Jonah Goldberg of NRO finds ABC News's claim that Rosie O'Donnell's and Elizabeth Hasselbeck's debate on Barbara Walters' "The View" "harkens back to a Vietnam-era exchange between liberal Gore Vidal and conservative William Buckley."
Larwyn has provided the following link to the New Editor which has clips of both the Vidal/Buckley debate (which I recall took place in the summer of 1967 when I was a camper at Camp Woodcliff in Sawkill, NY) and the O'Donnell/Hasselback debate.
There are two similarities. Both debates are based on mistaken assessments and characterizations about, respectively, the Vietnam and Iraqi Wars. For example, Vidal claims that North and South Vietnam were one country, a mistaken claim that Mark Moyar debunks in Triumph Forsaken. Second, you had some people like Buckley and Hasselbeck both favoring the respective wars and Vidal and O'Donnell both opposing them.
However, there are two big differences. First, neither Buckley nor Vidal are as good looking as Hasselbeck but both are better looking than O'Donnell. Second, Buckley and Vidal are extremely articulate and are the products of education and refinement. In contrast, Hasselbeck and O'Donnell lack these characteristics.
Part of the problem with today's public discourse is that the educational system has failed to prepare Americans to express themselves coherently. The mass media, especially television, have contributed to this inability. College courses no longer require good writing. Opinions count more than learning. Self-esteem and self-indulgence take priority over self-discipline and education.
The difference between the Hasselbeck/O'Donnell and Buckley/Vidal debates is that in the 1960s the public required its television commentators to be well educated. Today, the public commentators are circus clowns.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
Will TIAA-CREF Participants Put Their Money Where Their Rhetoric Is?
Charles Fishman quotes quite a few academics in his book The Wal-Mart Effect. Fishman argues that Wal-Mart should take various actions that would reduce its profit margins but improve its corporate social responsibility. Such actions might even potentially increase stock prices if the public responds positively to Wal-Mart's better public image. The academics whom Fishman quotes universally believe that Wal-Mart stockholders should live with lower returns in exchange for Wal-Mart's enhanced social responsiblity.
I have previously suggested that academics put their money where there mouths are:
"Why doesn't TIAA-CREF, the college retirement fund, take over Wal-Mart? It probably has the capitalization. Then Wal-Mart can be improved socially,and if the professors' stocks drop 30 percent, they will be glad because they saved the third world, right? I haven't heard any screams from MIT, the University of Missouri or other universities for such a strategy."
In order to pursue this proposal, I have just sent the following e-mail to the governing board of TIAA-CREF:
Dear CREF/TIAA Board:
As a TIAA/CREF participant I would like to put a resolution before the board that CREF should devote a 25 percent portion of its diversified stock portfolio to acquire shares in Wal-Mart in order that university and related professions may influence corporate policy and social responsiblity at Wal-Mart. Asking CREF participants to invest in Wal-Mart to improve the lot of 1.8 million Wal-Mart employees is a small sacrifice.
Would you please let me know how to make this proposal before your plenary meeting? Thank you,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
I have previously suggested that academics put their money where there mouths are:
"Why doesn't TIAA-CREF, the college retirement fund, take over Wal-Mart? It probably has the capitalization. Then Wal-Mart can be improved socially,and if the professors' stocks drop 30 percent, they will be glad because they saved the third world, right? I haven't heard any screams from MIT, the University of Missouri or other universities for such a strategy."
In order to pursue this proposal, I have just sent the following e-mail to the governing board of TIAA-CREF:
Dear CREF/TIAA Board:
As a TIAA/CREF participant I would like to put a resolution before the board that CREF should devote a 25 percent portion of its diversified stock portfolio to acquire shares in Wal-Mart in order that university and related professions may influence corporate policy and social responsiblity at Wal-Mart. Asking CREF participants to invest in Wal-Mart to improve the lot of 1.8 million Wal-Mart employees is a small sacrifice.
Would you please let me know how to make this proposal before your plenary meeting? Thank you,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Corporate versus Private Welfare: The Case of Inflation
Is it better to advocate welfare for corporations via loose Fed policy and inflationary interest rates, or is it better to advocate welfare for individuals who are otherwise in poverty? The concept of the marginal utility of money suggests that it makes more sense to advocate welfare for the poor than welfare for the rich. The poor value an incremental dollar more than the rich do, therefore society's welfare is increased to a greater degree by assisting the poor than by assisting the rich.
