More thoughts on Wisconsin
Bookworm on Feb 19 2011 at 6:05 pm | Filed under: Unions
The average Wisconsin teacher has a better total compensation package than the average Wisconsin taxpayer. After the proposed legislation goes through, the average Wisconsin teacher will still have a better total compensation package than the average Wisconsin taxpayer. If this was 1789, events in Madison would be the equivalent of the French aristocrats taking to the streets, attired in satins, silks and jewels, and armed with pitchforks and pikes, to stridently demand even more from France’s starved and overworked peasantry.
Let’s get serious, though. The issue, of course, isn’t compensation. The average teacher who is taking to the street thinks it is, but the organizers, including Obama, the organizer-in-chief, know what the uproar is really about, and that is a Republican effort to diminish the power of public sector unions.
Currently, unions — all unions, whether public sector or private sector — get to speak to politicians on behalf of their membership, speech that is effected through contributions to politicians who are most likely to pass legislation favorable to union goals. When it comes to the private sector, I don’t have a problem with that. Corporations can and should be able to do that do. If legislation affects a group or entity, it should have a political voice. The same holds true with private sector unions.
When it comes to public sector unions, especially the teachers’ unions, things are different. With regard to teachers’ unions, the unions don’t limit their efforts to wages, benefits and working conditions. Instead, they are deeply involved with politicizing the classrooms to ensure that they raise generations of young people who understand the world through a Leftist filter. And with regard to all public sector unions, the union dues aren’t intended to affect legislation. Instead, they’re essentially being used to bribe the people who write the checks and pay the pensions.
One of the things Wisconsin Republicans want to do is decrease the amount of dues available to public sector unions, money that those unions have traditionally used to buy elections. They’re doing this by proposing a law stating that non-union members in the public sector are not required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. (I’m not sure whether this law would also apply to private sector unions but, for the reasons discussed below, it should.)
Currently, in a unionized business, employees are forced to pay union dues, whether or not they agree with union goals. The reasoning behind this, if I remember my Labor Law class correctly, is that it would be unfair for non-union employees to benefit from the wage and working concessions wrung out of the employer by union members who did pay dues.
How much better it would be to apply the marketplace to union membership. Assuming a perfect union, one that exists only to ensure decent wages and working conditions, if enough people belong to the union, yes, everyone benefits, including the “freeloaders.” In vaccination terms, the latter are getting the benefit of herd immunity.
What invariably happens when the going is good is that more and more people conclude that the status quo is good regardless of their active participation. Parents stop immunizing their children; and employees back off from the unions.
In the disease world, herd immunity vanishes and unvaccinated people fall ill. Seeing the consequences of their actions, people start immunizing again, and the diseases back off. In the union world, employers gain the upper hand, and workers realize that it was a mistake not to pay their dues. Employees start paying their dues again, the union’s power returns, and the balance of power between employer and employee swings back to the center.
Forcing union membership creates a situation in which the union leadership is beholden to nothing and nobody. No matter what the leadership does, no matter the bad deals it strikes or, in the case of the teachers’ unions, the horrid things it does to the classrooms, it keeps going and going and going. Union leadership is like a demented, perverse, evil Energizer Bunny. Our students are held hostage in the classroom, and we are held hostage in the legislature — in significant part because these state supported unions buy elections to ensure politicians who will maintain this twisted status quo.
I often say I hate unions. Thinking about it, though, what I hate is a political system that has given unions unlimited power, freeing them from marketplace constraints. They are the perfect illustration of Lord Acton’s dictum that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
Email This Post To A Friend
180 Responses to “More thoughts on Wisconsin”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bookworm: In vaccination terms, the latter are getting the benefit of herd immunity. What invariably happens when the going is good is that more and more people conclude that the status quo is good regardless of their active participation.
Seriously? You’re advocating periodic epidemics as a method of encouraging vaccination?
There is a logic to Zach’s posts that eludes me.
Unions have become what they set out to fight. They have abandoned the values they set out to defend in the first place and other than say….miner’s unions, I think it’s time for them to go. Government employees should never be allowed to form unions….ever. That’s why Reagan fired all the striking airline pilots.
And yes, Zach, an epidemic can be a cleansing agent. I know libs don’t like this but a herd needs to be culled on occasion to keep the breed strong. Hunters and farmers understand this. Too bad the liberals among us don’t get it. We should be able to cull the government herd and remove the incompetents, which includes crappy teachers.
Duchess of Austin: an epidemic can be a cleansing agent. I know libs don’t like this but a herd needs to be culled on occasion to keep the breed strong.
Wow. Does anyone want to respond?
Okay, I’ll respond. Yes, Zac, nature is red in tooth and claw. By definition it is an ugly struggle for life and death. That we, in the 20th century, were able to beat back these forces is unprecedented in history. That we, in America, changed to encompass a sense of duty to the greater society is also unprecedented. That we, in America, averted the overt foolishness of socialism (for awhile, it seems) by capitalism turned to democratic ends, i.e., building a society where everyone can enjoy goods and services formerly only affordable to the elite, was unique when we see the failures in Europe as each in turn have sought to follow our lead to save their foolish welfare states. That having surrendered free enterprise to government-guided enterprise (regulation explosion) we created a culture ripe for the explosion greedy government workers. That nature will sooner or later produce the measures to return to balance is not surprising.
BTW, I highly recommend “The Big Change: America Transforms Itself 1900-1950 by Frederick Lewis Allen. It is a chronicle of the social changes from 1900 to 1950 with emphasis on the development of the American sense of helping out others. A sense, that was then and is now, being exploited to pursue socialist ends by the Leftists. In the book, the author points out that most lefties still rail against JP Morgan type capitalism which no longer exists. In fact, in 1950 the person who wielded the power JP Morgan did in 1900 was John L. Lewis, President of the United Mine Workers and a founder of the CIO. Whom would you say has that power today, to control vast networks across many enterprises and in essence buy the government, the SEIU?, the NEA? It certainly isn’t the CEOs of those government-guided corporations who are severely hemmed in by government regulation at all levels of society and harshly extorted by a plethora of social and environmental NGOs.
The book is available free on the Internet Archive (archive.org) and via Amazon via evil capitalist price.
Zach you got plenty of copied lines. You respond. Get to work.
>>Wow. Does anyone want to respond? >>
Zach, do you believe that God created man in His image?
Or do you believe that humans came to be as a result of evolution?
suek, thanks a lot. Considering that Zach has never harbored an original opinion, you’ve now opened the door for yet another flurry of appeals-to-authority URLs. Thus will continue the duckspeak. Sheesh.
Book, just to expound upon a few of the points you’ve made: It is impossible to overestimate just how important public sector unions are to the democratic party. They provide a conduit for funneling an inexhaustible supply of tax payer funds to Democrat candidates and policies, and they deeply distort the political process in favor of the democrats. I really wonder whether the modern Democrat Party could long survive without this massive infusion of funds from public sector unions.
It is no surprise that the most money spent in 2010 federal elections came from a single public sector union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and that it was spent in support of Democrats. Nor is it any surprise to find public sector unions spending the most money in state and local elections. For example, in California, “the California Teachers Association spent $211,849,298 on lobbying and political spending to get its way in California in 2009. Along with the CTA, the Calif. State Council of Service Employees and 13 other organizations spent a total of one billion dollars on political lobbying of the State House at Sacramento.”
And lastly, it is no surprise to find the states with a history of democratic control and public sector unions over the past decades today have high tax rates, crushing deficits and massive looming unfunded pension liabilities. The economic basket cases of Illinois and California top the list, though New York, New Jersey and many others are not far behind.
Just to go over this corrupt process -. Ms. Jane Doe gets a job as a teacher in, say, Wisconsin. The local Wisconcinites are forced to pay taxes, and those taxes go to pay Doe’s salary and benefits and to put funds towards her retirement pension and healthcare benefits. Ms. Doe is automatically enrolled in the existing union, she is not given a choice. The government automatically deducts $750 to $1,000 of taxpayer funding annually from her pay and they send those tax dollars to Doe’s public employee union. Neither Ms. Doe nor the taxpayers have a say in that, nor in how the union uses that money. And in fact, the union then takes the money and uses it to stump to get their favored candidates elected – something that they have done with remarkable success.
That newly elected politician then sits across from the union at the negotiating table when it comes time for union and government to negotiate new contracts. Absent from the table are the taxpayers. The politicians are motivated to placate the unions in all of their demands. This becomes particularly insidious in regards to promises regarding pension and retirment benefits that won’t come due until long after the politician is gone from office.
That scenario has played out across the country thousands of times. It is why today public sector union employees are, as a group, thriving, in contrast to the average private sector worker. And it is why unfunded pension nightmares threaten the long term fiscal solvency of many of our states. The total of unfunded retirement liabilities now tops $1 trillion among all states. A very large portion of that comes from California, now estimated to be $500 billion.
On the flip side of this unholy alliance, public unions invariably advocate for more government spending and taxes, since that is where their interests lie. Unions in the private sector are limited in what they can ask for by the realities of the need for the business to profit or go bankrupt. Public sector unions face no such limitation on their demands. As we can see happening across the U.S., when states and localities are operating in the red, public sector unions simply agitate for higher taxes to be imposed on the populace. It does not matter what is good for the community, the county or the state – only what is good for the unions.
Thus do you have democrats today doing all they can to thwart democracy in Wisconsin and every other state where public sector unions are potentially under threat from the newly elected State legislators. What is going on in Wisconsin is the first battle in what is a much larger, existential war for the soul of our country. Such are the stakes that we are faced with the irony this week of the Obama administration applauding the breakout of democracy in the Middle East, yet at the same time fighting tooth and nail to undermine democracy in Wisconsin. What it boils down to is this – who owns our government? Is it the voters in their exercise of democracy, or is it the unions as part of a permanent Democrat entitlement?
JKB: nature is red in tooth and claw. By definition it is an ugly struggle for life and death.
Cooperation and nurturing are among the most powerful evolutionary adaptations. One reason we are rather fond of the human species is their sometime compassion towards one another.
JKB: when we see the failures in Europe as each in turn have sought to follow our lead to save their foolish welfare states.
Like the U.S., European countries are mixed economies. Some of the most competitive markets are in Europe. Europe is a highly developed, technological and wealthy society.
You didn’t really address the question about epidemics as a cleansing agent for culling the human herd. Let’s take the tact that it was meant metaphorically.
Danny Lemieux: There is a logic to Zach{riel}’s posts that eludes me.
It’s not our parallelism.
You don’t leave it up to the individual to decide whether the risk of plague is sufficient to justify taking action. Vaccination for contagious diseases are encouraged based on science, not left to individual responses to uninformed and necessarily provincial assessment of risk. Rational people understand that you get vaccinated even when there is no immediate threat, as a mutual benefit to society. Vaccination is often mandatory, especially for dangerous childhood diseases or when traveling.
To refer back to the parallel with voluntary unionization, we may as well let each individual decide if they want to participate in the laws and taxes of a nation. If they don’t, they sacrifice the benefit of voting, but don’t have to pay taxes or obey the laws. If society breaks down, people will band together for their common protection. Sort of like the European Dark Ages.
Bookworm touches on how game theory affects these decisions, but then runs off the rails. We don’t let market forces, i.e. individual perception about the spread of disease, decide about levels of vaccination. We encourage or mandate vaccination as appropriate. We don’t let people enjoy the benefits of security, roads and open markets without also contributing to the cost of its provision. Similarly, with unions, if you let people ride for free, then unionization simply won’t work. If you are against unionization, then say so, but don’t pretend that the current proposal in Wisconsin is anything other than an attempt to undermine unionization.
suek: Or do you believe that humans came to be as a result of evolution?
There is no reasonable scientific doubt that humans evolved from more primitive organisms.
So you believe that Darwin’s Theory expresses reality, even if it is, at least at the moment, unprovable?
suek: So you believe that Darwin’s Theory expresses reality, even if it is, at least at the moment, unprovable?
Science doesn’t deal in ‘proof’, but evidence. The evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution. But this will lead off-topic.
And simply stated, what _is_ the Theory of Evolution?
suek, this is off-topic. We may want to move this to the appropriate blog or forum.
suek: And simply stated, what _is_ the Theory of Evolution?
The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that encompasses a number of interrelated claims and observations, including Common Descent, the history of that descent, and the mechanisms of evolutionary change, such as fecundity, variation, selection, drift, speciation, etc.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
Zach, _simply_ stated, Darwin’s theory is “survival of the fittest”.
Would you agree?
suek: _simply_ stated, Darwin’s theory is “survival of the fittest”. Would you agree?
That’s an oversimplified statement of natural selection, not the Theory of Evolution.
Bookworm:
“How much better it would be to apply the marketplace to union membership. Assuming a perfect union, one that exists only to ensure decent wages and working conditions, if enough people belong to the union, yes, everyone benefits, including the “freeloaders.”
So membership would be voluntary? Horrors!
Actually, it sounded like a description of the National Rifle Association.
“The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that encompasses a number of interrelated claims and observations, including Common Descent, the history of that descent, and the mechanisms of evolutionary change, such as fecundity, variation, selection, drift, speciation, etc.”
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html
He quoted himself! ROFLMAO
>>He quoted himself! ROFLMAO>>
Not enough words in “survival of the fittest” to sound elite.
Here’s another version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
Of course, wikipedia’s article sounds like Zach’s, and I have no objection to that – “survival of the fittest” _is_ simplistic – but it’s also accurate.
My point, of course, is that if one believes in evolution as an ongoing and necessary process, one has to wonder why Progressives are so intent on frustrating it. Those who are the least fit to survive in our society are the ones most aided. Victims are simply those who are at the bottom of the pecking order. In nature, those victims are the ones who would die out – Progressives, on the other hand, promote victimism as if it were a most desirable attribute. In the end, what it comes down to is that Progressives _need_ the victims – they will be their slaves in their Utopia. The Progressives leaders will live in their private Dachas, with the victims serving them, and living in communal misery. But, of course, all equally miserable.
suek: Not enough words in “survival of the fittest” to sound elite.
It’s not precise enough to be more than a metaphor. For one thing, evolution doesn’t reward survival, but reproduction. Salmon maximize their chances of successful reproduction by dying, a strategy called semelparity.
suek: My point, of course, is that if one believes in evolution as an ongoing and necessary process, one has to wonder why Progressives are so intent on frustrating it. Those who are the least fit to survive in our society are the ones most aided.
That confuses the observation of evolution with morality. People will care for one another without regard to any long term evolutionary significance. However, we happen to know that, depending on the circumstances, caring can have an evolutionary benefit. For instance, mammals have a strong maternal instinct. Mothers care for and nuture their young. They don’t do it because it gives them an evolutioanary benefit, though it does. They do it because it gives them pleasure. They love their children without prompting.
suek: Progressives, on the other hand, promote victimism as if it were a most desirable attribute.
You mean noticing when people have been victims, rather than shrugging their shoulders. There are victims, such as children who are forced to work in factories. Societies that have addressed this issue, by making laws against child labor, and mandating universal childhood education, have been among the more successful societies.
Cooperative interaction can be modeled in game theory. The primary countervailing influences are cheating and freeloading. Humans have a number of adaptations against that, such as the ability to detect deception from facial clues, and a suspicion of strangers.
