

Additionally, the CBO reported this week, what all politicians have known for decades, but have consistently ignored…. social security is a looming and ever-growing problem (here via EpochTimes): 

In its Budget and Economic Outlook report for fiscal years 2011 to 2021, the CBO anticipates that the Social Security program will run a $45 billion deficit for 2011, and will be in the red for at least the next ten years. 

And…

According to the Associated Press, if present Social Security spending and funding levels are sustained and adjusted for the coming influx of Baby Boomers applying for and collecting Social Security checks, the program’s trust fund could be emptied by about 2037.

President Obama’s thoughts about this re: State of the union speech… no problems at all… full remarks here:

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years.  (Applause.)  Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected.

Not “affected’?  I guess that doesn’t discount it from affecting us…. but why worry about that when we can spend more money on things we don’t need (speech cont’d):

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow.  From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete.  There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act.

That’s some vision there; to ignore the looming crisis and instead deflect to a new boondoggle.  & not just a boondoggle, but it seems this is the answer to so many of life’s troubles… the environment, traffic congestion, sprawl…. yes, this magical elixir that is so incredibly great, that it can’t possibly survive without federal government to operate.

But wait… it will create jobs!  (speech cont’d):

There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation’s goods, services, and information. 

Of course if it’s a “jobs’ program” and not a new transportation program (look over here – shiny stuff)… well, let’s let Milton Friedman discuss jobs’ programs (here):

Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: ‘You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.’ To which Milton replied: ‘Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.’

Either way, here is a good response to the State of the Union from Cato.

Lastly, more great stuff from the Economist.  This time an Ideas Arena

As business leaders, politicians and journalists meet at the World Economic Forum’s annual summit in Davos to discuss the year ahead, The Economist will be inviting readers and guests to participate in a series of online debates questioning the future of global leadership. From now until February 18th, we’ll be examining the rapid emergence of a single global elite whose decisions, and opinions, affect us all.

In usual fashion of course, his framework is built on faulty assumptions, each which help his argument out a great deal, but all of which prove the fallacy of his thinking (full article here via NY Times):

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

Well, we can stop here, because the New Deal did not magically arrive at a philisohpical moral imperative which has been around for centuries.  Sorry Mr. Krugman, but morals are actually shared by most humans and this one is included regardless of your self-serving ability to not see it.

No, this novel concept didn’t begin in the 1930′s.  Most of us probably know or have heard the axiom, when much is given, much is expected.  Or this one, the idea that a rich person’s trip to Heaven is analogous to threading a camel through the eye of a needle (historically this meant using smaller entrances to walled cities, not actually a needle and thread).

But no matter, as for Mr. Krugman, the New Deal is the beginning of it all….. So where to go from here?  How about a false dichotomy (article cont’d):

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft…

Notice the word play here in these back to back statements.  He sets up the framework as side A against side B, and while he doesn’t actually state that side B believes the less fortunate should fend for themselves, the implication in the setup is that this is the case.

Moving to his point however, I will admit in Libertarian circles and I’m sure other political idealogies taxation equals theft is a strongly held belief.  Unlike Mr. Krugman however, I can see that this strongly held belief is a minority opinion and not representative of the “other side.”  Try as he might, acting as if the two are equal won’t make it so.  Only by painting the entire opposition with the outlying views of a small percentage can he offer such a false choice.

But I digress, the true dichotomy of the average citizen isn’t a belief in the welfare state as being more moral than the other side’s dog eat dog world.  It’s really a question of degree since we nominally agree you can measure a society based upon how they treat the least fortunate among them.

The difference isn’t moral, it’s in how we get there, with the real dichotomy being:

Both sides agree that they don’t want people to die from lack of nececessities in such a rich country.

One side believes through use of government, fewer freedoms, and higher taxes the less fortunate will be helped more so than through the other side’s plan: lower taxes and more freedom.  One side believes it’s better for local charties to take on these responsbilities, the other side thinks this is a naive view of the world.

But when you’re entire point is to prove to everyone how perfectly moral you are, then it’s helpful to use anything you can to call your opponents immoral.

& besides, without that setup, he couldn’t have painted his opponents as violent, all while claiming the mantle of civility (article cont’d):

That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty….

Too bad it’s all based upon a faulty assumption of the modern right, but put together, it sums up his world view quit nicely: His side is full of morality and civility, which includes utopian visions of free healthcare, the other side is against affluent people spending their wealth on anyone other than themselves and are pro-violent rhetoric.

If you ever find yourself in such an enviable position as Mr. Krugman’s, where you are absolutely sure that everything you’re doing is moral and everything the other side is doing is immoral, it’s probably time to check your premises; perferabbly outside of your echo chamber.

When you’re Mr. Krugman however, you simply write it down and argue it as fact.

This time up, it’s Representative Peter King of NY.  Not to be outdone by Paul Krugman’s idiocy, Mr. King is trying to parlay one lone gunmen into a brand new set of gun control laws (here):

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called for the gun-free zone in the immediate vicinity of federal officials…. he planned to introduce legislation next week incorporating his proposal….

It should seem obvious that this legislation has little chance of preventing or even acting as a deterrent to another such terrorist act, but not surprising the legislation is being pushed anyway.

As is usual with any legislation, it existed prior to the ‘crisis’ which was used as reasoning to pass it right now.  Truly the only way in which this is related to the Arizona shooting at all is in timing (article cont’d):

But many lawmakers have been concerned about the safety of themselves and their aides since Saturday’s shootings in Tucson and might be more open to King’s proposal than they would have been a week ago.