Given just these two points of view, (1) that government ought to act to support the wealthy, or (2) that government ought to act to support the poor, the latter view is preferable. As I have previously blogged, Fed policy tends to support the wealthy. This has been true historically, and it especially has been true today. As the Carlyle Group's chief investment officer William E. Conway has pointed out in a private internal memo:
>"As you all know (I hope), the fabulous profits that we have been able to generate for our limited partners are not solely a function of our investment genius, but have resulted in large part from a great market and the availability of enormous amounts of cheap debt. This cheap debt has been available for almost all maturities, most industries, infrastructure, real estate, and at all levels of the capital structure. Frankly, there is so much liquidity in the world financial system, that lenders (even “our” lenders) are making very risky credit decisions. This debt has enabled us to do transactions that were previously unimaginable (e.g., Hertz, Kinder Morgan, Nielsen, Freescale), and has resulted in (generally) higher exit multiples than entry multiples."
Mr. Conway is not alone in benefiting from cheap debt, which is due to Fed policy and amounts to a form of welfare. Rather, almost the entire board of directors of the American Enterprise Institute benefits from cheap debt. The AEI's board is entirely composed of executives of major corporations who benefit from cheap debt because they enjoy increased compensation from inflated stock values.
Doug French of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has an excellent blog today about Tulipmania in Holland in the 1630s. Much like today's stock market, hedge fund and real estate bubbles, applauded by AEI and Weekly Standard's Irwin Stelzer, French traces the history of the monetary inflation in Holland due to discoveries of silver and gold in the New World and Holland's policy of free coinage of money, which drew bullion from Japan, the New World and elsewhere in Europe. He shows that monetary inflation caused Tulipmania, one of the earliest speculative bubbles.
French points out that:
"Total balances more than doubled from less than four million florins in 1634 to just over eight million in 1640. More specifically from January 31st 1636 to January 31st 1637 — the height of the tulipmania — Bank of Amsterdam's deposits increased 42 percent...free coinage, the Bank of Amsterdam, and the heightened trade and commerce in Holland served to attract coin and bullion from throughout the world...In 1648, when the Peace of Westphalia acknowledged the independence of the Dutch republic, the latter stopped the "free" coinage of silver florins and only permitted it for gold ducats, which in Holland had no legal value. This legislation discouraged the imports of silver bullion, checked the rise of prices, and put an end to the tulip mania."
Unlike the Bank of Amsterdam, it is unlikely that the Fed will signficantly reduce its counterfeiting any time soon. The AEI need need not fear.
I opened with the wrong question: "Which is preferable, welfare for the rich, i.e., cheap debt, or welfare for the poor?" I would suggest neither. It is difficult to arrive at a political position in today's world, which is driven by two species of ideologues: Republicans who favor monetary expansion, low marginal taxes, crony capitalism and welfare for the rich; and Democrats who favor monetary expansion, crony capitalism higher marginal taxes, and welfare for the very, very rich in the name of the poor. I suppose the Republicans are somewhat better and somewhat more honest, but only barely so.
Given just these two points of view, (1) that government ought to act to support the wealthy, or (2) that government ought to act to support the poor, the latter view is preferable. As I have previously blogged, Fed policy tends to support the wealthy. This has been true historically, and it especially has been true today. As the Carlyle Group's chief investment officer William E. Conway has pointed out in a private internal memo:
>"As you all know (I hope), the fabulous profits that we have been able to generate for our limited partners are not solely a function of our investment genius, but have resulted in large part from a great market and the availability of enormous amounts of cheap debt. This cheap debt has been available for almost all maturities, most industries, infrastructure, real estate, and at all levels of the capital structure. Frankly, there is so much liquidity in the world financial system, that lenders (even “our” lenders) are making very risky credit decisions. This debt has enabled us to do transactions that were previously unimaginable (e.g., Hertz, Kinder Morgan, Nielsen, Freescale), and has resulted in (generally) higher exit multiples than entry multiples."
Mr. Conway is not alone in benefiting from cheap debt, which is due to Fed policy and amounts to a form of welfare. Rather, almost the entire board of directors of the American Enterprise Institute benefits from cheap debt. The AEI's board is entirely composed of executives of major corporations who benefit from cheap debt because they enjoy increased compensation from inflated stock values.
Doug French of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has an excellent blog today about Tulipmania in Holland in the 1630s. Much like today's stock market, hedge fund and real estate bubbles, applauded by AEI and Weekly Standard's Irwin Stelzer, French traces the history of the monetary inflation in Holland due to discoveries of silver and gold in the New World and Holland's policy of free coinage of money, which drew bullion from Japan, the New World and elsewhere in Europe. He shows that monetary inflation caused Tulipmania, one of the earliest speculative bubbles.
