Does public distrust of the media threaten democracy or does the media's failure to report and analyze the news in a balanced way fail the public and democracy? Larwyn just forwarded a post from Jammiewearingfool who comments on a New York Times editorial:
"Get a load of this pap:
"'It might seem a bit self-flagellating for the editorial board of the New York Times to bemoan the collapse of Americans’ trust in the press over the last 30 years. But it seems that the media’s fall from grace is undermining democracy.'
"Oh my. Now because people aren't getting their marching orders from this socialist rag, the bumpkins in flyover country may not vote the way the elitist snobs in Manhattan want them to."
As I mentioned in class the other day, it would be instructive to compare the New York Times's, Fortune's and Business Week's coverage of both Enron and Wal*mart during the years 1997 to 2000. Were the Times and the business press suspicious of the payment of an $80 million bonus to Rebecca Marks for building a $1 billion power plant in Dabhol, India that never opened? Or was Paul Krugman busily collecting $50,000 in fees each year from Enron and so managed to overlook this story? While virtually none of the media questioned the Dabhol plant or any of the other long litany of incompetent investments that Enron had made, and were telling the public that breaches of fiduciary duty meant that Enron was the most creative firm in America, how did the Times and Fortune describe Wal*Mart, which has consistently helped the poor by creating consumer surplus?
Rather than bemoan the public's mistrust, perhaps the New York Times should explain.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Bob Barr Is Gunnin' For John McCain
Newsmax just released this report:
Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr is seen as the Libertarian Party’s most likely presidential candidate — and he could wind up torpedoing John McCain’s White House hopes.
“Given the recent fundraising prowess of a kindred spirit — Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican nomination siphoned up $35 million, mostly off the Internet — libertarians are feeling their oats,” political analyst George F. Will writes in Newsweek.
“Come November, Barr conceivably could be to John McCain what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000 — ruinous.”
“Given the recent fundraising prowess of a kindred spirit — Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican nomination siphoned up $35 million, mostly off the Internet — libertarians are feeling their oats,” political analyst George F. Will writes in Newsweek.
“Come November, Barr conceivably could be to John McCain what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000 — ruinous.”
I am not a huge fan of Bab Barr on a personal level (he reminds me of a meaner Elmer Fudd) but I respect his candidacy on the Libertarian ticket should he decide to run. I am of two minds about it. On the one hand, if he increases the probability of a Democratic win in November 08, that will have been unfortunate (although understandable given the Republicans' big-government turn under the Bush administration). On the other hand, if he pushes John McCain a little bit further in the libertarian direction without deflecting McCain's win in November, God bless him.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Inflation News
According to Moneynews.com on April 15:
"Inflation at the wholesale level soared in March at nearly triple the rate that had been expected as the costs of energy and food both climbed rapidly.
"The Labor Department reported Tuesday that wholesale prices rose by 1.1 percent last month, the second largest increase in the past 33 years, exceeded only by a 2.6 percent rise last November. Analysts had been expecting a much more moderate 0.4 percent rise in wholesale prices for the month."
At the same time, Money News reports that there are fewer new millionaires because of the "economic slump". The classic tactic (that goes back to the late nineteenth century) of arguing for inflation, which increases profits and stock market values but hurts people on fixed incomes and the productive poor (i.e., inflation redistributes money from the working poor and pensioners to the wealthy) is to argue that inflation will reduce unemployment. Of course, pro-inflation progressives never mention that besides reducing unemployment inflation gets elderly people to eat cat food and the working poor to give up necessities.
Increasingly, the news media don't bother to lie or color the story as they have in the past. In the 1970s, if you can recall, the media and academia argued that oil prices caused inflation and in the 1960s they argued that unions caused inflation. Today, MoneyNews.com more or less says that millionaires are hurt because there's not enough inflation:
"The continuing global economic turmoil is taking its toll on the wealthy — as fewer new millionaires are being minted....