Ants are an interesting case of cooperative organisms. Female ants inherit one set of genes from their mother, one from their father. Male ants are produced from an unfertilized egg and only have half a complement of genes (haploid). Consequently, female workers share up to 75% (assuming monandry) of their genes. They have greater success by not reproducing (where their offspring would only have 50% of their genes), but by helping their sisters. The relationship between female ants is determined by the habits of the queen, in particular, how many mates she takes. In colonies where the queen has only one mate, females are more closely related, and tend to be more dominant going so far as to manipulate sex ratios.
suek: The Progressives leaders will live in their private Dachas, with the victims serving them, and living in communal misery.
That’s a bizarre exaggeration. There are many aspects of progressive policy that have been huge benefits to society, the end of child labor, safer working conditions, racial equality, a basic social safety net, food and drug safety, clear air and water. Indeed, many of the institutions people take for granted were considered progressive at one time.
“The Progressives leaders will live in their private Dachas, with the victims serving them, and living in communal misery.”
You mean like Detroit or New Orleans, where children don’t work in factories and there are food stamps galore, but a large percentage of people are dirt poor?
I’d like to take this opportunity to cite myself:
http://chuck.explains.and.defines.everything.com
There are many aspects of progressive policy that have been huge benefits to society, the end of child labor, safer working conditions, racial equality, a basic social safety net, food and drug safety, clear air and water. Indeed, many of the institutions people take for granted were considered progressive at one time.
It’s interesting that Zach claims that the Democrat party “changed” their KKK and racist origins, but wants to preserve historical Progressive successes as if they were accomplished by the same people calling themselves Progs.
So how come the Democrat party don’t have the baggage of the past, but the Progressives can attribute to themselves the actions of the past?
Ymarsakar: It’s interesting that Zach{riel} claims that the Democrat party “changed” their KKK and racist origins, …
The claim is well-substantiated. As a result of the Civil Rights Movement, the Democratic Party, as an institution, was fractured. Over time, white Southerners migrated to the Republican Party, while African American moved to the Democratic Party.
Ymarsakar: but wants to preserve historical Progressive successes as if they were accomplished by the same people calling themselves Prog{ressive}s.
Not at all. Some people who attach themselves to progressivism may seek only personal profit or aggrandizement, but not most. Nor do past successes guarantee that current progressive agendas are wise or appropriate. But to say things like “The Progressives leaders will live in their private Dachas, with the victims serving them, and living in communal misery” is a ridiculous overstatement.
Ymarsakar: So how come the Democrat party don’t have the baggage of the past, but the Progressives can attribute to themselves the actions of the past?
The Democratic Party repudiated its segregationist past. Progressivism is a political movement or attitude, not an institution, so it’s harder to generalize. Individual progressive institutions and people are responsible for their actions, though, such as their association with the eugenics movement.
Each generation has to remake itself. However, many of the same issues remain, universal health care, improving schools, help for the poor, environmental protection, and so on.
Bookworm had an interesting post suggesting that, while previous progressive efforts were laudable and often successful, each solution became a rigid institution that doesn’t address modern issues, and is defended based on the old battles lines. That’s a defensible view, but the thread degenerated into the usual self-refuting overgeneralizations.
I am the commander here. Only I can accuse other visitors to this blog of over-generalizing.
For proof of my authority, once again I am compelled to refer to:
http://only.chuck.is.allowed.to.explain.and.define.everything.com
Your authority is not accepted by the world wide web domain authentication.
The Progressives are communists by another name.
We know that the leaders of Russia spouted the communist (all people are equal) line, but when it came down to it, it was as Orwell said – some animals are more equal than others. The leaders lived in dachas and sometimes had more than one. The rest of the people lived 2 and 3 families to an apartment and there were waiting lists for years to get those.
Name us _ONE_ successful “Progressive” nation.
suek, I can name several!
Cuba, Greece, Venezuela, UK, Spain, Italy, Ireland. They are all progressive and thriving!
“Your authority is not accepted by the world wide web domain authentication.”
Ooops, wrong link. Try this:
http://opposition.to.me.is.handwaving.you.dolt.com
suek: The Progressives are communists by another name.
No. Progressivism is the political position of favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. Communism is the Marxist ideal where state and class distinctions have withered away, or a country nominally based on this ideal, but which is actually a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls the economy.
suek: Name us _ONE_ successful “Progressive” nation.
We already did. In the United States, progressives worked to end child labor, enact laws for safer working conditions, racial equality, universal suffrage, a basic social safety net, food and drug safety, clear air and water. Indeed, many of the institutions people take for granted were considered progressive at one time.
Charles Martel: … UK, Spain, Italy, Ireland …
Those countries all have highly developed economies and advanced technological infrastructures, with GDP per capita comparable to Japan or Israel, though not quite as high as Norway or the United States.
Are you saying the US is already a Progressive nation?
If so, why are Progressives still politically active?
What is their ultimate goal?
No. Progressivism is the political position of favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action.
By that definition, the Founding Fathers, Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Mussolini and Lenin were all Progressives who favored change through government action. Who knew?
I suspect that Zach is like many Lefties I know: you are “Progressive” if I agree with you. All others have cooties.
Our irony-challenged child failed to note that my inclusion of the UK, Spain, Italy and Ireland was to point out that these so-called “progressive” countries are either at the brink of bankruptcy or dhimmitude.
suek: Are you saying the US is already a Progressive nation?
Again, progressivism is not an institution, but a political attitude. The U.S. has been strongly influenced by progressivism. We’ve already listed many of those progressive reforms adopted in the U.S., laws against child labor, food safety, worker safety, racial equality, universal suffrage, universal education, etc.
suek: If so, why are Progressives still politically active?
Progressives typically want a more egalitarian society, so most progressives support universal healthcare, gay rights, sexual equality, stronger enforcement of safety regulations, and so on.
Danny Lemieux: By that definition, the Founding Fathers, Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Mussolini and Lenin were all Progressives who favored change through government action.
Progressivism grew as an outgrowth of the inequities associated with industrialization, so is normally viewed as on the left, and in opposition to conservatism. Teddy Roosevelt can certainly be considered a progressive.
Charles Martel: Our irony-challenged child failed to note that my inclusion of the UK, Spain, Italy and Ireland was to point out that these so-called “progressive” countries are either at the brink of bankruptcy …
May as well include the U.S. in that number. Though each of these countries has short-term cash shortages, they are still highly developed and technologically advanced nations. They will have to make some painful choices, but having done that, there will be sufficient money available for restructuring.
Zach says, “Though each of these countries has short-term cash shortages”
Really, really unclear on the concept! The debt obligations incurred by these countries are unsustainable and, although the crisis was precipitated by bad banking policies underwritten by these governments, the unsustainable cash flows of these economies is anchored in the fundamental incompatibility of left wing governments making “progressive” entitlement promises to their subject that they couldn’t afford to keep. These problems aren’t “short term”, they are structural and headed for a crash-bang collision with reality.
They will have to make some painful choices, but having done that, there will be sufficient money available for restructuring. - Zachriel
I’m curious what you mean by that. As Danny pointed out, the structural obligations of entitlements is swamping the boat of “progressive” nations.
By restructuring, do you mean abandoning the concept of cradle to grave care paid for by government?
By restructuring, do you mean loosing the chokehold of regulation on industry as to promote growth and prosperity that can provide for the means to a secure future?
I’m not sure what you mean. And by the way, from what source will that money come?
I’m guessing you meant that as a throw-away line. Kind of like those that claim there’s no structural problem with social security. They say that and ignore the number of zeros behind that debt. I think they imagine a money tree where one goes to pick $1000 bills (or more likely $1,000,000 bills). Talk about magical thinking!
Danny Lemieux: These problems aren’t “short term”, they are structural and headed for a crash-bang collision with reality.
Each of the countries have somewhat different situations, but the recession is a large part of the current accounts problem. Another issue is being tied to the central currency, and not being able to independently devalue. However, they should be able to recover without default, and though there will be cutbacks in some services, the overall social safety net will remain.
Zach assures us, “However, they should be able to recover without default, and though there will be cutbacks in some services, the overall social safety net will remain. “
Like BrianE puts it, this is “magical thinking”. It’s right up there with “we shall create millions of jobs from green energy”.
They will use magic to create their Utopia where magical beings rule, Danny.
Millions of union jobs, yes. It comes with a qualifier.
Zach tries to control the narrative by re-defining terms. Thus if he needs an example of success, he just finds something like the US, ignore the failures of the Left, and then say LibProgs are making the US into a success. It’s a weird form of reality distortion, up par with crack delusions and hallucinations.
But we’ve already seen this trick and Orwell already documented it in a book.
Danny Lemieux: Like BrianE puts it, this is “magical thinking”.
Again, that’s not an argument.
The contrary view would be either financial collapse leading to abandonment of social programs, or preemptive abandonment of social programs. Is that your position? Trimming seems much more likely than abandonment.
BrianE: By restructuring, do you mean abandoning the concept of cradle to grave care paid for by government?
Cradle-to-grave is a catchphrase, not a social program. Each of those countries have robust markets, however, those markets have been in recession due to the financial meltdown centered in the U.S.
BrianE: By restructuring, do you mean loosing the chokehold of regulation on industry as to promote growth and prosperity that can provide for the means to a secure future?
Revamping regulatory structures is often a good idea during such periods. Banking certainly needs a reworking as it was central to the economic collapse. Other industries can probably do with less regulation.
BrianE: And by the way, from what source will that money come?
The Eurozone has a vested interest in preventing a collapse. Loan guarantees from stronger European partners, along with cutbacks in spending, should reassure investors.
BrianE: Kind of like those that claim there’s no structural problem with social security.
Social security can pay benefits until about 2036, then can pay about three-quarters of benefits in perpetuity.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2010/II_project.html
It’s the rest of the budget, especially Medicare, that is underfunded. The U.S. will either have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or both.
Another issue is being tied to the central currency, and not being able to independently devalue. – Zachriel
So we’re talking about PIIGS?
I’m curious what you think the effect of devaluing the currency of these nations would be, both to it’s citizens and the ability to borrow in the future (assuming, of course, that there were no Euro)?
What effect would that have on the ability to fund a safety net? Wouldn’t the increased costs of borrowing to fund this net pretty much create some mighty big holes in said net?
Social security can pay benefits until about 2036, then can pay about three-quarters of benefits in perpetuity. – Zachriel
Here’s the dirty little secret about Social Security. An article in Fortune by Allan Sloan.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/09/news/economy/social_security_value.fortune/index.htm
…”Today, let’s talk about one of the world’s biggest piles of funny money — the $2.54 trillion Social Security trust fund. The trust fund matters now, because Social Security revealed last week that it plans to tap it for $41 billion this year, and will begin tapping it on a regular basis in less than five years.
This year’s cash deficit, the first since the early 1980s and the biggest ever, means the Treasury will have to borrow money to redeem some of the trust fund’s Treasury securities. Even at a time when Uncle Sam is borrowing $1.5 trillion a year to keep his checks from bouncing, $41 billion is real money.
Here’s why the trust fund has no economic value. Let’s say I begin taking Social Security when I hit the full retirement age of 66 later this year. Because its tax revenues are below its expenses, Social Security would have to cash in about $3,400 of its trust fund Treasury securities each month to get the money to pay my wife and me. The Treasury, in turn, would have to borrow $3,400 from investors to get the money to pay Social Security. The bottom line is that the government has to borrow from investors to pay me, regardless of how big the trust fund is.
It’s not surprising that Social Security is now running a negative cash flow — I predicted a year ago it was likely to happen this year, and wrote in February that it had happened.
Democrats, for the most part, say everything’s fine because the trust fund has a fat balance. Republicans, who were happy to have Social Security taxes subsidize tax cuts for 25 years, have suddenly developed holier-than-thou fiscal rectitude. They’re both wrong — the Democrats financially, the Republicans morally.
Let me show you in two different ways how useless the trust fund is. The first is a quote from the introduction to the 2009 Social Security trustees report, the second is the graphic by my Fortune colleague Robert Dominguez that accompanies this article.
The 2009 quote, spotted by Allen Smith, economics professor emeritus at Eastern Illinois University, and author of The Big Lie: How Our Government Hoodwinked the Public, Emptied the S.S. Trust Fund, and caused The Great Economic Collapse, is telling.
It says that, “Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.”
In other words, the trust fund is of no economic value….”
Put another way, the trust fund contains nothing but a pile of IOU’s from the government. We’re broke. It’s broke. The sooner we come to grips with this, the sooner we can work our way out of it (assuming it’s not too late).
At this point, we’re just playing a shell game.
BrianE: I’m curious what you think the effect of devaluing the currency of these nations would be, both to it’s citizens and the ability to borrow in the future (assuming, of course, that there were no Euro)?
Devaluation can result in inflation and increases in interest rates, but within reason, that can be preferable to economic collapse. It results in a decrease in the effective income for everyone, which spreads the burden, increases costs of imports, but also cuts the costs of exports. Too rapid of devaluation can precipitate its own crisis, and it doesn’t resolve the underlying issue.
BrianE: What effect would that have on the ability to fund a safety net? Wouldn’t the increased costs of borrowing to fund this net pretty much create some mighty big holes in said net?
Safety nets, like other government spending should be paid for, not borrowed. A lot of the safety net is labor, so this will generally not be directly affected. That is, unless there is an exodus, such as is happening in Ireland, which can exasperate the problem. There are certainly negative consequences to devaluation.
As I understand it, the budget doesn’t include interest on the debt. I don’t see how that could be possible, so maybe I’m mistaken…
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/geithner-admits-spending-in-obamas-budget-is-unsustainable/
Zach correctly points out that,
“Safety nets, like other government spending should be paid for, not borrowed”, but then veers off the rails, with “A lot of the safety net is labor, so this will generally not be directly affected” before hinting that perhaps they begin to catch a glimmer of the big picture: “That is, unless there is an exodus, such as is happening in Ireland, which can exasperate the problem. There are certainly negative consequences to devaluation.”
One of the reasons that the Euros are in the fix they are in today is demographic collapse (which happens under socialism). There just aren’t enough workers to fund the retirees. The U.S. is better off demographically but our problems are still huge nonetheless.
“NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Interest payments on the national debt could total $5.5 trillion over the next decade, or about 79% of the new debt estimated to accrue between 2012 and 2021.
And that’s the optimistic scenario…”
“…Here’s what it means if interest costs range between $5.5 trillion and $7.5 trillion: Between 14 cents and 19 cents of every federal tax dollar collected over the next decade would be eaten up by interest.
That’s 14 cents to 19 cents of every tax dollar that will not be available to pay for government services and programs, or to aid Americans and states in the event of an economic downturn or natural disaster.
Looked at another way, the cost of interest payments in 2021 alone would trump what the government is expected to spend on defense, Medicare or all of the non-defense discretionary programs.
Consider, too, some of the debt-reduction proposals that have been put forth so far by those in Congress and by the White House, the Concord Coalition notes in its analysis of CBO’s estimates.
“The president has proposed $478 billion in discretionary spending cuts and the Republican Study Committee has proposed $2.5 trillion in savings, but neither proposal would come close to even paying the interest on the debt….”
