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/2011/01/31/afl-cio-president-government-should-never-improve-business-regulation-balance/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=afl-cio-president-government-should-never-improve-business-regulation-balance http://detailedabstractions.com/2011/01/31/afl-cio-president-government-should-never-improve-business-regulation-balance/#comments Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:30:57 +0000 Michael S. Langston http://detailedabstractions.com/?p=1970 In a stunning example of truthfulness, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka gives the perfect reasoning to why government is inherently inefficient.  While discussing the President’s recent pledge to review business regulations for balance (here), Mr. Trumpka said (here via The Hill):

…the White House’s planned government-wide review of regulations could end up being a “distraction” for agencies already dealing with scarce resources.

“To the extent that analysis draws them away from enforcing the regulations and protecting the health and safety of workers, we think it’s a distraction,” Trumka said. “We think we would have rather not seen it.”

And there you have it – since the incentives to pass and sustain business regulations for the AFL-CIO are political and not about the workers, business regulation becomes and end in itself; with the means already justified.

Short sighted of course, as getting rid of regulations which work to stall economic growth (regardless of  the regulations’ initial intentions) would help more people get hired.

Additionally, the reduction in the number of regulations could in fact realign the scarce resources dealing with these issues towards the most important regulations instead of being bogged down with the more political regulations.

But when the incentives are more about political power than worker protection, this is the end result.  Just as Mr. Tumpka stated,   even working towards improving the balance between economic growth and worker protections, is by itself, by definition, wrong.

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.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Taking another step toward mending his relationship with the business community, President Barack Obama will order a review of federal regulations with an eye toward getting rid of those that stifle job creation and hurt economic growth.

Upon hearing this news, I was immediately reminded of the Simpsons’ episode.  The episode is about NASA, who having problems with funding, decides to put an average man in space for marketing purposes.  The press conference (here):

Scientist: Ladies and gentlemen and members of the press.  I’d like to
           present the new generation of NASA astronauts: the average
           American.
            [Curtain rises to show Homer wearing a "Hail to the Chef"
           apron and Barney dressed as a golfer]
Reporter: Jim Wallace, Associated Press.  [clears throat] Is this a
           joke?
Scientist: [cheery] Far from it, Jim.  One of these men will prove space
           travel is within the reach of the common man.
Reporter: Toby Hunter, Minneapolis Star.  No really, is this a joke?
Scientist: No, Toby, and no more questions about whether this is a joke.
            [Everyone lowers their hand, dejected]

Please don’t misunderstand – I’m hoping, like a lot of people, that the President is serious about this.  However, almost every single action taken by this administration shows an absolute love of controlling by regulations, even when no obvious reason for doing so exists.

This is after all the same President who gave us an executive order which prevented anyone from drilling for oil offshore due to one oil spill on a platform owned by BP (DA post here). 

This was all prior to the government report released late last year, which held BP accountable, but even after blaming BP for the entirety of the incident, they announced a month later continued blanket regulations against an all of the industry.

Even the President’s own fact finding commission is wondering what many others questioned before – what is this continued ban is supposed to fix?  They plan to press the administration on the issue soon.

And that’s just regulations for a small part of the energy industry.  This is also the same administration who pushed for financial reform.  Financial reform which as pushed before they had anyone had any idea what took place.  The reform which included controls on market segments which are known to have little to no impact on the financial crisis like hedge funds, derivatives, executive compensation and more (here & here).  The reform which has now been passed, but will fail to do one of the most crucial elements of any reform claiming to prevent “too big too fail” – (here):

The Act does not deal with the mispricing of pervasive government guarantees throughout the financial sector. This will allow many financial firms to finance their activities at below-market rates and take on excessive risk.

Which is all outside of the elephant in the room, health care reform.   Which, as far as I’m aware, is the first attempt by any US administration to purposefully regulate an American citizen while they do absolutely nothing.