Is this the end of the American dream? Or just a bit of a nightmare? Probably the latter, economists are telling MoneyNews, as the problems in the stock market are limiting the growth of the portfolios of professionals and executives and entrepreneurs for now. "
Where is Jim Cramer now that we really need him? I want to break into the seven figures myself. We need more old people on cat food and evicted from their homes because they can't afford the property taxes; and we need more families depriving their children of milk so people like me can become millionaires. Absolutely.
"Inflation at the wholesale level soared in March at nearly triple the rate that had been expected as the costs of energy and food both climbed rapidly.
"The Labor Department reported Tuesday that wholesale prices rose by 1.1 percent last month, the second largest increase in the past 33 years, exceeded only by a 2.6 percent rise last November. Analysts had been expecting a much more moderate 0.4 percent rise in wholesale prices for the month."
At the same time, Money News reports that there are fewer new millionaires because of the "economic slump". The classic tactic (that goes back to the late nineteenth century) of arguing for inflation, which increases profits and stock market values but hurts people on fixed incomes and the productive poor (i.e., inflation redistributes money from the working poor and pensioners to the wealthy) is to argue that inflation will reduce unemployment. Of course, pro-inflation progressives never mention that besides reducing unemployment inflation gets elderly people to eat cat food and the working poor to give up necessities.
Increasingly, the news media don't bother to lie or color the story as they have in the past. In the 1970s, if you can recall, the media and academia argued that oil prices caused inflation and in the 1960s they argued that unions caused inflation. Today, MoneyNews.com more or less says that millionaires are hurt because there's not enough inflation:
"The continuing global economic turmoil is taking its toll on the wealthy — as fewer new millionaires are being minted....
Is this the end of the American dream? Or just a bit of a nightmare? Probably the latter, economists are telling MoneyNews, as the problems in the stock market are limiting the growth of the portfolios of professionals and executives and entrepreneurs for now. "
Where is Jim Cramer now that we really need him? I want to break into the seven figures myself. We need more old people on cat food and evicted from their homes because they can't afford the property taxes; and we need more families depriving their children of milk so people like me can become millionaires. Absolutely.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Chronicle of Higher Ed on Seidemann Case
I sent out a small press release concerning David Seidemann's victory in district court against the leadership of the Professional Staff Congress (PSC). Reporter David Glenn of the Chronicle of Higher Education called to thank me for the information and the story ran today (paid access). The article is accurate and even handed. David Glenn's reporting is excellent.
In addition to sending out the press release I had invited Barbara Bowen, Nancy Romer, Steve London, Stanley Aronowitz and several other members of PSC's administration office to comment on my last blog on the recent ruling, but none has responded.
The article points out that Dorothee Benz, a union employee, claims that
"the 'vast majority' of the disputed spending has been allocated to lobbying campaigns to encourage state and local governments to provide financial support to the university, not on political causes that have nothing to do with professors' wages or benefits."
However, this is misleading for two reasons. First, there have been considerable "soft money" activities by the union leadership involving Iraqi War protests, demonstrations and conferences. The leadership is paid salaries to participate in these activities. To be fair, agency dues payments should be reduced by the proportion that salaries for the union leadership's time spent on such political activites bears to the union's total budget. Second, lobbying typically involves political as well as wage and benefit concerns, as Professor Seidemann points out in the article.
An additional concern is that the union has used CUNY facilities to send e-mails and used CUNY facilities to conduct meetings of a political nature. Since CUNY is a section 501(c)(3) organization, the repeated use of CUNY facilities to further the Professional Staff Congress's political goals is inappropriate and likely a breach of the tax code's requirements for charitable and educational institutions (that is, that they not be used for political purposes).
The article quotes Christopher M. Callagy, a union attorney, as saying that the union's chief political efforts are in Albany. This is a lie. The union leadership has repeatedly notified faculty of Iraqi War protests, and used their time and union resources for such protests.