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/02/news/economy/interest_national_debt/index.htm
OK, nothing to see here. Move along. Everything’s fine.
>>There just aren’t enough workers to fund the retirees.>>
And more than that – the “workers” are sucking off the system as well. The imported “workers” consider it a form of jizyeh and take as much as they can get.
We’re entering a period of moving from an industrial economy to a service economy – at least in the US. Just as Malthus evaluated the population problem based on an agricultural economy and was proven wrong because we moved into an industrial economy, I suspect that any predictions we make will be flawed because we can’t really _see_ the developments of the future.
Personally, I don’t see how you’re going to have a strong middle class – I see the future as having the intelligentsia and the gardeners (effectively). That would mean a step back to the conditions that sprung Lenin and Marx forth…and that’s not a good thing.
From one of my daily stops…
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=180855
suek: As I understand it, the budget doesn’t include interest on the debt. I don’t see how that could be possible, so maybe I’m mistaken…
It’s called the primary balance. Achieving primary balance is considered by economists an important step in balancing the overall budget, as economic growth should be able to keep rough parity with interest rates. A plan to reach primary balance was the stated goal of the Obama Administration from last year.
Danny Lemieux: One of the reasons that the Euros are in the fix they are in today is demographic collapse (which happens under socialism).
The Chinese haven’t seemed to have that problem. Developed nations tend to have lower birth rates. There’s other issues associated with aging populations, but that will even out over time.
suek: Personally, I don’t see how you’re going to have a strong middle class – I see the future as having the intelligentsia and the gardeners (effectively).
If you look at the Gini Index, the U.S. has become more and more unequal in terms of income and wealth over the last several decades. During the period known as the Affluent Society, it was around 0.4, while today it is pushing 0.5. Notice how income inequality preceded the Great Depression.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/USgini1913-present.jpg
suek, yours is an interesting, if grim, speculation. I think one thing that may be different is that the intelligentsia has so run the economy into the ground that it will soon be left with little to loot. Especially if what was once the middle class begins forming independent freeholds that refuse to recognize—or fund—the intelligentsia’s claims upon them.
This would echo what happened in the Middle Ages when the bourgeoisie began to throw off the governance of the church and feudal lords. The intelligentsia, which has become reactionary, also has become dumbed down. It’s the remnant middle class that has the smarts and innovative chops that could create an alternate social structure that bypasses any need for the academy or other self-appointed experts.
This would probably only occur in the United States and maybe Australia. Europeans, Latin Americans and Asians are so inured with the idea that they are subjects, not citizens, and that the state is the source of their security that I don’t think they will never rebel in any organized way that has as its object self-determination.
How would freeholds come to be formed and how would they protect themselves? I don’t know. I think the tools and the motivations are there, but how to overturn the intelligentsia without great bloodshed is the question. That might make for a great speculative thread.
suek: From one of my daily stops… http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=180855: “That the only thing keeping us from recognizing a full-on economic depression was government deficit spending? Spending that, at present levels, cannot possibly continue.”
Under countercyclical theory, a stimulus is used during downturns, and is temporary. During expansions, debt should be repaid and money set aside for the next rainy day.
behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good. And, behold, seven thin ears and blasted with the east wind sprung up after them. And the seven thin ears devoured the seven rank and full ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and, behold, it was a dream
>>During expansions, debt should be repaid and money set aside for the next rainy day.>>
Yup – makes perfect sense. Now. When has Congress _ever_ done this?
>>A plan to reach primary balance was the stated goal of the Obama Administration from last year. >>
And what percentage of GDP are the dollars needed to pay the interest? And, can we simply not pay the interest?
You know, I like that idea. I think I’ll try that with my home mortgage – just pay the principal. Think that’ll work?
I’ve seen loans like that…where you pay just the interest – oh wait…that’s just the opposite, isn’t it! I guess the banks really _want_ that interest. Do you suppose the Chinese will feel the same way about what they loan us???
It’s semantics. It’s a way to say you’re doing something you’re not. It’s a campaign slogan.
For those so inclined, here’s the explanation by the White House: A primer on Primary Balance.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/18/primer-primary-balance
suek, you’re having trouble understanding the importance of this since you actually have a business and work in the real world.
This is government speak.
I can imagine the campaign slogans already:
Obama is balanced – primary balanced - the only balance we need
Meanwhile, some projections have our national debt doubling to $28 trillion in the next 10 years.
Now that’s change you can believe in.
The Chinese haven’t seemed to have that problem. Developed nations tend to have lower birth rates. There’s other issues associated with aging populations, but that will even out over time.
There are a lot of problems the Chinese don’t “seem” to have. But then, most Chinese live a barely-above subsistence quality of life and there is no serious social support network that needs to be funded by younger workers. What saves China is that the average Chinese worker is still used to a bare-subsistence life style, but that too is changing. China’s rendezvous with destiny is fast approaching.
Danny, what’s also left out of the discussion are the impending twin disasters from China’s one-child policy. First, there’s a terrible demographic skew in favor of males over females, with a boy-to-girl ratio approaching 120-to-100 in some regions. Societies with that kind of imbalance pay the price in drastic unrest or the resort to war as a means of channeling male energy (with the bonus of getting a lot of those pesky youths killed).
Second, the policy of restricting births means that the median age of the Chinese is increasing. This means, as we’re seeing in Europe and the United States, that a smaller-than-might-have-been number of young people must labor to support a growing number of old people.
Also, good call on “seem.” The beauty of a totalitarian system is that you can manufacture lies and “What, me worries?” at the drop of a hat. Believing anything communists have to say is an exercise in stupidity
suek: Yup – makes perfect sense. Now. When has Congress _ever_ done this?
The Clinton Administration left the U.S. with ongoing budget surpluses.
suek: And what percentage of GDP are the dollars needed to pay the interest?
Depending on a number of variables, about 3%.
suek: And, can we simply not pay the interest?
Not without dire financial repercussions. Nor is anyone suggesting that the U.S. not pay the interesting on the debt.
suek: I think I’ll try that with my home mortgage – just pay the principal.
Think you missed the point. Reaching primary balance is just a step towards fiscal balance. BrianE explains it here:
BrianE (citing the White House): “The first thing that this family would need to do on the way to getting their finances in order is to stop charging new items onto their credit card.”
That’s right.
Zachriel,
You’ve got to admit that only liberal economists could come up with a concept of balancing your books with them actually, you know, like being in balance.
It sort of defies the definition of balance.
And sure enough, it was a liberal think tank that came up with this Orwellian idea.
“Where did the White House get the idea of “primary balance”? It wasn’t a widely-used term until late 2009, when the influential liberal think tank Center for American Progress published a budget plan touting the idea. “We proposed that the president and Congress adopt an intermediate goal somewhere between where we are now and full balance,” says Michael Linden, the Center’s associate director for tax and budget policy. “It was something that could be accomplished in a faster time frame.”
There’s nothing wrong with that; the distance between a $1.65 trillion deficit and a balanced budget is very great, so getting even halfway there would be real progress. But Republicans strongly objected to the use of the word “balance.”
“I believe any American that heard that would believe that this budget balances,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said when Lew appeared before the Senate. “It doesn’t come close to doing so.”
For his part, Linden concedes that “primary balance” is “not full balance and nobody should pretend that it is full balance.” But he argues the term is still useful. The point at which the government can pay for all the services and benefits it provides, and is running a deficit only for its interest payments, Linden says, is also the point at which the debt as a share of gross domestic product begins to stabilize.*
That, too, would be a big improvement over today. But on Capitol Hill, Lew took things a step further, claiming that would mean “we stop adding to the debt.” And President Obama himself, in his budget news conference Tuesday, said that by the middle of this decade, “We will not be adding more to the national debt.”
Just for the record: The government cannot run budget deficits of, say, $627 billion, or $844 billion, and not add to the national debt. Interest payments have to be made. Obama’s words were so egregiously wrong that the watchdog website PolitiFact quickly labeled them false. “We think the president’s statement is likely to mislead a lot of Americans about what his budget would do,” PolitiFact wrote.
The whole line of argument left Sessions amazed. “We add more under [the president’s] plan to the national debt every single year,” Sessions said Wednesday. “So how could this possibly be a position in which you will not be adding more to the debt? What world are we living in?”
The budget debate is just beginning, but the administration’s attempt to sell the idea of “primary balance,” plus the claim that in just a few years we’ll no longer be adding to the debt, left Republicans questioning the president’s good faith. Now, it will take a significant White House course correction to change GOP minds.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/02/obama-team-uses-slippery-words-tout-budget#ixzz1EurANepa
Mr President! Liar!
A drunken sailor with a three day pass has a better chance of being balanced than these idiots in Washington.
Will the American people ever get fed up with their lies?
Primary balance— Baloney.
Another one is baseline budgeting. When is an increase in spending a cut? When politicians speak.
Maybe we should make politicians pass a Truth in Speaking Act, like the Truth in Lending Act. Guido, the local loan shark on the corner, is more likely to tell the truth than these politicians.
About that Clinton “surplus”…
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
About the interest on the debt:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-14/geithner-quietly-tells-obama-debt-to-gnp-cost-poised-to-increase-to-record.html
I think we’re in trouble…..!!
>>Nor is anyone suggesting that the U.S. not pay the interesting on the debt.>>
Actually, if you’re proposing a budget that does not include the necessary dollars to pay the interest on the debt, then in fact, that’s what you’re doing.
What an interesting link, Suek. It has numbers, facts and insight.
Unfortunately, it is anathema because it does not fit the template. Oh well.
suek: About that Clinton “surplus”… http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Actual 2000 surplus: $236 billion, increasing surpluses each succeeding year, and total debt decreasing.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2727&type=0&sequence=2
suek: Actually, if you’re proposing a budget that does not include the necessary dollars to pay the interest on the debt, then in fact, that’s what you’re doing.
Fiscal Year 2012 Budget of the United States, pg 174.
suek: About the interest on the debt:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-14/geithner-quietly-tells-obama-debt-to-gnp-cost-poised-to-increase-to-record.html
Yes, rates are expected to increase over the next few years. Conservatively, on 10-year Treasury notes, from 3% to 5%. That’s assuming no major economic shocks. It would behoove the U.S. to make a serious effort at controlling the deficit, probably through cuts and some modest tax increaes.
suek: About that Clinton “surplus”…
Actual 2000 surplus: $236 billion, increasing surpluses each succeeding year, with total debt decreasing.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2727&type=0&sequence=2
suek: Actually, if you’re proposing a budget that does not include the necessary dollars to pay the interest on the debt, then in fact, that’s what you’re doing.
Fiscal Year 2012 Budget of the United States, pg 174.
suek: About the interest on the debt:
Yes, rates are expected to increase over the next few years. Conservatively, on 10-year Treasury notes, from 3% to 5%. That’s assuming no major economic shocks. It would behoove the U.S. to make a serious effort at controlling the deficit, probably through cuts and some modest tax increaes.
Click the CBO link for the data in the comment above.
I think you didn’t bother to look at the link I supplied.
suek: I think you didn’t bother to look at the link I supplied.
You quoted a software consultant who’s been echoing around the right-wing blogosphere for some time now. We cited CBO.
Your citation is confused. Deficits are *defined* on a cash basis. The deficit/surplus is the difference between revenues and outlays.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
Clinton ran surpluses and reduced the amount owed to entities outside the government. Your citation also seems confused by off-budget items that can change the final numbers somewhat over the course of the budget year. Leaving the country with ongoing surpluses was an important achievement that was squandered in the following years. You’re supposed to save for a rainy day. That’s the conservative position.
Seven fat cows. Seven skinny cows.
As the CBO explained recently, they can only work with the material given to them by the Congressional members that request a study. Garbage in, garbage out.
Zach, you all are doing a capital job of keeping the conversation on this blog highly stimulating.
I look forward to the day when you cast off the chains of leftwing orthodoxy and start thinking for yourselves. I’m not being snarky. I mean it.
I hope I won’t be too old to appreciate it.
Garbage in, garbage out. Also known as GIGO.
Speaking of, Jackie Gleason played a mute character in a 1962 movie, “Gigot.” Very touching movie. I think it involved a small girl who came to love him. I suppose I could go Google the damned thing, but I’d rather just sit here in the warm glow of nostalgia and think, “Gigot, Gigot, boy that Jackie Gleason sure had a going-on thing with that part!”
SUek, looking and comprehending, two different things.
One last try.
Zach, suppose you buy a new car. You anticipate that you will need a new car again in 5 years, so you begin saving for it immediately. You put $150 per month into a savings account. At the end of 3 years, you have a tidy sum, but life hands you lemons, and your credit cards are starting to mount up. You decide that you have to pay down your credit cards, and to do so, you start withdrawing money each month to pay your expenses plus reduce your credit card balances. At the end of another 2 years, you have reduced the balance on your credit cares to nearly 0. Now, however, it’s time to buy another car. You have taken most of the funds out of your Car Savings Account to pay for your credit card balances plus your living expenses. What will you do, now that you have to pay for another new car?
suek: You put $150 per month into a savings account. At the end of 3 years, you have a tidy sum, but life hands you lemons, and your credit cards are starting to mount up.
It means you haven’t really been saving $150 per month. You have merely shifted money from one account (credit card) to another (savings), then back again.
If you consider the depreciation on the car, you are losing money each month. If you consider “lemons” to be a one-time charge, you might be breaking even otherwise. However, life is full of lemons, so you are probably still going to end up in deficit. You have to increase income or decrease expenses, or both.
suek: What will you do, now that you have to pay for another new car?
Borrow, take transit or walk to reduce your expense.
>>If you consider the depreciation on the car…>>
That’s what “one” is doing by anticipating the time period in which you will need a new vehicle. Depreciation is something done to give a proper valuation to an asset in a business, or to create an expense when figuring costs of a business for tax purposes.
>>You have merely shifted money from one account (credit card) to another (savings), then back again.>>
Bingo.
Now substitute “Social Secuity Account” for “Car Savings Account” and you’ve got it. By Jove, you’ve _GOT_ it!
>>Borrow, take transit or walk to reduce your expense.>>
EXACTLY!!
Er, Suek…I think you meant, by Jovian!
BTW…are you an economics perfessor? You should be.
Well done, suek. However, handwave enroute even as we speak.
Economics Professor??? Heh. Not likely.
Accounting I and II, and a few years with H&R. Learned some interesting things with H&R – first, there’s no logic to tax laws. Do not assume, do not assume y follows x. The law is simply what the law is. Secondly, it’s really great that you get a tax break for your mortgage and your child care – but the reason isn’t due to governmental generosity. It isn’t even to stimulate some positive taxpayer activity – it’s to get you to rat out some person who might be cheating on his or her taxes. In the early days of mortgages, there weren’t computers – reporting of loan income was dependent on the law abiding practice and conscience of the mortgage holder. But by offering a deduction for same, and requiring the identification of the mortgage holder, the IRS could track the income, see if same person had claimed the income, and maybe same person was holding other mortgages that hadn’t been reported? Ditto for the child care deduction. Paying in cash? If it’s not a deduction, why would baby sitter report cash payments? BUT…if you can claim a deduction, and identify the person caring for the child…why…we can check and see if person is claiming that income. And maybe they’re caring for more than one child??? Maybe we better audit…
And…if you are called into an audit…do not offer information. Do not even bring in financial papers regarding _anything_ other than the specific audit topic. Unless it’s a general audit, of course. Then you bring everything including your lawyer or tax preparer. If you can’t answer yes or no, then of course, you’ll have to go home and check your papers for the specific item. Do not explain by bringing in any other relevant matter, or you have just opened the door for the auditor to check into the “other relevant matter”…
But I love it when you talk fiscally…!!