In a more perfect world, maybe we could point to this as the exception of a reasoned public debate, unfortunately this is just one of the idiotic ideas being pushed.

Their commonality?  Almost all arguments brought to the public so far ignore the very essence of a society: its culture.

Which is insulting to a degree; to think that given the wrong language or opportunity to carry a weapon near any sacred politicians, the average citizen might well use violence as a standard debate tactic.  However in America, and indeed most civilized societies, a basic thought is held by the vast majority of citizens is that the proper response to speech is speech.

For instance, we all know exactly what it means to say “sticks and stones” and as a society, we have a pretty firm belief that no matter what someone says to you, no matter how disgusting, no matter how insulting, violence is never an appropriate response to words.

To juxtapose, let’s look at the Islamists.

Their  religious and moral leaders constantly tell followers that violence is an appropriate solution to perceived or real slights.  They argue not just that violence is an answer, but specifically that it is a respectable solution even when it’s being used against those who are only using speech.

Remember the Mohammed cartoons?  That was 2005, but even in mid-2010 a Islamist religious leader was still pushing the idea of killing as a punishment against those exercising free speech (from Stratfor here):

In July 2010, AQAP released the first edition of its English-language magazine Inspire. One of the articles in that issue was written by the American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who wrote, “If you have the right to slander the Messenger of Allah, we have the right to defend him. If it is part of your freedom of speech to defame Muhammad it is part of our religion to fight you.” He added: “Assassinations, bombings, and acts of arson are all legitimate forms of revenge against a system that relishes the sacrilege of Islam in the name of freedom.”

Additionally, the Pakistani clerics’ warnings after the assassination of a regional governor killed due to his support for repealing blasphemy laws (here via Rueters):

“More than 500 scholars of the Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat have advised Muslims not to offer the funeral prayers of Governor Punjab Salman Taseer nor try to lead the prayers,” the group said in a statement.

“Also, there should be no expression of grief or sympathy on the death of the governor, as those who support blasphemy of the Prophet are themselves indulging in blasphemy.”

So whether you hear others calling all your opponents rhetoric vitriol as Mr. Krugman chose to do, or calling for irrelevant legislation like Mr. King, or like Mr. Boehner and many, many others, just calling for more civility based upon this incident, know each idea misses the basic point.

We are already adults and already know how to disagree without violence.

Other societies however, whose culture and moral leaders tell them that assassinations and suicide bombings are perfectly acceptable forms of retaliation in response to “religious slander” (note slander means speech)…. well then. Talk of being armed or getting your pitchforks could have an entirely different result.

Puzzling in that I’m not sure what the argument would be, when the blogosphere is the definition of an open forum.  So I read further to find out that Freddie began the argument:

There are many myths within the political blogosphere, but none is so deeply troubling or so highly treasured by mainstream political bloggers than this: that the political blogosphere contains within it the whole range of respectable political opinion, and that once an issue has been thoroughly debated therein, it has had a full and fair hearing.

Um… okay.  I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone assert this “myth” before, don’t know anyone who believes it, and certainly don’t know anyone advocating it strongly.

I have heard several arguments along the lines of, the increase in the blogosphere has increased the number of views overall, but nothing like “media reports, blogosphere decide”.  In fact, many of those arguing that the blogosphere has increased the number of voices don’t agree that this has been a good thing, nor that it’s in any way equal in presentation of all ideas.   Just that it can help and has increased the total number of ideas available.

But I digress… the more puzzling part is this:

The truth is that almost anything resembling an actual left wing has been systematically written out of the conversation within the political blogosphere, both intentionally and not, while those writing within it congratulate themselves for having answered all left-wing criticism.

Puzzling because the one thing the blogosphere is above all else: a free market.  Yes, it’s not completely free as costs do exist, but costs for bloggers have been decreasing dramatically over time and are close to being zero from a casual level.

Now to maintain a consistent blog of course takes time and additional money, but thanks to aggregating sites, search engines, social networking channels, and a number of other technologies, getting a blog post in front of 1000 people isn’t all that hard (getting 100 to read on the other hand….) and the costs for doing so can be minimized to only include the cost of the internet connection itself.  All these other products can be used for free.

Of course larger operations can afford advertising, preferential search engine listings, possibly advertising revenue to the point of having a staff, as well as other advantages, but in the marketplace of ideas – the NY Times’ or Freddie’s or my opinion on say, health care reform (assuming they are all different), all stand on equal ground.

True, the NY Times’ opinion on health care reform will likely be given an air of credibility, that potentially isn’t given to the standard blogger, but the basic message rises and falls on the ideas presented.  This truly is a marketplace of ideas, where the wisdom of crowds can show itself.

& I’ve made a point before of this meme about the increased number of views and whether the average person is really taking advantage (here):

In a world with the internet with all it’s free content, differing view points, ability to look at multiple sources instantly (thanks to search engines), and really, the ability for people to truly become informed, it appears that most of us, like Bill [Maher], only seek out people who agree with us and help us prove our own presumptions….

But none of this seems to be Freddie’s point.  His view as stated is:

That the blogosphere is a flagrantly anti-leftist space should be clear to anyone who has paid a remote amount of attention.

Which amounts to little more than a having temper tantrum, while repetitively screaming, “You’re not paying attention to me!  You’re not paying attention to me!”