Moreover, the article points out that even Albany lobbying is not considered a collective bargaining expense:
"Mr. Seidemann pointed out in an interview on Wednesday. 'Lobbying for an increased budget for education—that is a political act,' Mr. Seidemann said. ['']There may be people who think education should be supported by property taxes or should be supported totally by tuition.' Mr. Seidemann said that...he distrusts the union's management and wants to give it as little financial support as possible. "
The article adds that Professor Seidemann is continuing with a further complaint. He is asking the judge to require that the union file its financial data online on a specific date. No more Enron-style financials for the Professional Staff Congress.
Professor Seidemann has performed an important social service, and he deserves an award. However, I would argue that his case does not go far enough. The case of Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association on which Judge Lois Bloom relies in the Seidemann case assumes that agency payers may be free riders because they receive union benefits but do not contribute to the costs of negotiation. But the PSC has won no benefits for its membership. Rather, because of the PSC's incompetent negotiation stance, silly demonstrations, and adverserial approach, the union has managed to diminish faculty wages and benefits. An equitable rendering of the Lehnert decision ought to be that where unions reduce wages, agency payers should be reimbursed for their losses because of the union's incompetence. Perhaps the next step ought to be to try this case under equity principles.
In addition to sending out the press release I had invited Barbara Bowen, Nancy Romer, Steve London, Stanley Aronowitz and several other members of PSC's administration office to comment on my last blog on the recent ruling, but none has responded.
The article points out that Dorothee Benz, a union employee, claims that
"the 'vast majority' of the disputed spending has been allocated to lobbying campaigns to encourage state and local governments to provide financial support to the university, not on political causes that have nothing to do with professors' wages or benefits."
However, this is misleading for two reasons. First, there have been considerable "soft money" activities by the union leadership involving Iraqi War protests, demonstrations and conferences. The leadership is paid salaries to participate in these activities. To be fair, agency dues payments should be reduced by the proportion that salaries for the union leadership's time spent on such political activites bears to the union's total budget. Second, lobbying typically involves political as well as wage and benefit concerns, as Professor Seidemann points out in the article.
An additional concern is that the union has used CUNY facilities to send e-mails and used CUNY facilities to conduct meetings of a political nature. Since CUNY is a section 501(c)(3) organization, the repeated use of CUNY facilities to further the Professional Staff Congress's political goals is inappropriate and likely a breach of the tax code's requirements for charitable and educational institutions (that is, that they not be used for political purposes).
The article quotes Christopher M. Callagy, a union attorney, as saying that the union's chief political efforts are in Albany. This is a lie. The union leadership has repeatedly notified faculty of Iraqi War protests, and used their time and union resources for such protests.
Moreover, the article points out that even Albany lobbying is not considered a collective bargaining expense:
"Mr. Seidemann pointed out in an interview on Wednesday. 'Lobbying for an increased budget for education—that is a political act,' Mr. Seidemann said. ['']There may be people who think education should be supported by property taxes or should be supported totally by tuition.' Mr. Seidemann said that...he distrusts the union's management and wants to give it as little financial support as possible. "
The article adds that Professor Seidemann is continuing with a further complaint. He is asking the judge to require that the union file its financial data online on a specific date. No more Enron-style financials for the Professional Staff Congress.
Professor Seidemann has performed an important social service, and he deserves an award. However, I would argue that his case does not go far enough. The case of Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association on which Judge Lois Bloom relies in the Seidemann case assumes that agency payers may be free riders because they receive union benefits but do not contribute to the costs of negotiation. But the PSC has won no benefits for its membership. Rather, because of the PSC's incompetent negotiation stance, silly demonstrations, and adverserial approach, the union has managed to diminish faculty wages and benefits. An equitable rendering of the Lehnert decision ought to be that where unions reduce wages, agency payers should be reimbursed for their losses because of the union's incompetence. Perhaps the next step ought to be to try this case under equity principles.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