In the immortal words of Olivia Newton John, “Let’s get fis-cal, fis-cal, let me hear your money talk, money talk.”
Good times.
suek: That’s what “one” is doing by anticipating the time period in which you will need a new vehicle.
That’s correct.
suek: Now substitute “Social Secuity Account” for “Car Savings Account” and you’ve got it.
The car is a single expense that occurs at the end of five years. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, so the analogy doesn’t quite work. We’ll return to that below.
There’s two issues with Social Security. First, the demographic bulge due to the baby boomers. During their prime working years, Social Security has been running a surplus. When they retire, it will run a deficit. There’s also a permanent change in demographics, which will require only a small change in the payroll tax. If you keep current law, then Social Security will pay current benefits until 2036, then 75% of benefits in perpetuity. Social Security expenditures will exceed receipts in the next few years (there a small current deficit, due to the recession).
What has happened is that while the baby boomers have been overpaying on payroll taxes (which are regressive), income taxes were reduced elsewhere. Comparing after-tax income, the rich became richer, while middle class income has largely stagnated for a generation.
Let’s return to your original statement about the Clinton surpluses.
suek: About that Clinton “surplus”…
First of all. There was a surplus during the last years of the Clinton Adminstration. That’s simply a fact. They took in more money than they spent. That’s the definition of surplus. The opposite is a deficit. The finances were structured so that there would be continuing and substantial surpluses into the future. The American people chose another path.
Per your analogy, there is just a credit card. The Clinton Adminstration ran a surplus and reduced debt owed to outside the government. They paid down the credit card and had structured the economy to continue to pay down the credit card over time. Why is this significant? Because the last budget surplus was in the 1960′s. The U.S. was on track to making significant reductions in debt, possibly even being able to pay it off completely. Did this budget surplus address all the demographic problems associated with an aging population and the cost of modern medicine. No. But would a continued reduction in debt have helped with the demographic shift, and when the U.S. ran into difficulties? You betcha.
Charles (#82), I was tired, and you made me laugh. Thank you.
Even more simply:
Family:
Start $0 net public debt, $0 savings
Impending car purchase
End $0 net public debt, $0 savings
Impending car purchase
Result: no change, facing crisis.
-
U.S. Government 2000
Start $3.636 trillion net public debt
Long term problem with demographic shift.
End $3.405 trillion net public debt
Structured for continued reductions in debt
Long term problem with demographic shift.
Result: reduced net public debt, reduced interest payments, probable reduced interest rates, more financial flexibility.
Castles in the sky, Zach.
Can I get a government backed home loan from Fanny Mae for that castle, Danny?
Zach, you knocked the blogger Craig Steiner as being simply a software editor. What is _your_ financial/economic background? And why should we accept a report of the CBO, when that is itself a government directed function, tasked with doing whatever its congressional masters tell it to do?
Craig analyzed the numbers in a way that clarifies the fact that Clinton’s administration was using funds intended for use for future SS payments. They are _not_ in a lock box…they are a part of the general budget and as such, can be spent without regard for future requirements. As you say, baby boomers increase the population – for a period. They contribute more towards the SS fund, and if it were indeed in a lock box, all would be fine. Instead, the income was spent, the obligation – and in fact an increased obligation – was still out there, dependent now on collection of increased taxes from a smaller work force.
When SS started, first, the average life span was something like 62 years, so most workers never collected from an _insurance_ fund that didn’t kick in until they were 65. Second, there were something like 30 workers for each retired worker receiving SS (probably because most of them died before they started collecting). That number changes so that before very long, there will be only 2 workers funding the retirement SS of a single worker. As you point out, that is a matter of ongoing collection of taxes for ongoing retirement payments – do you really think that at the present level, two workers can pay for their own families plus support a retired person in the manner to which they’ve become accustomed? Thirdly, SS was started as an _insurance_. What would happen if a life insurance company collected your insurance payments for 30-40 years, then didn’t have enough to pay your family when you died because they’d already paid out everything they’d collected from you to other people. Do you suppose someone would be prosecuted as having run a Ponzi scheme?
In fact…come to think of it…I don’t think there’s any provision for the government actually “saving” money during fat periods. They just spend it all. They could “save” money if they had depreciation accounts – I’ve never seen any. Assuming your 7 “fat” years, where would they put those funds? how would they “save” them? (Assume all debt paid. As if!)
In fact…come to think of it…I don’t think there’s any provision for the government actually “saving” money during fat periods. They just spend it all.
And with that, Suek, you have put your finger square on the core problem with Keynesian economics, which assumed that government could overcome human nature and put away money and reduce debt in good times. In a perfect world, such abstract ideas might work, but we don’t live in a perfect world. Politicians generally get rewarded by spending money and directing it to favored groups, which is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Ideas and theories that don’t take into consideration basic human nature (the way that our Founders’ ideas of “checks and balances” did and the way that socialist ideas did not, for example) are simply castles drawn in the sky.
When I first joined the local school board, we had no savings. Our accountant recommended a depreciation account – at that point we did not have one. No depreciation account – and our school was built in 1906! We agreed that a depreciation account was an excellent idea, and designated some amount (10% of something, as I recall. Asset evaluation? I don’t remember). Approximately 3 years later, a truck carrying supplies for revamping the outdoor basketball court broke through the surface and into the school septic tank/field. Fortunately it was during the summer, when we weren’t having classes. Fortunately, the State had a fund of some sort for school disaster repair or something like that. Unfortunately, the process to _get_ the State funds took something like two years. _Fortunately_ we had enough in the depreciation account to pay for the repairs/rebuilding and modernization of the septic field/tank whatever. So…a depreciation account is a form of savings account – even though it isn’t, strictly speaking, since you assume that things _will_ wear out and have to be replaced – but it’s the only legitimate account for saving money that I can think of for a government.
And add to that the fact that normally in government budgets, your budget for next year will be based on your budget for this year. Logically or not, that’s how it works. So…if you are frugal and only spend 85% of your budget this year, guess what! Next year, your alloted funds will be 85% of what you got this year – plus some COLA or something, whereas if you spend 100%, your next year’s allotment will be 100% plus the COLA. Every year in May or June, we have one government organization call us for a _large_ order of bulbs – but they have to be invoiced by such and such a date. Because if they don’t spend it, they lose it.
So … “government savings”??? oxymoron.
Link for the day. Zach, you may read this – it’s a bit off topic, but not much.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=180971
suek: you knocked the blogger Craig Steiner as being simply a software editor.
There’s nothing wrong with being a software consultant. However, if we are interested in whether the U.S. is running a budget surplus or deficit, we refer to the appropriate governmental department. The claim is that the U.S. did not run a surplus. This is simply not the case.
suek: And why should we accept a report of the CBO, when that is itself a government directed function, tasked with doing whatever its congressional masters tell it to do?
The usual handwaving ad hominem when someone wants to reject a valid source. CBO uses objective methodology. There is no reasonable doubt as to whether they can give reasonable estimates concerning receipts and expenditures.
suek: Craig analyzed the numbers in a way that clarifies the fact that Clinton’s administration was using funds intended for use for future SS payments.
There are two ways to analyze it. If we treat the government as a whole, the Clinton Administration in its latter years paid down the net public debt by hundreds of billions of dollars. If we treat Social Security as a separate entity, then the Clinton Adminstration ran small surpluses, but set aside hundreds of billions of dollars into the Trust Fund.
suek: I don’t think there’s any provision for the government actually “saving” money during fat periods.
Danny Lemieux: And with that, Suek, you have put your finger square on the core problem with Keynesian economics, which assumed that government could overcome human nature and put away money and reduce debt in good times.
The Clinton Administration paid down the net public debt, and structured U.S. finances to continue paying down the debt. They ran a budget surplus. By the way, progressive taxation automatically governs economic fluctuations.
Zach, I am amazed. I think that we should let your words stand as a testimonial to your thought processes.
Danny Lemieux: I think that we should let your words stand as a testimonial to your thought processes.
That’s fine. Anyone can look up the numbers.
Year 2000 (in billions)
On-Budget Surplus 86
Off-Budget Surplus 150
Total Surplus 236
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2727&type=0&sequence=2
suek: Link for the day. Zach{riel}, you may read this – it’s a bit off topic, but not much.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=180971
It seems to relate somewhat.
Karl Denninger: One should be very careful about attempting to extrapolate exponential growth, because it is a mathematical impossibility for it to continue indefinitely.
Well, indefinitely is not so definite. If the world population continues to expand its current rate, the gravity will swallow the Sun in just a few thousand years. Let’s take a closer look.
Karl Denninger: See, underlying every dollar of GDP is a unit of energy output. It cannot be otherwise.
The argument is based on this claim. But it can be otherwise. Though energy utilization is somewhat related to GDP, it is not an inevitability. For instance, a more efficient machine uses less energy yet accomplishes the same goal. Also, wealth may not always require energy, such as knowledge and other types of services where energy utilization may be secondary to the primary product.
If we ignore this issue, we might consider the problem of exponential growth and short term industrial growth. This is definitely a problem. It leads to depletion of resources, pollution, over population, even climate change. That’s why continued growth will require new technologies that make better use of limited resources. Over the short term, though, world growth is GDP is being fueled by the finite process of industrialization. Once the developed world has restructures, then growth will temper to more manageable levels.
“If we ignore this issue, we might consider the problem of exponential growth and short term industrial growth. This is definitely a problem. It leads to depletion of resources, pollution, over population, even climate change. That’s why continued growth will require new technologies that make better use of limited resources. Over the short term, though, world growth is GDP is being fueled by the finite process of industrialization. Once the developed world has restructures, then growth will temper to more manageable levels.”
Unsupported, unsubstantiated (and, as usual, ungrammatical) bilge. We’ve already destroyed the AGW argument, showing its proponent’s lack of logic or scientific understanding, yet he asserts in absence of any credibility that he understands the mechanism for global economic growth and the consequences of it—the usual doom-and-gloom litany of overpopulation (whatever that is; it’s never defined) and resource depletion, the same sorry sky-is-falling prediction that the green cult has been making since it arose in the early 1970s.
Charles Martel: We’ve already destroyed the AGW argument, showing its proponent’s lack of logic or scientific understanding,
The scientific community disagrees, and considers anthropomorphic climate change to be strongly supported by the evidence.
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/
Charles Martel: the mechanism for global economic growth
Currently, the strongest mechanism for global growth is industrialization in the developing world. One only has to consider the vast changes occurring in China to see that; extremely rapid growth in GDP, environmental degradation, the struggle with controlling the population, rising living standards, demands for political liberalization, etc. Once the process of industrialization is complete, these problems will still have to be grappled with.
Charles Martel: the usual doom-and-gloom litany of overpopulation (whatever that is; it’s never defined) and resource depletion, the same sorry sky-is-falling prediction that the green cult has been making since it arose in the early 1970s.
Please learn to read before criticizing. Population, resource depletion and environmental degradation are all controllable. That’s why, contrary to Denninger’s essay, growth can continue, even if population and energy utilization can’t continue to increase exponentially over long time scales.
Simply repeating, mantra-like, points that have been thoroughly refuted wins no converts. You have persuaded absolutely nobody here with your rhetoric because you have brought no credible credentials–you own or outsiders’–to the table.
But if beating your head against the wall pleases you, who am I to say otherwise?
Charles Martel: You have persuaded absolutely nobody here with your rhetoric because you have brought no credible credentials–you own or outsiders’–to the table.
The majority of readers will find the National Academy of Sciences to be a highly credible source.
Nope. The majority of readers here, who are better educated and more articulate than you, don’t find your sources to be credible. Sorry. Beat the dead horse all you want.
Shoot, missed the 100th message mark by one!
There, fixed it.
Even if the source itself was credible, it doesn’t mean Zach is correct in his interpretation of the data and his rendition of the conclusion.
It all comes down to something very simple. Will Zach support policies that will make America better or will he decide to support policies that corrode and kill American prosperity.
And either case is determined very much by how good Zach’s personal judgment is. Those that are wise, can make sense and use out of fools, criminals, and idiots. Those that are idiots or just plain evil, can destroy the gift of the gods with their vices (just look at Obama squandering American power and wealth and blood).
So, do the people that read Bookworm Room, believe Zach’s judgment is of a sufficient level that it would be better than theirs? Enough better for them to believe Zach’s interpretations of sources, rather than the interpretations other people or even the individual themselves have taken of the source?
I know that Zach likes to shovel all questions concerning Zach’s personal judgment as a “personal attack”. Much the same as when a person ignorant of historical events, deems it a personal attack for it to be pointed out that they are ignorant of said historical events. Even when their knowledge or lack of it, directly informs upon the question of their statements concerning history.
I know that this tendency is alive and well amongst people. But it’s a vice, not a virtue.
Obama did the same thing on the campaign trail. He made out his lack of inexperience to be an irrelevant issue. He claimed that his cause was just and right, that a light would shine down upon him from on high, and that this was the only thing he needed to be legitimate.
No, people need more than some light shining on high to convince me that they are right. I dare say that truly independent thinkers take a lot of effort to convince and that you won’t convince them until you convince them to trust you.
So the two questions here are,
1. Do you trust Obama and his Leftist minions?
2. Do you trust people like Zach, who tell us we should trust Obama and his Leftist policies?
If both are no, then it’s not going to matter what source or fact finding mission Zach pokes up. The fundamental premises are inalienable, once set in stone.
Charles Martel: The majority of readers here, who are better educated and more articulate than you, don’t find your sources to be credible.
Incredible. You don’t think the National Academy of Sciences to be credible on matters scientific.
Ymarsakar: Will Zach{riel} support policies that will make America better or will he decide to support policies that corrode and kill American prosperity.
Continued American strength and prosperity is critical to the world.
Ymarsakar: it doesn’t mean Zach{riel} is correct in his interpretation of the data and his rendition of the conclusion.
Whether they are right or wrong, there is no doubt where the National Academy of Sciences stands on the issue.
National Academy of Sciences: “Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate.”
http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
Ymar: Will Zach support policies that will make America better or will he decide to support policies that corrode and kill American prosperity. And either case is determined very much by how good Zach’s personal judgment is.
Let’s broaden this to more than just Zach’s credibility in Book’s domain. Zach is an elitist and in favor of big-government solutions. Zach believes that if you only put people like Zach in government control of the nation – people like Zach being: the elites – you will have a nation that makes better decisions than if you left it to the private sector and left it to the people: motivated by their own self-interests and the interests of those they love.