Which is also outside of them spending 1 trillion dollars to regulate economic activity towards job growth (fail), outside of trying to regulate buying habits of  car buyers and home buyers.  This is even without discussing government ownership GM.

So…. Mr. President, with all due respect, is this a joke?

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign….

 Now it’s obviously impossible to know whether Mr. Krugman was honestly surprised about the horrendous events of this past weekend or not, but it seems hard to believe that anyone who heard about the incident thought, “yep – saw that coming.”

But in the grand scheme, it really doesn’t matter whether he was truly surprised as that’s not his main point.  Before he gets there though, he has to set up the framework (article cont’d):

…And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again….

That’s some prescient vision he has there.  Without any proof, without any examples, without anything at all, he can “see” what was inevitable.  Not sure why he didn’t stop it or call for the possibility as loudly as possible.  It seems like the only moral actions when you “know” violent acts committed against innocent parties is inevitable. 

Additionally, this uncanny ability of his makes one wonder if the people from Miss Cleo’s office has contacted him yet to see if he’s looking for a career change?   Or maybe the CIA would like to test his capabilities?

But I digress, extra-sensory perceptions aside, Mr. Krugman continues framing the argument using a government report (article cont’d):

The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: In April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence….

Which would be interesting to note, if only it were true.  There was and is a DHS report detailing the potential for increased radicalization and recruitment due to a very unique climate, but the report itself begins with this easily comprehendible statement:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that doemstic righwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

The report continues as it details what it sees as specific climate variables for which rightwing extremist groups might exploit, but noted, in the 2nd paragraph the threats which concern Mr. Krugman so much, are “largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts“.

But Mr. Krugman sees, so a potential for increased recruitment and radicalization based upon societal factors and an increase in the potential for real harm are now the same.  I doubt that’s true for most objectively viewing the same data, but I don’t think most people think like Mr. Krugman.

Nonetheless, our vaunted author continues.  With an increase in threats (real) and vandalism (possibly real, no studies, no proof offered), Mr. Krugman’s vision sees the obvious results (article cont’d):

One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has….

Who was that guy again? 

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled.  But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate….

So even though Mr. Krugman believes the shooter is likely insane, the national climate is somehow involved.  Not only involved, but (article cont’d):

…something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.

His proof?  Increased levels of violence?  Increased crime rates?  Nope.  Crime rates only exist up to 2008 and show a consistent decline.  But he has something…. sort of (article cont’d):

Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent….

Notice the nice little conflation trick here, as Mr. Krugman uses an increase in threats to ALL members of congress as a sign on increased rightwing extremism. 

In the very article he mentions, Politco notes some of the threats with names of Congress members and as you’d expect, Republicans and well as Democrats were targets, but notes those are the very few examples they were able to access directly as most threats from 2010 are still being investigated. 

Therefore at this time, the 300% increase is an FBI number, but one without context.   They don’t note any pattern in who was threatened, patterns from whom the threats originated, total number of threats (300% increase of 8 isn’t a reason for alarm), nor any past patterns to determine whether this is an anomaly or a continuous trend regardless of office holders.

But when you’re Mr. Krugman, logic isn’t needed; so he continues (article cont’d):

And there’s not much question what has changed.

There’s not much question what has changed?  Really?  I know people tend to pine for the good old days as they mature and I know many people readily agree that society is coarser today than it was in yesteryear (whose time frame noticeably differs by the age of the one evaluating), but I have yet to see anything resembling objective proof.

Not only have I not seen any objective proof demonstrating things were indeed better in some period in the past, but I don’t know that an effective way of answering such a question is possible. 

The problem is that real analysis would require a selection of variables, defining the weight of each variable, then finally a review of all those variables and their changes over time.   It’s not hard to see how even selecting which variables to be used is fraught with subjectivity, but also defining the weight of each variable as well.