French points out that:
"Total balances more than doubled from less than four million florins in 1634 to just over eight million in 1640. More specifically from January 31st 1636 to January 31st 1637 — the height of the tulipmania — Bank of Amsterdam's deposits increased 42 percent...free coinage, the Bank of Amsterdam, and the heightened trade and commerce in Holland served to attract coin and bullion from throughout the world...In 1648, when the Peace of Westphalia acknowledged the independence of the Dutch republic, the latter stopped the "free" coinage of silver florins and only permitted it for gold ducats, which in Holland had no legal value. This legislation discouraged the imports of silver bullion, checked the rise of prices, and put an end to the tulip mania."
Unlike the Bank of Amsterdam, it is unlikely that the Fed will signficantly reduce its counterfeiting any time soon. The AEI need need not fear.
I opened with the wrong question: "Which is preferable, welfare for the rich, i.e., cheap debt, or welfare for the poor?" I would suggest neither. It is difficult to arrive at a political position in today's world, which is driven by two species of ideologues: Republicans who favor monetary expansion, low marginal taxes, crony capitalism and welfare for the rich; and Democrats who favor monetary expansion, crony capitalism higher marginal taxes, and welfare for the very, very rich in the name of the poor. I suppose the Republicans are somewhat better and somewhat more honest, but only barely so.
Adam Clayton Powell IV, Harlem's Hero in the NY Assembly
Jacob Gershman, in today's New York Sun, notes that while some New York Assembly members such as Joseph Lentol have sponsored over 100 legislative bills and others, such as Richard Brodsky, have sponsored over 200 in this session alone, Adam Clayton Powell, IV, has sponsored no, zero, bills in the past three years.
Mr. Powell's performance contrasts sharply with that of his grandfather, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (I assume grandfather not only because of the name but also because the photo attached to the article suggests that the acorn didn't fall far from the grandfatherly tree--I've never seen a grandson look more like a grandfather). Wikidpedia notes that Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., the first black Congressman from New York, was head of the powerful Education and Labor Committee and a supporter of JFK's "New Freedom" and LBJ's "Great Society" legislation. Wikipedia also notes:
"Powell Jr.'s committee passed a record number of bills for a single session. That record still remains unbroken. As one of the great modern legislators, Powell Jr. would steer some 50 bills through Congress."
In contrast to his grandfather's performance in Congress in passing the most bills, Powell, IV has apparently set a kind of record for the New York State Assembly in proposing the fewest bills.
Between Powell, Jr. and and Powell, IV I think I'd prefer Powell, IV. Bartleby.com attributes the quote "No man's life, liberty and property are safe while the legislature is in session" to New York Surrogate Judge Gideon J. Tucker in an 1866 decision. Others, such as Phil Maymin of Mayminforcongress.com , John Jerrett of Memorial University of Newfoundland,George Mason's Walter E. Williams, and Jefferson Review attribute the quote to Mark Twain. In any case, perhaps we owe a vote of thanks to Adam Clayton Powell, IV for reminding us that the government is best that governs least. Was it Socrates who said that?
Mr. Powell's performance contrasts sharply with that of his grandfather, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (I assume grandfather not only because of the name but also because the photo attached to the article suggests that the acorn didn't fall far from the grandfatherly tree--I've never seen a grandson look more like a grandfather). Wikidpedia notes that Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., the first black Congressman from New York, was head of the powerful Education and Labor Committee and a supporter of JFK's "New Freedom" and LBJ's "Great Society" legislation. Wikipedia also notes:
"Powell Jr.'s committee passed a record number of bills for a single session. That record still remains unbroken. As one of the great modern legislators, Powell Jr. would steer some 50 bills through Congress."
In contrast to his grandfather's performance in Congress in passing the most bills, Powell, IV has apparently set a kind of record for the New York State Assembly in proposing the fewest bills.
Between Powell, Jr. and and Powell, IV I think I'd prefer Powell, IV. Bartleby.com attributes the quote "No man's life, liberty and property are safe while the legislature is in session" to New York Surrogate Judge Gideon J. Tucker in an 1866 decision. Others, such as Phil Maymin of Mayminforcongress.com , John Jerrett of Memorial University of Newfoundland,George Mason's Walter E. Williams, and Jefferson Review attribute the quote to Mark Twain. In any case, perhaps we owe a vote of thanks to Adam Clayton Powell, IV for reminding us that the government is best that governs least. Was it Socrates who said that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