If all the bureaucratic elites had perfect wisdom and knowledge, then there wouldn’t be a problem. But they don’t. They’re just as prone to mistakes as all the rest of us, despite their claims of elite status. I don’t want my life and my decisions controlled by the bureaucratic elite and their “good judgment”. I don’t trust their “good judgment”. I don’t WANT their “good judgment”. They can take their “good judgment” and pound it up their rear end.
When we refute and argue with reports and institutions that Zach cites, we are automatically indicating that we are not of the elite. Else we would not be disagreeing! We are being contentious Neanderthals, refusing to see the light and refusing to see the truth. We need elites like Zach to guide us to a better understanding, and if we won’t accept the enlightenment, then they’ll still make our decisions for us, for our own good. Idiot clueless heavy-browed cavemen and cavewomen with sloping foreheads, that we are.
Excuse me; I have to step away. I have a need to count to ten, and while I do have my fingers to help me, it always takes SO much time.
“Incredible. You don’t think the National Academy of Sciences to be credible on matters scientific.”
Morphs into:
“Whether they are right or wrong, there is no doubt where the National Academy of Sciences stands on the issue.”
Which is it? Are they credible because you think they are right, or are they credible simply because they take a stand (regardless of whether it’s right or wrong)?
Mike, may I suggest an occasional toe? Since I incorporated mine into my counting, my mathematical powers have doubled.
Mike Devx: Zach{riel} is an elitist and in favor of big-government solutions.
That is not our position. We recognize that modern societies are comprised of institutions that are knit together at all levels.
Mike Devx: Zach{riel}believes that if you only put people like Zach{riel}in government control of the nation – people like Zach{riel}being: the elites – you will have a nation that makes better decisions than if you left it to the private sector and left it to the people: motivated by their own self-interests and the interests of those they love.’
Again, that is not our position. “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Mike Devx: If all the bureaucratic elites had perfect wisdom and knowledge, then there wouldn’t be a problem.
This illustrates your deep misunderstanding of our position, even after our having repeated it many times. No one has perfect knowledge. Modern democracies are successful largely because they distribute decision making at various levels, including strong institutions that act as checks on one another.
Mike Devx: When we refute and argue with reports and institutions that Zach{riel} cites, we are automatically indicating that we are not of the elite.
It’s perfectly acceptable to question authority. But it’s not reasonable (or conservative) to reject out-of-hand institutional and historical wisdom simply because it may not fit with your preconceptions. Waving your hands at the evidence doesn’t make it go away.
Charles Martel: Morphs into …
We were responding to a question about our rendition of the conclusion by the National Academy of Sciences.
Charles Martel: Which is it? Are they credible because you think they are right, or are they credible simply because they take a stand (regardless of whether it’s right or wrong)?
They’re credible on matters of science because the organization is comprised of America’s best scientists, and because they are stating the conclusions of the scientific community. Other Academies of Science around the world have reached the same conclusion.
I have great respect for the National Academy of Science, National Science Foundation and other such scientific organizations.
I take what they say very seriously. Having served on groups such as these (including one of the aforementioned), I can assure you that they are hardly bastions of consensus. They are very human and they are also fallible. Look behind the facade of their public pronouncements and you will find considerable turmoil of intellectual discourse.
Just because the NAS issues a position paper on a subject does not mean that it was arrived at by consensus. Many of the leading AGW skeptics are current or former members of the NAS — MIT Prof. of Meteorology Richard Lindzen, for example.
I am coming to realize that a big gulf in the positions expressed on this blog is the overriding need by some for certainty and the comfort of others in uncertainty.
In one world view, there is an overriding need for human agencies that offer certainty or infallibility. Such is the foundation for orthodoxy. This especially seems to be the case for complicated but important disciplines in which such individuals lack expertise, such as science or economics. Lack of knowledge about critical elements of the world in which we live can be frightening, as it denotes lack of understanding ergo “control” over events that can have very large impacts upon our lives. Thus is one driven to create templates from which to understand and predict events. It’s a defense mechanism.
To this end, many are driven to surrender their critical thinking skills to an adopted authority [fill in the blank] but for this, they need faith in a higher authority. This, in turn, can be especially problematic if one is not religious, as the only other authorities available for that role are fallible human beings. Once having forged allegiance to such authority, it becomes imperative to protect the infallibility of that authority because, if it fails, so does the comfort and certainty it offered and one is left with a shattered template with which to understand the world. One is then faced with an intellectual abyss.
Many other people, however, are comfortable with uncertainty and a wonder and respect for the unknown. I suspect these differences are forged early in our make-up. We live comfortable in the knowledge that whatever the world throws at us, we will adapt and survive. As new knowledge becomes available, we adapt our world views and we are OK with that. We have no need to surrender our thinking skills to authority and we gather here in the Bookworm Room because we are very comfortable learning from each other. And, yes, we do question authority.
Danny Lemieux: I have great respect for the National Academy of Science, National Science Foundation and other such scientific organizations.
Yes.
Danny Lemieux: They are very human and they are also fallible.
Of course.
Danny Lemieux: Look behind the facade of their public pronouncements and you will find considerable turmoil of intellectual discourse.
In this case, there is strong consensus on anthropogenic climate change. The question that has concerned the National Academy of Sciences was how much they should advocate for action, and what policies they should recommend. Those questions are not as amenable to easy answers, and being policy decisions, they are outside the direct purview of the scientific community.
Danny Lemieux: Many of the leading AGW skeptics are current or former members of the NAS — MIT Prof. of Meteorology Richard Lindzen, for example.
Yes, there are always outliers. However, they have had limited success, and their recent papers usually only address tangential concerns.
Danny Lemieux: In one world view, there is an overriding need for human agencies that offer certainty or infallibility.
Yes, that’s a common problem on the Right, which often wants a strong leader to provide answers. Consider how much deference was given to the government concerning WMD and the Iraq War. The naysayers, who expressed the view that the intelligence was not infallible, were marginalized and often villified, because they questioned that certainty.
Scientists, however, are trained to be skeptical. At this point, the most skeptical of scientists have failed to undermine the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
I’m sitting here trying to think of my rightwing need for a strong leader who will provide me answers.
Is it the NAS, or the IPCC, or the CBO, or the New York Times? They all have answers.
Maybe Castro, Chavez, Obama, Putin? They’re all strong leaders who have answers.
Is it Wikipedia or zachriel.blogspot.com? The former has infallible information while the latter is simply infallible.
And yet, strangely, none of them appeals to me as the strong leader I so need.
Is there anybody on the right who can speak to me with the overwhelming majesty and intellect of the persons/institutions cited above? Who is he/she? I want to be raptured!
Nice try, Zach.
It has been said about war that he who wins, is the one that can make a workable plan out of chaotic conditions and unexpected happenstances. Not the one with the most meticulous or detailed planning. Not the one who studied the most military history. But the general that can take advantage of the chaos of the battlefield.
The chaos in war and the free market, both affected strongly by individual free will, are something the Left abhors. It leads them to an intense distrust of both war and the free market. The only wars the Left favors are “controlled” wars, otherwise known as revolutions where there is a set of rules one side abides by and the other side ignores. Or wars in which ROE and rules are controlled by law, predictions, and stringent requirements from DC, thousands of miles away from the front. This drive of theirs, almost instinctual in nature, constantly seeks to mitigate luck or chance and turn it into certainty.
I’ve said this before and it bears a reminder, the Left needs to destroy human free will in order to usher in their Utopia. They cannot stand a world where they may fail based upon merit or just luck. They cannot stand such a world. Failure is only attributed to man caused factors, which they say can be controlled for “good”. They look at black poverty and crime and say it’s the fault of the White Man or slavery of the past. They don’t attribute any import to luck, fate, destiny, duty, virtue, courage, or hard work. The Left does not care to give merit, its due.
However, in truth, humans cannot control every factor in life. So when the Left tries to speak trash to Islam or about Muhammed, like they do about Christianity and Jesus Christ, Islam shows the Left who wears the pants in their alliance. And the Left can’t do a damn thing about it except bend over and take it. The Left knows they can’t control the sadistic jihadi killers. But the Left knows they can control us with laws and threats of violence. They’ll have endless streams of people like Zach telling us that we must obey because the government “signed some treaty” saying a transnational government now controls America (like when European countries signed their sovereignty over to the EU). These “institutions” of theirs will be present to put a lock down on anybody doing their own thing.
Zach, for example, can be easily convinced that it is democracy and right for the US government to keep its promises, when the US government promises to ship some blond haired girls over to Arabia as sex slaves. As he pedantically keeps repeating, are America’s promises worth more than the paper it is printed on. And as I astutely respond with, nobody made a promise on my behalf because I didn’t give them the authority to start engaging in slavery.
Zach thinks a dictator in chief can give away America’s power, because it’s “America’s promise”. Nobody gave any of you the power or the authority to sign US sovereignty over to foreign courts and tribunals.
Ymar, I wouldn’t read that much into Zach’s comments. “Zach” are young enough to believe and have faith in institutions that are only man-made. They are awed by algorithms for their intrinsic elegance and beauty without realizing that such are good only as they relate to reality. They also lack the historical perspective that comes with time.
That’s OK. With time, they will begin to see the cracks in the facades of their belief structures and begin to understand why they exist. They are intelligent, just naive and time will solve that. In the meantime, they’ve been good sports whilst they have also provide us with good sport.
Let the games continue!
Ymarsakar: Zach{riel}, for example, can be easily convinced that it is democracy and right for the US government to keep its promises, when the US government promises to ship some blond haired girls over to Arabia as sex slaves.
What the heck are you talking about? Slavery is illegal in the United States.
You missed the point, Zach, that a treaty isn’t and shouldn’t be inviolate just because it was signed. There are moral, ethical issues as well as fundamental concerns of self-preservation. We don’t live in a perfect world.
In business, people recognize that a contract is only as good as the willingness and good intentions of the other party. If a contract is destructive to one party, it will fail.
Danny, good call on the immaturity of the mind(s) we’re dealing with here. Every once in awhile, though, I detect a more adult mind at work. Perhaps a professor or just simply a grownup? At those times the responses tend to become either snarkier or show a smidgen of humor—both indications of somebody who may be engaging in actual thought, not just pure let-me-run-to-Wiki/George Soros reaction.
Ymarsakar, have you done a pattern analysis of Skeet’s writing? It would be interesting to delve into that a little.
Danny Lemieux: a treaty isn’t and shouldn’t be inviolate just because it was signed. There are moral, ethical issues as well as fundamental concerns of self-preservation.
But the U.S. is not a signatory to the Treaty to Spread Slavery Among the Peoples of the World. The U.S. is signatory to the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery.
That’s sort of like saying you won’t follow the law on murder because they could make a law allowing murder.
Danny Lemieux: In business, people recognize that a contract is only as good as the willingness and good intentions of the other party. If a contract is destructive to one party, it will fail.
Fulfilling contracts are not optional. Parties regularly seek damages under the law, including for international contracts made under treaty.
Are American promises meaningful? Or are they just empty words?
Ymarsakar: Zach{riel} thinks a dictator in chief can give away America’s power, because it’s “America’s promise”. Nobody gave any of you the power or the authority to sign US sovereignty over to foreign courts and tribunals.
Under the U.S. Constitution, it takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate for ratification. Only at that point, does it become the supreme law of the land. Most other countries have similar processes for ratification of treaties.
It just so happens that US funding goes into UN mercenary operations that rape children and use them as sex slaves.
And Zach here claims not to be aware of such.
It takes more than 2/3rds of the Senate to amend the US Constitution, period.
Ymarsakar: It just so happens that US funding goes into UN mercenary operations that rape children and use them as sex slaves.
U.S. soldiers have also committed crimes.
Ymarsakar: claims not to be aware of such.
Quite aware, but it’s your point that is unclear. If someone in the U.N. commits a crime, are you saying that releases the U.S. from its commitments?
Ymarsakar: It takes more than 2/3rds of the Senate to amend the US Constitution, period.
We’re talking about treaties under the U.S. Constitution.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: He {The President} shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….
“U.S. soldiers have also committed crimes.”
The fallacy of tu quoque. Also, notice the lack of evidence for that assertion or even a dim awareness of proportionality—how often do UN troops systematically rape little girls versus how often U.S. soldiers have ever done that?
Zach, since you engage in so much fallacious reasoning, may I recommend a neat little book on the topic? Reading it and taking it to heart will spare you much humiliation in the future: “Improving Your Reasoning” by Alex C. Michalos, Prentice-Hall, 1970.
You’ll gasp in dismay as you see how fallacies he lists that you have managed to work into discussions here.
(Lest you worry your little multiple heads that you’re reading something from a forbidden or unauthoritative source, Michalos was on the faculty of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. True, the U of Pittsburgh is no East Anglia U or IPCC, but it still has all sorts of credentials.)
CharlesM, re. “True, the U of Pittsburgh is no East Anglia U or IPCC, but it still has all sorts of credentials.”
Did you mean “because” rather than “but”?
Funny, Danny!
I meant “nevertheless,” as Eleanor Roosevelt would have said. You know how credential-obsessed Skeet is.
Charles Martel: The fallacy of tu quoque.
It’s not a fallacy, as the one does not excuse the other. Neither the U.S. or the U.N. allow for slavery. Some people commit crimes. Rather, it is Ymarsakar’s argument that reads as fallacy; that because some U.N. soldiers commit crimes, the U.S. is not obligated to live up to its treaty obligations.
>>because some U.N. soldiers commit crimes, the U.S. is not obligated to live up to its treaty obligations. >>
It certainly could be a cause to cancel a treaty obligation.
Which brings up the question of what is the extent of a treaty obligation. Is a treaty, once signed, a treaty into perpetuity? Does it require that one signee or another violate the treaty? If one party of several violates the treaty, does that negate the treaty?
It seems that if the UN has its representatives violating international laws, that by continuing to support and be a party to that organization, the US is in effect a party to those violations (assuming that the US is aware of them). What has the UN done to prosecute those guilty of raping and enslaving those poor people it is _supposed_ to be assisting?
Zach, I’m pretty sure Amazon has back copies of “Improving Your Reasoning” on sale. Why not link over and see?
Zachriel: because some U.N. soldiers commit crimes, the U.S. is not obligated to live up to its treaty obligations.
suek: It certainly could be a cause to cancel a treaty obligation.
It might be different if the U.N. soldiers were instructed to enslave people, rather than being criminals.
suek: Which brings up the question of what is the extent of a treaty obligation. Is a treaty, once signed, a treaty into perpetuity?
Most treaties have an opt-out clause. Most treaties also include provisions for various circumstances that might alter the obligation without abrogating the treaty. Or you could just break your promise. \
suek: If one party of several violates the treaty, does that negate the treaty?
Depends on the treaty. But if Canada promises to send wheat for cash, and they don’t, then you don’t have to hand over the cash. On the other hand, if all the nations of the world agree to end torture, then just because someone commits torture, doesn’t end that obligation.
suek: It seems that if the UN has its representatives violating international laws, …
The U.N. doesn’t have troops of its own. There is no actual “U.N. army”. They belong to member countries.
suek: that by continuing to support and be a party to that organization, the US is in effect a party to those violations (assuming that the US is aware of them).