For example, let’s say you are evaluating whether 2010 is better or worse than 1950.  The problem is that even if we could all (read: vast majority) agree that politeness isn’t what it used to be in the golden laced, greener grassed place known as yesteryear, how do you weigh that against say, increased rights for women on the domestic front?

Should domestic rights for women be given the same weight in an evaluation of 1800 as 2010 since the culture was so vastly different.  It’s possible the lack of rights in 1800 versus the rights women enjoy today may not have been “missed” in the 1800s by the majority of women.  Does it even matter if they weren’t missed?

But I digress…. the point is still the same.  Assertions, but no provable ones are all we get so far.  As expected, Mr. Krugman continues with his only available recourse, conjecture. 

& when making things up, who better to use as evidence than the “investigating” Sheriff.   You recall; the guy who “feels” vitriol is bad and believes “millions agree” with him about the evils of talk radio, even though he admits they don’t vocally agree with him and he offers no real proof… that guy?

Yes.  Him…. so with reasons to the contrary, Mr. Krugman uses the Sheriff as a reliable expert (article cont’d):

As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.”

 Again  – an assertion which is not provable.  The issues?  Much the same with the prior question: define vitriol, explain how bad it is, and let me know how vitriol on tv in the 1950 when only 3 channels existed, none of which broadcasted a full 24 hours a day, relates in degree to vitriol on tv when there are well over 100 channels, as well as many other things to distract us such as Netflix, dvds, internet, etc, etc, etc…

This of course doesn’t stop Mr. Krugman, because when you seek only to confirm previously held beliefs, rational thought is a nuisance.  But we still don’t have his real point, so let’s continue. 

With only conjecture swirling around improvable assertions, Mr. Krugman and our logic impaired Sheriff still firmly believe that this situation is very, very bad.  And they know not only that, but also the main perpetrators. 

They know who is perpetrating evil on us right now through vitriol and hate filled rallies.  Through their exhaustive research and understanding of humans and logic, the purveyors of evil just happen to be the Sheriff’s & Mr. Krguman’s political opponents (article cont’d):

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: It’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right.

His proof?  Nothing, though not surprising at this point, as once again his assertions are not provable in any objective sense.

But he continues, ad nauseum, with all kinds of statements about how the left has caustic figures, but the right is the only party using the language of armed resistance.  He names names of those on the radio and TV, yet never actually attributes any direct quote to anyone named using any of this evil language (except one Republican politician, but fails to mention politicians on his side saying similar things).

& note here too that trying to objectively evaluate which side of the isle uses more pernicious language has the same set of problems as deciding whether yesteryear was better or worse than today.  It’s a completely subjective question, with completely subjective variables, each of which will be weighted in a completely subjective manner.  Not to mention the problems inherent when defining sides:  like whether a Democrat from Texas is a true liberal or a Republican from Vermont is a true conservative.

Not to mention any context within which to place such pernicious language.  Like, is it ok to use language of violence and revolution when trying to free the slaves?  Trying to fight for women’s suffrage?  How about when trying to fight against censorship?

But for Mr. Krugman, all these complexities and nuances are no challenge at all.  With his SuperMan like mental abilities, all logical concerns can be leaped in a single bound.  You see, he knows this is the truth because he can sense it.  & really, if you take Mr. Krugman at his word, his conjectures which he morphs into his assertions, this whole thing works out really well for him. 

Maybe he didn’t notice this at first, but amazingly enough, his narrative all fits perfectly for his side.  Must be comfortable position to know that the most malignant evil vitriol is over there, with those other people, all while your side might be overly caustic, sometimes, but certainly not evil.

As Dana Carvey playing the Church Lady used to sneeringly say, “How convenient….”

"How con-VEEN-ient!"

Gutcheck:  If you ever find yourself in a position where  you strongly believe that the people and groups with whom you disagree are doing everything wrong and your side is doing everything rights, you are probably too invested to objectively evaluate that situation and in all likelihood, wrong.