And some people think that the Iraq War, if not criminal, was criminally stupid. But they still have to obey the laws, including paying taxes, and not commit murder, mayhem and jaywalking.
suek: What has the UN done to prosecute those guilty of raping and enslaving those poor people it is _supposed_ to be assisting?
Like all criminals, they should be prosecuted. The problem is that if a soldier is suspected of crimes, the most the U.N. can do is send the soldier back to its country of origin. It’s up to the sponsoring nation to prosecute. Nevertheless, U.N. is attempting to exercise better control and accountability.
“Nevertheless, U.N. is attempting to exercise better control and accountability.”
Any examples of said attempts, including measurements of their effectiveness? Or is this just another boilerplate assertion?
Charles Martel: Any examples of said attempts, including measurements of their effectiveness?
Keeping in mind that the U.N. cannot enforce criminal laws directly, Resolution 1325 calls on member nations to respect the human rights and special needs of women and girls, and to take measures to protect them from violence and sexual abuse. It increases the role of women in peacekeeping operations, and made it the responsibility of all nations to prosecute those responsible for such crimes. Resolution 1327 directly addressed issues of control and accountability. You may also want to refer to the Report of the Panel on United Nations Peacekeeping.
I think Mark Steyn had it right regarding the UN. It can only be as good as its lowest common denominator.
His argument was along the lines of: if you had a gallon of perfect vanilla ice cream and mixed into it a teaspoon of horse manure, it would taste more like horse manure than vanilla ice cream.
Things always seem so clear, rational and easy in the abstract when viewed from an armchair. Real life doesn’t work that way.
Since were were on the subject of book reviews in another thread, here’s a recommendation for those really interested in how the UN works:
“Backstabbing for Beginners: My Crash Course in International Diplomacy” by Michael Sousan. Sousan was a Danish employee of the UN working in the “Oil for Food” program. It outlines the sheer venality and corruption of that organization, not only between members but also to its employees, and especially the fundamental obscenity of the oil for food program.
http://www.amazon.com/Backstabbing-Beginners-Course-International-Diplomacy/dp/1568583974
My wife was very skeptical about G.W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. After reading this book, she was convinced that G.W. Bush had averted a major world war.
Believe not what they say, observe what they do.
“Keeping in mind that the U.N. cannot enforce criminal laws directly, Resolution 1325 calls on member nations to respect the human rights and special needs of women and girls, and to take measures to protect them from violence and sexual abuse. It increases the role of women in peacekeeping operations, and made it the responsibility of all nations to prosecute those responsible for such crimes. Resolution 1327 directly addressed issues of control and accountability. You may also want to refer to the Report of the Panel on United Nations Peacekeeping.”
Weasel wordery. All smoke and mirrors. In other words, the UN cannot stop its mercenaries from raping kids, but it can pass a flurry of toothless resolutions that make it appear to be doing something. The best part is that the UN issued a report. Wow, issue addressed!
Once again, Zach, you show us your incredibly high standard of proof.
Danny Lemieux: Since were were on the subject of book reviews in another thread, here’s a recommendation for those really interested in how the UN works:
Yet the U.N. was instrumental in disarming Saddam’s WMD. The obvious conclusion would be to improve accountability.
Charles Martel: In other words, the UN cannot stop its mercenaries from raping kids, but it can pass a flurry of toothless resolutions that make it appear to be doing something.
The U.N. doesn’t have an army. They are soldiers and police of the member nations, including the United States.
If a restriction cannot be enforced, it is not a law, it is simply a suggestion.
suek: If a restriction cannot be enforced, it is not a law, it is simply a suggestion.
If by that you mean that nations can break their commitments, that is correct. Though there is little anyone can do directly if, say, the Americans decided to start breaking treaties, it wouldn’t be without repercussions. Not sure if that addresses your point.
Still haven’t got an answer to the question. Are the promises of the Americans meaningful?
Charles Martel: In other words, the UN cannot stop its mercenaries from raping kids, but it can pass a flurry of toothless resolutions that make it appear to be doing something.
Zach: The U.N. doesn’t have an army. They are soldiers and police of the member nations, including the United States.
Thank you for confirming my observation, Zach. I like it when you agree with me!
In general I would have to say in retrospect Zach prefers government solutions to problems. Whether it is science on global warming, government taxation on the economy, or foreign affairs, Zach prefers an authoritarian style solution set. Examples of such would be the policies created by global warming scientists, where companies are commanded to adhere to new “Green” standards. Examples of such would also include the “command economy” so fervently envisioned by government official, in which people at the top can simply command a recession to begone with the right powers and tricks.
Leaving aside for the moment whether this style of thinking actually solves anything (and many here at Bookworm in fact believe it does not solve anything), I would instead look at something else.
We’re talking about treaties under the U.S. Constitution.
Zach thinks treaties are the law of the land. When in fact, the only law of the land, and the only source of power for any such law, is the US Constitution. It’s increasingly suspicious that out of all the authorities in existence, Zach would prefer to discount and weaken the US Constitution while empowering corrupt and greedy UN officials and non-enforcible Geneva Conventions.
Zach thinks it isn’t an institutional problem that the UN does nothing but promote more abuses of power. But does think the US should be beholden to its agreements, even when such agreements only apply between two consenting factions, rather than being unilateral in nature. The UN, with actual agreements accounting for the duties and responsibilities of both factions, gets away with murder and rape. While the US must be held to a unilateral standard that only affects the people that belong to the US party.
In my eyes, this is nothing less than the philosophy of authoritarianism. And it’s not even benevolence dictatorship, which did accomplish good things while it lasted. This is nothing but tyranny.
So it’s okay for the US to give taxpayer money so that the UN can rape children and occupy foreign nations. But it’s not okay for the US to create a better future for Iraq and Afghans by occupying their country ethically bound and disciplined US troops.
I don’t know how many dictatorships people here have seen, but that is not a benevolent one.
If someone in the U.N. commits a crime, are you saying that releases the U.S. from its commitments?
What commitments? Nothing in the US Constitution said Congress or the President had the power to commit a portion of the resources of the US to the UN or international war tribunals.
The only “commitment” the US has is from what the Constitution lets the politicians have. This is no tyranny or dictatorship we are talking about, regardless of how much the Left wishes for one.
I, for one, think Zachriel asks a good question. At what point is a Treaty or Agreement considered to be meaningless?
I say that all parties must abide, or none must abide. This gets into ideas of “severability” (maybe DQ and Book should weigh in) – if one party reneges on part of the Treaty, is the whole Treaty invalidated? Or, are the parties obligated to work around the violation and keep the treaty in force?
Thus, for example, when the Kellogg-Briand pact, signed after WWI, required the major powers to decommission their navies and limit the size of their naval vessels, would discovery that the Germans and Japanese were secretly violating the agreement invalidate the agreement? I say yes.
If Saddam was found to be violating the terms of the cease fire by shooting at our planes? Does that invalidate the Agreement? I say “yes”…the ceasefire is over and the U.S. was free to resume military action.
If the U.S. drafts an agreement with North Korea whereby the U.S. is supposed to supply oil and food to North Korea in exchange for a halt to nuclear weapons programs and North Korea is found to be secretly continuing its nuclear activities, is the agreement over? I say “yes”.
Where it gets more complicated is when the U.S. has its hands tied by Agreements in a dispute whereby the “other” does not live by the Agreement. Good example is Al Qaeda. Is the U.S. bound by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of terrorist war criminals like Al Qaeda? I say “no”…not until Al Qaeda signs the treaty.
I agree with this point to which Ymar has been moving this discussion: the supreme agreement to which the U.S. government must under all circumstances adhere is its treaty (i.e., constitutional) agreement to keep the American people safe and protect the constitution. All else is secondary. No other agreement can supersede this. I don’t care how many senators might vote for it.
Incidentally, Zach: in 1973, the U.S. and North Vietnam signed the Paris Accords, which was to involve a cessation of hostilities, the return of U.S. troops home, and a pull-back by the North Vietnamese from South Vietnam until such times that internationally monitored elections could be held. From day-1, North Vietnam violated the agreement by moving its military south and building up its supplies for another attack.
As part of the accords, the U.S. pledged itself to the (material and economic) defense of Cambodia and South Vietnam. Yet, in 1974, the Democrat Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese and Cambodian governments. This violated all of our pledges to the Vietnamese and Cambodians, paving the way for the slaughter that followed.
So, Zach…how do these events fall under your “all treaties must be honored” dogma? What would you, spaking as Zacharoosta, have adjudicated this?
Charles Martel: Thank you for confirming my observation,
You asked a loaded question which entailed the premise that the U.N. has a mercenary army. The premise is incorrect.
Ymarsakar: Zach{riel} prefers an authoritarian style solution set.
Actually, we prefer government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Ymarsakar: So it’s okay for the US to give taxpayer money so that the UN can rape children and occupy foreign nations.
Yes, people commit crimes. The U.N. does not have the authority to prosecute such crimes. The member states have an obligation to enforce the law for their own people.
Ymarsakar: Zach{riel} thinks treaties are the law of the land.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution directly states that treaties are the supreme law of the land. You need to come to grips with this.
Ymarsakar: But it’s not okay for the US to create a better future for Iraq and Afghans by occupying their country ethically bound and disciplined US troops.
With regards to Afghanistan, the government there was harboring criminals that had attacked the United States. Unfortunately, the U.S. has still not brought bin Laden to justice.
With regards to Iraq, the United States claimed they were acting in self-defense because of WMD. There were no WMD. They destroyed much of Iraq in the process, killing thousands and making millions of refugess.
Ymarsakar: Nothing in the US Constitution said Congress or the President had the power to commit a portion of the resources of the US to the UN or international war tribunals.
You can keep repeating that, but the U.S. Constitution gives the President and the Senate the power to make treaties.
I think that where Zach and Ymar are getting up is the constitutional reference to treaties, negotiated under the Constitution, are the “supreme law of the land” (true).
However, it does not mean that the Constitution becomes subordinate to any such treaties, nor does it mean that the Constitutionally elected government is denied the right to withdraw from such treaties, which (if I am not mistaken) is what Ymar has been trying to make.
As far as Zach’s contention that the U.S. “destroyed much of Iraq.” I haven’t been to Iraq. I don’t believe Zach has been to Iraq.
The reports that I have from Iraqis I know is that Iraq is much better off now than it was under Saddam. Oil production from Iraq is higher today than it was under Saddam. American soldiers with whom I have spoken hardly talk of an Iraq that was reduced to rubble. The rape rooms and the prisons where children were fed to dogs are gone. The death toll is way down from what it was under Saddam. The Kurds appear to have done particularly well? Not perfect? Of course not. There’s still a way to go. This is the 2nd and 3rd hand data upon which I build my assessment.
Zach prefers to believe other sources of 2nd or 3rd-hand data. That’s OK…we’ll just have to disagree. Time and history march on.
“Thus spake Zacharoosta?” LOL, Danny. Way over the kid’s head, but funny as hell.
Danny Lemieux: At what point is a Treaty or Agreement considered to be meaningless?
That’s not quite the same question, but is related.
Danny Lemieux: I say that all parties must abide, or none must abide. This gets into ideas of “severability” (maybe DQ and Book should weigh in) – if one party reneges on part of the Treaty, is the whole Treaty invalidated?
Most of the treaties of concern here are multilateral. But it isn’t reasonable to think that you should abandon the entire complex of international law because somebody in a blue helmet breaks the law. It would be folly to allow matters of great importance to be held hostage to the lowest common denominator.
Danny Lemieux: when the Kellogg-Briand pact, signed after WWI, required the major powers to decommission their navies and limit the size of their naval vessels, would discovery that the Germans and Japanese were secretly violating the agreement invalidate the agreement? I say yes.
The Kellog-Briand pact is still binding treaty and was an important basis for war crimes trials against the fascists. Bringing those who brought about WWII to justice is certainly an important event. If you were to simply say the treaty has no effect, then the fascists were innocent.
Danny Lemieux: If Saddam was found to be violating the terms of the cease fire by shooting at our planes? Does that invalidate the Agreement? I say “yes”…the ceasefire is over and the U.S. was free to resume military action.
Though the U.S. has the right to reasonable self-defense, the ceasefire was between Iraq and the U.N., not the U.S. In order to justify the war, the U.S. pointed to WMD and self-defense as the primary legal justification.
Let’s consider this in more general terms.
Treaty law has ancient roots. The international system predates WWII, as noted above, and there are normally a number of provisions for resolution of disputes or withdrawal.
Being a maritime trading power, the U.S. benefits more than most from the international system. There are a complex set of treaties that govern trade and travel on the high seas. Do you abrogate trade agreements? Withdraw from the very system that allows the U.S. to participate in the world economy? That would be economic suicide and trade chaos.
A U.S. withdrawal from the U.N., the promise to forgo aggression and to avoid war, after hanging fascists for breaking international law, would be the height of hypocrisy. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait broke international law, bought at such cost in world war. Saying international law means nothing means to declare Saddam innocent when he invaded Kuwait. Withdraw from the Convention on Torture, and the Americans could hardly claim the moral high ground against tyrants. You could hang them, but there would be no trial as there would be no law that could be applied. It would be no better than the mob.
Ymarsakar conflates all of these treaties into some conspiratorial notion of global socialism. In fact, the global system is designedly weak, and the fundamental unit of participation is national sovereignty. He wants to hold the U.N. responsible for what a Pakistani soldier may do, but not give the power to the U.N. to punish that soldier. Nor can you have one rule for American soldiers, not to be held to account, and another for the Pakistani soldier. These sorts of abuses still occur, of course, but they have been reduced due to the requirement of national enforcement.
Danny Lemieux: Is the U.S. bound by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of terrorist war criminals like Al Qaeda? I say “no”…not until Al Qaeda signs the treaty.
Al Qaeda is not covered under POW status, but they are covered under treaties concerning the treatment of captive prisoners. That includes the Convention on Torture, which the U.S. is a party to.
Danny Lemieux: in 1973, the U.S. and North Vietnam signed the Paris Accords, which was to involve a cessation of hostilities, the return of U.S. troops home, and a pull-back by the North Vietnamese from South Vietnam until such times that internationally monitored elections could be held. From day-1, North Vietnam violated the agreement by moving its military south and building up its supplies for another attack.
Yes, they did.
Danny Lemieux: This violated all of our pledges to the Vietnamese and Cambodians, paving the way for the slaughter that followed.
If the North Vietnamese didn’t keep the peace, South Vietnam ws doomed. Short of troops in the ground, no amount of U.S. aid would have changed that. Cambodia was doomed to collapse and chaos when the U.S. bombed the countryside there (and was possibly complicit in the overthrow of the monarchy).
Danny Lemieux: However, it does not mean that the Constitution becomes subordinate to any such treaties, nor does it mean that the Constitutionally elected government is denied the right to withdraw from such treaties, which (if I am not mistaken) is what Ymar has been trying to make.
No one will or can stop the U.S. from withdrawing from international treaties. However, the U.S. benefits more than most from the international system.
Danny Lemieux: The reports that I have from Iraqis I know is that Iraq is much better off now than it was under Saddam.
The country is divided on sectarian lines. The majority Shiites are very glad Saddam is dead, and would have been no matter the destruction, their hatred was such. The Kurds were largely freed under Clinton. Others are dead, so they don’t complain much. You can’t undo history, so most people look towards the future. In the end, the Iraqis will forge a new nation, and it will be better than what came before.
In any case, you haven’t given much reason to think that the promises of the Americans are more meaningful than the Communists.
When Z talks about the law of the land, he’s including aspects such as obedience to foreign courts, values, and cultures. He looks at it much as the EU looks at things. If the local government, or the US Senate, votes by “consensus” that it’s legitimate to hand sovereignty over to a foreign power, Z believes this is something the rest of us should abide by because it was voted on by “consensus” which is the same meaning as democracy in Z’s dictionary.
In this respect, treaties that only determine government funding and executive behavior concerning foreign allies and territories, are in fact not any way, shape, or form the same as the laws of the United States of America, which affect all citizens, rich or poor. The President’s State Department and foreign diplomats write up treaties. Congress only votes on their ratification. For such treaties to become the “law of the land”, even the so called “supreme law of the land”, that would mean the Executive branch is WRITING our laws. Which is where in the US Constitution?
Treaties are not actually US laws, in any way, shape, or form. The people they are supposed to control, the politicians, can even break them and they won’t go to jail. Then again, given Democrat behavior recently, we may even consider the real Supreme Law of the land, the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights, to be a joke rendered unto us by the tyranny.
Concerning Article VI, this is what it actually says, which is not what Z is talking about when he uses the term in question.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This says the law made by Congress, is a real law, and of all the land, rather than something an individual state or person can overthrow. Which is true, I cannot write down and sign a letter and then call it a bill equal to and superseding Congress. Nor could anyone do so when they wanted to return funding to South Vietnam. The funding was cut within Constitutional limits and there it is. The force of law upholds the authority of such things.
However, that is not to say a treaty is binding upon an individual citizen or person living in America, only that politicians and judges cannot simply ignore it as if it didn’t exist or lacked legitimacy. A treaty is thus treated as a law, a law that American governments obey for the duration of its effect. However, to say treaties are a “supreme law” of the land like the First and Second Amendment are, is distorting the original framer’s meaning here. For one thing, it cannot be law binding upon citizens. Only Congress can write and vote on a bill to attempt to make it into the law of the land, and the President vetos or not. It isn’t reversed where the President writes up the law and Congress decides to sign off on it or not. That’s why in the Constitution you see the two different entities “laws” and “treaties” both included as under the larger umbrella of the term “supreme law of the land”. Which is to say, they are both treated as legitimate constructs that cannot be nullified outside the limitations set by the US Constitution, nor given power. Laws have no power if the President can neither veto nor sign it. Treaties have no force if no Congressional quroum exists to vote yea or neigh. Basically all it means is that people in authority can’t ignore things they don’t like without the proper authorization of power under Constitutional limits. It also sets into place a clear chain of command as to which constitution or congressional power supersedes the other. Thus state congresses and foreign governments, do not override the federal congress.
However, the Wilsonian branch of the Democrat party, continues to seek international acclaim as the final source of authority, rather than the US Constitution itself. In the long run, this has been troubling.
To repeat the point for finality, the Constitution set out a hierarchy of which laws to obey and adhere to if there is a conflict amongst them. So if Bush made a treaty with Iraq and it was ratified by Congress, and California decided that they were going to go to war with Iraq anyways and declared war, who is the supreme law that will be obeyed here by all government officials and politicians? The Constitution clearly defined who was or was not higher up in the hierarchy chart. Treaties are not laws and if they were, you wouldn’t need two different laws for the same thing. Nor would the framers have needed to include laws, treaties, and the US Constitution all in the same general umbrella. The body of law, in modern times, is a complex maze, but there is ultimately a very clear difference between laws on the one hand, and treaties on the other.
Though the U.S. has the right to reasonable self-defense, the ceasefire was between Iraq and the U.N., not the U.S.
Z here has recently said that the UN has no responsibility to get rid of child rapists in the UN mercenary forces, paid for by member contributions (which include a significant percentage from the US). Given that the UN has no army, there is no way that Iraq could have a ceasefire with a non-existent UN army. They can only have ceasefires with the member nations and their armies. Which would be the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
If Z thinks the UN is not responsible for upholding the rule of law in the protectorates they occupy, what makes him think the UN can be responsible for upholding a ceasefire between nations?
He wants to hold the U.N. responsible for what a Pakistani soldier may do, but not give the power to the U.N. to punish that soldier.
That’s an interesting whine. Saying the UN, like Climate con artists, can’t do anything because they lack power (or more funding). I believe they have plenty of power (and funding). They just don’t give a damn.
Those occupation forces wouldn’t be in places like Rwanda or other African countries without the cover of UN resolutions and red tape saying they were authorized to do so. Otherwise an army from one nation occupying another, is usually called aggression or foreign occupation, thus can be resisted with something called insurgency or war.
This gets us to the Left’s ridiculous world view that an occupation is only bad if the US is in charge of it, but it’s good if Communists and African mercenary armies are in charge instead. Heck, they don’t even call the later an “occupation”. They call it a “liberation”.
Ymarsakar: When Z talks about the law of the land, he’s including aspects such as obedience to foreign courts, values, and cultures.
“Supreme law of the land” refers to U.S. law. Take the Convention on Torture. The signatories agree to pass enabling legislation. The U.S. not only is a signatory, but they have explicit statutory laws against torture.
Ymarsakar: If the local government, or the US Senate, votes by “consensus” that it’s legitimate to hand sovereignty over to a foreign power, Z believes this is something the rest of us should abide by because it was voted on by “consensus” which is the same meaning as democracy in Z’s dictionary.
The very basis of the international system is the integrity of national sovereignty.
Ymarsakar: In this respect, treaties that only determine government funding and executive behavior concerning foreign allies and territories, are in fact not any way, shape, or form the same as the laws of the United States of America, which affect all citizens, rich or poor.
Not sure why you’re having troubles with this. The U.S. Constitution says that treaties are the supreme law of the land. They would still be under the Constitution, of course.
Ymarsakar: For such treaties to become the “law of the land”, even the so called “supreme law of the land”, that would mean the Executive branch is WRITING our laws. Which is where in the US Constitution?
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: He {The President} shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….
Ymarsakar: This says the law made by Congress, is a real law, and of all the land, rather than something an individual state or person can overthrow.
That’s right. Laws passed per the process outlined in the Constitution, and Treaties ratified per the process outlined in the Constitution, are the supreme laws in the land.
Ymarsakar: A treaty is thus treated as a law, a law that American governments obey for the duration of its effect. However, to say treaties are a “supreme law” of the land like the First and Second Amendment are, is distorting the original framer’s meaning here.
That’s correct. A supreme law does not override the Constitution. Courts might declare a treaty unconstitional.
Ymarsakar: For one thing, it cannot be law binding upon citizens.
Well, that’s not correct. If the U.S. signs a peace treaty, you can’t make war as a private citizen. You are bound by the treaty. If the U.S. signs a trade treaty, you are bound by it.
Ymarsakar: Only Congress can write and vote on a bill to attempt to make it into the law of the land, and the President vetos or not.
Per the U.S. Constitution, treaties require the President’s signature and two-thirds vote in the Senate for ratification. When that occurs, and assuming the treaty is constitutional, then it has the effect of law.
Zach shares with us his revisionist history: If the North Vietnamese didn’t keep the peace, South Vietnam ws doomed. Short of troops in the ground, no amount of U.S. aid would have changed that. Cambodia was doomed to collapse and chaos when the U.S. bombed the countryside there (and was possibly complicit in the overthrow of the monarchy).
So, now Zach, we know you are Chomsky acolytes. The pieces of your world views fall into place. Between you and me, this self-serving historical revisionism on the Khmer Rouge and Cambodia, pushed by people like Chomsky and the self-serving NYT reporter Sydney Sandberg is loathsome revisionism on the scale of Holocaust denial.
The South Vietnamese were hardly doomed. In fact, according to (North Vietnamese General) Giap’s memoirs, it was the North Vietnamese who were twice doomed by the Americans and South Vietnamese (the first being the Tet offensive, the second being the bombing campaign that led up to the Paris Accords), only to be rescued from the jaws of destruction by the American Left and their lapdog media (Walter Cronkite especially comes to mind). By the time the North Vietnamese launched operations (knowing the Americans had betrayed the South Vietnamese by cutting off their resources), they themselves had been nearly destroyed.
Perhaps the Cambodians could not have ultimately resisted the Khmer Rouge (we will never know), but the U.S. Left idolized the Khmer Rouge as ‘liberators” that would bring peace to Cambodia. For the Democrat Congress to deny the Cambodian government the arms and resources to resist to the bitter end (and perhaps win…we will never know), in violation of our agreements, was an atrocity for which they deserve to be excoriated.
As for the rest, a Treaty is only good as long as all parties benefit. When it actively works against the interest and survivability of a nation, it cannot continue.
I don’t know where you get the idea that the Gulf War coalition was an arm of the UN, btw. Maybe you could elaborate. Where I think President Bush I screwed up was in not wiping out the Iraqi air forces when they were committing genocide against the Shiites, after the U.S. had encouraged them to revolt. That was awful.
Ymarsakar: Z here has recently said that the UN has no responsibility to get rid of child rapists in the UN mercenary forces, paid for by member contributions (which include a significant percentage from the US).
Please try to be more precise. The U.N. doesn’t have an army. U.N. forces are comprised of national forces that report to their respective governments. Everyone has a responsibility to protect the innocent within their power, but the U.N. does not have the authority to enforce laws, only the individual national governments. If a U.S. soldier commits a crime while wearing a blue helmet, it is up to the U.S. to enforce the law through the appropriate tribunal.
Zachriel: If the North Vietnamese didn’t keep the peace, South Vietnam was doomed.
Danny Lemieux: So, now Zach{riel}, we know you are Chomsky acolytes.
Sigh. (And is it always necessary to try and smear by association?)
If free elections had been held, Ho Chi Minh would have won overwhelmingly. A corrupt government, seen as a colonial puppet, could only have survived over the long run with direct American involvement.
Danny Lemieux: In fact, according to (North Vietnamese General) Giap’s memoirs, it was the North Vietnamese who were twice doomed by the Americans and South Vietnamese
That is simply not correct. At no time did Giap suggest defeat in his memoirs. As for the strategy of wearing out the occupation army and the public, that is exactly the same strategy the Americans used against the British, as Ho, a student of the American Revolution, was quite aware.
Danny Lemieux: Perhaps the Cambodians could not have ultimately resisted the Khmer Rouge (we will never know),
What we do know is that the American incursion into Cambodia sent millions into flight, swelled the ranks of the Khmer Rouge, and flooded the capital with refugees, and destabilized the government. We also know that the monarchy, which had tried to remain neutral was overthrown with at least tacit American support (and possible CIA intervention) and replaced with a government more friendly to the war effort. Today, that monarch is known as the King-Father of Cambodia.
Danny Lemieux: As for the rest, a Treaty is only good as long as all parties benefit. When it actively works against the interest and survivability of a nation, it cannot continue.
Treaties typically involve a give-and-take.
Danny Lemieux: I don’t know where you get the idea that the Gulf War coalition was an arm of the UN, btw.
It was a a U.N.-authorized coalition force. (The U.N. doesn’t have armed forces.) The ceasefire was between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States (Resolution 687).
>>but the U.N. does not have the authority to enforce laws, only the individual national governments>>
That kind of contradicts your statement that the ceasefire bound the UN, not the US. If the UN has no army, then it cannot engage in a military action. If it cannot engage in a military action, then it cannot establish a ceasefire. For it to do so would be like a child telling two other children “Hey you guys – stop fighting! Because I said so…”
>>If the North Vietnamese didn’t keep the peace, South Vietnam ws doomed. Short of troops in the ground, no amount of U.S. aid would have changed that.>>
So we only have to keep our treaties if we like how they will turn out? If as you say, our word is our bond, then we should have continued to supply the money and weapons we agreed to supply unless and until the N.Viets actually took power. We didn’t. We didn’t because Congress decided not to abide by our treaty and agreements.
So…just exactly what does it take to abrogate a treaty? The treaty is between the US and country A. Congress has approved the treaty and the Pres has signed it. Now…for whatever reason, the situation on the ground changes, and the treaty becomes a bad thing for the US. Can the Pres declare it no longer in effect? Does it take a Congressional action of some sort? Does the State Department (or DOD) simply ignore it? What has to happen? Obviously, Congress _can_ take action to make it null and void – that’s what they did in the Vietnam situation. But is it _necessary_ for Congress to act?
suek: That kind of contradicts your statement that the ceasefire bound the UN, not the US. If the UN has no army, then it cannot engage in a military action.
The United Nations is an international organization. Member states provide military support to enforce its provisions. An analogy might be local militias that are called up to defend a confederation. The confederation makes war or peace, but the militias fight the battles and are required to keep their own order.
suek: So we only have to keep our treaties if we like how they will turn out?
North Vietnam should have kept faith with their treaty obligations, and found a peaceful path to reunification.
suek: Now…for whatever reason, the situation on the ground changes, and the treaty becomes a bad thing for the US.
Many treaties have an opt-out provision. Legal withdrawal would maintain the letter of the law, though not necessarily its spirit. The President can withdraw from a treaty. Congress can abrogate a treaty by statute. The U.S. repeatedly abrogated Indian treaties. Another nation could take the U.S. to the world court, but the court has no enforcement mechanism for non-trade matters, so the only consequences would be diplomatic and the credibility of U.S. promises.
“These lands will belong to the Siouxs as long as grass is green and rivers flow”.
>>North Vietnam should have kept faith>>
Shoulda woulda coulda.
It’s like the “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns” thing. The problem the world has isn’t with decent law abiding people, which most people probably are – it’s with the despots and law-breakers. As I said before – if you have no enforcement of a law, or no way to enforce a law – treaty, agreement, contract etc – then you _have_ no law etc. It’s merely a suggestion of how someone would like someone else to behave.
Good point, suek. The United Nations is toothless, and the analogy to militias carrying out the warmaking powers of a confederation falls short when you realize that the only military power strong enough to carry out non-rape UN expeditions is the United States. The rest of the UN’s “military” efforts are simply a way of distributing U.S. funds to semi-functional armies to keep them busy and away from home.
I don’t know if it’s behind a paywall or not (since I’m logged in), but John Bolton wrote today about the ICC’s toothlessness, which is just a good overall reminder that institutions that are most responsive to tyrannies tend to be useless.
Incredible, Zach.
The U.S. attacked a small part of Cambodia (the Parrot’s Beak) through which passed the Ho Chi Minh trail and which had been conquered and militarized by the NViets. In other parts of the Cambodian countryside, the Chinese-supported Khmer Rouge were brutalizing the population. Both actions were creating waves of refugees trying to escape to safer grounds (Phnom Penh) and the pro-American government (note, they weren’t fleeing toward the Khmer Rouge or the North Vietnamese).
Yet, you find a way to put the U.S. at fault for this.
So, let’s sum-up what we know about Zach’s world view: 1) America is criminally at fault when it destroys vicious dictatorships; 2) when dictatorships like Vietnam attack others…well, it’s regrettable but c’est la vie; 2) America is bound to observe Treaties even when such are against its own interests, but when others do it, its…regrettable but c’est la vie; and 3) we need to have faith in international institutions like the UN, because they are reliable, reasonable and logical intermediaries to the world.
Sheesh! I can imagine what your rhetoric would have been like in 1936. I am sure that you all would have seen a Utopia of the reasonably minded just over the horizon then as well. You all really need to get out more.
Encore, avec une patience tres grande, Danny parle a la mur.
The whole point of this evolution cycle of running Z through the necessary paces on the geo-political scene is to go back and review the executive summary.
You will find a condensed version of vital information there.
If a U.S. soldier commits a crime while wearing a blue helmet, it is up to the U.S. to enforce the law through the appropriate tribunal.
But somehow it’s not up to the US to enforce the ceasefire with Iraq, even though it was American and British pilots getting fired upon from surface based sams.
A rather convenient way to shed responsibility and accountability here. Reminds me of Z’s whole justification of how the Climate Change pyramid scheme is “legit” because the investigation into corrupt practices ended up saying that there were no corrupt practices. It just so happened that the country doing the fake science, was in charge of the investigation as well. Coincidentally.
Right on schedule:
It appears that the UN’s Human Rights Council has prepared a report praising Libya for its human rights.
The report has been enthusiastically endorsed by Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Myanmar, Syria…and other stellar exemplars of the international community. A more complete summary appears at Taranto’s WSJ Best of the Web here….
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506004576174543383325126.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
And the report itself, here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf
Because it is the UN, it must be so. To say otherwise is anathema. Thus sprake Zacharoosta!
So, to build on Mark Steyn’s question: if you take a gallon of horse manure and mix in a tablespoon of premium vanilla ice cream, will it taste more like horse manure or more like vanilla?
For some, the answer is clearly “vanilla”.
For the rest of us, the whole mess needs to be flushed into Turtle Bay or, better yet, far asea.
Er, if I have offended any horses with that last comment, I am truly sorry.
As mentioned before, until AQ signs the Geneva Conventions, there’s no agreement between the US and AQ on anything. If other countries want to start lecturing us on how to treat AQ, first of all, they aren’t even in the fight, so they don’thave standing to say anything. For those that are in the fight, like some NATO countries in Afghanistan, being part of a defense alliance doesn’t give them any rights or power to decide how we will treat people we were able to capture for intel. If they want to do something to captured people in one way, let them capture em. No part of the GCs ever said that being part of an alliance meant that alliance members could dictate how enemy prisoners were treated or on which condition they would be released. And if something did say it, they couldn’t enforce it. Which is the same deal.
Much of the Indian treaties were with the federal US government. The local state level government did, not in fact, like those treaties so they ignored them. And the federal government had not the power to enforce such treaties, so those treaties naturally contracted and were abrogated.
The sole reason for the Trail of Tears is because the Indians didn’t have the firepower, money, or bullets to fight off the white settlers. So Jackson told em to leave or else he knew they were going to get annihilated. The locals, unless you didn’t notice, weren’t paying much attention to what the US federal government way up there in DC were saying at the time. South Vietnamese didn’t have the money or bullets to fight the NV plus the Chinese and Russians either, btw. But Z wanted to see the Republic of Vietnam cut down, while Z likes to bolster monetary support to the N Indian tribes. Funny how that’s rather inconsistent and self-contradictory.
http://www.generalhieu.com/arvn-sorley-2.htm
The real story is basically that Congress cut off logistics to the ARVN and no air support from the US. Those were the two key factors. Without food, fuel, or bullets, not even elite US military units can hold out for long. Also without air support, the Chinese/Russian armored columns just could not be defeated or even appreciatively held up.
Many Americans would not like hearing it said that the totalitarian states of China and the Soviet Union had proven to be better and more faithful allies than the democratic United States, but that was in fact the case. William Tuohy, who covered the war for many years for theWashington Post, wrote that “it is almost unthinkable and surely unforgivable that a great nation should leave these helpless allies to the tender mercies of the North Vietnamese,” but that is what we did.
Until the progressive and draconian reductions in assistance began to have drastic effects, the South Vietnamese fought valiantly. In the two years after the January 1973 signing of the Paris Accords, South Vietnamese forces suffered more than 59,000 killed in action, more in that brief period than the Americans had lost in over a decade of war. Considering that such losses were inflicted on a population perhaps a tenth the size of America’s, it is clear how devastating they must have been, and the intensity of the combat that produced them.
Merle Pribbenow has pointed out that North Vietnam’s account makes it clear that during the 55 days of the final offensive much hard fighting took place. This is a tribute to the South Vietnamese, who had to know at that point what the eventual outcome would inevitably be. Noted PAVN Lieutenant General Le Trong Tan, during the final campaign “our military medical personnel had to collect and treat a rather large number of wounded soldiers (fifteen times as many as were wounded in the 1950 border campaign, 1.5 times as many as were wounded at Dien Bien Phu, and 2.5 times as many as were wounded during the Route 9-Southern Laos campaign in 1971.” Pribbenow calculates that “this would put PAVN wounded at 40,000-50,000 at the very minimum, and possibly considerably higher, not the kind of losses one would expect in the total ARVN ‘collapse’ that most historians say occurred in 1975.”
Z’s generation didn’t make such decisions, but the 300 million US dollars diverted from the Republic of Vietnam, rounded up, went into Democrat coffers, personal bank accounts, union special interests, and other cronyies of the Left. Z’s generation didn’t make the decisions that brought the Republic of V to its end, but they sure bask in the warm of the redistributed wealth. And that is not something people should expect me to forget, especially when the new generation of Democrats are now being ushered into new realms of power and totalitarian impulses by the Old Guard. Obama’s youth campaign not withstanding.
>>Encore, avec une patience tres grande, Danny parle a la mur.>>
Heh. I took French for my entire 8th grade year because I was required to. I started it again in HS, but dropped it in favor of German. Started it one more time in college, but dropped it to take Greek instead.
But.
I didn’t need a translator to understand the above…
(also the other one Danny used … about le cheval and l’eau… )
So far Z’s SOP and modus operandi goes something like this. He says something ambiguous sounding like this.
Modern democracies are successful largely because they distribute decision making at various levels, including strong institutions that act as checks on one another.
And then in actuality, he supports something called public sector unions and calls them democracy.
So you have what he says and then you have what he would actually do in terms of real life consequences. Which part of public sector unions “distribute decision making” at various levels? The members can’t even stop paying their dues, they get to be “forced” to be in cause the “union” is a so called quorum that can make decisions for them whether they like it or not through “collective bargaining”. What kind of “distributed decision making” is that again? And what strong institutions act on to check the public sector unions from giving politicians more money so politicians can give public sector unions more money?
It all sounds nice and sufficiently vague when you hear Z talking. But in reality, things are very clear and very harmful to America, those things Z is actually going to do or support.
Z is slippery. He uses bait and switch. He won’t state specifics – but if you get close to pinning him down on a specific point, he just slips out and onto another point.
It’s why such debaters/politicians are successful – there are a number of us, but when we are one person alone, there just isn’t time to go through the permutations. It’s how they win arguments even when everyone knows they’re wrong.
The real goal here is to be the center of attention, like the kid who doesn’t care that his parents yell at him all the time, at least they’re paying attention.
Skeet’s done this on other websites, garnering much the same disdain that he has earned here. Eventually, when we get tired of toying with him, he’ll head elsewhere.
But for now, he is a delicious snack, and ever since whatshername the liberal white racist poet lady abandoned us, we’ve needed a reminder why conservatism is clearly the left’s intellectual superior.
Danny Lemieux: The U.S. attacked a small part of Cambodia (the Parrot’s Beak) through which passed the Ho Chi Minh trail and which had been conquered and militarized by the NViets.
The area was militarized as far back as the Vietnamese War against the U.S. allied French. It was not the only area that was attacked. They carpet-bombed wide areas.
Danny Lemieux: In other parts of the Cambodian countryside, the Chinese-supported Khmer Rouge were brutalizing the population. Both actions were creating waves of refugees trying to escape to safer grounds (Phnom Penh) and the pro-American government (note, they weren’t fleeing toward the Khmer Rouge or the North Vietnamese).
The effect was to create a power vacuum in the countryside, and destabilized the central government, leading to a coup, then collapse. Trauma, then chaos.
Danny Lemieux: So, let’s sum-up what we know about Zach’s world view: 1) America is criminally at fault when it destroys vicious dictatorships;
War has terrible consequences, often unintended consequences, so peaceful means to resolve conflicts are preferred, when possible. Prudence is a conservative value. The incursion into Cambodia wasn’t so much criminal, as it was unwise.
Danny Lemieux: 2) when dictatorships like Vietnam attack others…well, it’s regrettable but c’est la vie;
All nations have the right to self-defense, however, Vietnam was a civil war, the country was divided as a result of WWII, was supposed to reunified, and there is little doubt that Ho would have won in free elections. Instead, despite what Roosevelt had planned, the Americans supported French re-colonization.
Danny Lemieux: 3) we need to have faith in international institutions like the UN, because they are reliable, reasonable and logical intermediaries to the world.
Certainly not. International institutions are still weak and ill-formed.
Danny Lemieux: I can imagine what your rhetoric would have been like in 1936.
That was the year the Spanish Civil War began. The fascists used the opportunity to try out their modern weapons, while leftists tried to raise the alarm. History isn’t always so simple.
Ymarsakar: But somehow it’s not up to the US to enforce the ceasefire with Iraq, even though it was American and British pilots getting fired upon from surface based sams.
And they have the right to self-defense, but not to cause hundreds-of-thousands of casualties, and millions of refugees, when the Iraqis had not shot down a single allied plane. Proportionality is another conservative value.
Ymarsakar: It just so happened that the country doing the fake science, was in charge of the investigation as well. Coincidentally.
There were at least five investigating agencies, including a U.S. Inspector General.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/02/noaa-climate-sicentists-us-report/1
Ymarsakar: As mentioned before, until AQ signs the Geneva Conventions, there’s no agreement between the US and AQ on anything.
That’s right. However, the U.S. has agreed to abide by certain standards with regards to any prisoners.
Ymarsakar: If other countries want to start lecturing us on how to treat AQ, first of all, they aren’t even in the fight, so they don’thave standing to say anything.
Of course they do. Everyone has a responsibility to stand up for human rights.
Ymarsakar: Much of the Indian treaties were with the federal US government. The local state level government did, not in fact, like those treaties so they ignored them. And the federal government had not the power to enforce such treaties, so those treaties naturally contracted and were abrogated.
And sometimes the Federal government would abrogate them by statute. Most people consider these to be broken promises and a blot on American history.
Zachriel: Modern democracies are successful largely because they distribute decision making at various levels, including strong institutions that act as checks on one another.
Ymarsakar: And then in actuality, he supports something called public sector unions and calls them democracy.
Unions are one of the many institutions that make up modern democratic societies. Each entity exerts pressure at various levels, and their interactions form a dynamic system.
I think that, at this point, we need to let Zach’s words stand as testimony to themselves. Or, self-parody.
I am truly amazed. There really is an alternate universe.
>>Skeet’s done this on other websites,>>
Really?? Do tell…!
However, the U.S. has agreed to abide by certain standards with regards to any prisoners.
It’s like someone calling on me to repay my debts but refusing to tell me who I borrowed money from.
In some ways, that’s like mafia extortion, rather than legitimate banking and loaning. Try again and next time state who has a debt with whom.
Martel, you sound like you are bored. That may be decidedly a bad state to be in. Oh wait, you’re in California already. Too late.
Proportionality is another conservative value.
You don’t know much about violence and how it works in the actual world, do you Z. Especially concerning SD laws and realities that people have to face in their daily lives. Proportionality is a Leftist meme and doctrine concerning the escalating ramp up of violence. Meaning, if someone comes at you with a knife, you can’t blow them up with a bomb or a gun. That’s what Leftist doctrine decrees. What conservatives abide by is called reasonable use of force. Which is a lot more reasonable than waiting for someone to bring a knife or a gun to a fight and then trying to counter them by matching equal force with equal force. Reasonable force simply means that there is a reasonable chance that the level of force will protect the individual from GBI or death. If there is a threat of death, then any level of force, up to and including lethal force, can be employed. If a person reasonably judges that his life is in danger, he can use lethal force, even though no weapon had been shown to him. If it’s a bar stool argument over whose basketball team should have won, then lethal force is not reasonable nor necessary for that problem to be resolved. Reasonable force also means that if a person thinks they will be attacked, they can initiate a first strike using greater force than the force used on them. Reasonable force continuums also take into account incidents where equal force is not enough to safeguard the individuals involved. Disproportionate force, such as the use of a gun against a dog’s bite or the use of a gun against a knife wielder, may become necessary.
You, Z, may think your way is better, but then again, nobody here has said your way was reasonable. That’s yet to be proven, demonstrated, or acquitted.
I have no idea where you get the idea that proportionality of force is a conservative value. Certainly the Jacksonian wing of America would find that remarkable.
Which part of public sector unions “distribute decision making” at various levels? The members can’t even stop paying their dues, they get to be “forced” to be in cause the “union” is a so called quorum that can make decisions for them whether they like it or not through “collective bargaining”. What kind of “distributed decision making” is that again?
Vietnam was a civil war
Last time I checked, civil wars don’t usually have one side being backed by a hyperpower, the Soviet Union, plus their Chinese allies. There Z goes again with his nebulous claims. They don’t stand up to reality. When the light of dawn comes, the will o wisp disappears.
suek, just Google Zachriel. He’s done pest stints on intelligent design sites, where I guess he’s fancied himself as an expert in evolution. Same pattern there as here: a seemingly informed commentary that other readers quickly begin unraveling and refuting until the almost uniform response is to start joking, as Danny has above, about alternate universes.
I don’t know what the clinical term is for the mindset at work here, but it is radically disengaged from the notion of give and take that involves an actual exchange of ideas versus the endless plating and replating of Wiki-derived memes. I’ve reached the point where I feel sorry for him.
Zachriel: However, the U.S. has agreed to abide by certain standards with regards to any prisoners.
Ymarsakar: It’s like someone calling on me to repay my debts but refusing to tell me who I borrowed money from.
It’s not that difficult. The U.S. has promised never to torture prisoners. From the comments on this thread, you would think that the promises of the U.S. seem to be empty. Contrarily, most Americans do take their national commitments seriously.
Ymarsakar: You don’t know much about violence and how it works in the actual world,
Pproportionality means you don’t shoot up the neighborhood because someone stole your wallet.
Danny Lemieux: I think that, at this point, we need to let Zach’s words stand as testimony to themselves. Or, self-parody.
Ymarsakar: Proportionality is a Leftist meme and doctrine concerning the escalating ramp up of violence.
Juxtaposition. Proportionality is not a “Leftist meme”. It’s a foundation of conservative thought.
Zachriel: Vietnam was a civil war.
Ymarsakar: Last time I checked, civil wars don’t usually have one side being backed by a hyperpower, the Soviet Union, plus their Chinese allies.
The Soviets and Chinese were no longer allies, and great powers often manipulate civil wars for their own ends.
More Z sense. Which is analogous to non sense.