The Associated Press and the end of Personal Responsibility (or Words Have Meaning 3)

The Associated Press, a large and influential news organization, recently published a change to their style guidelines that eliminates the use of the term ‘illegal’ to describe immigrants who did not enter the country legally.  The guidance went on to say that only actions should be described as illegal, but not people.  This policy has implications that go well beyond the immigration debate and are both profound and disturbing.

In previous posts on Words Have Meaning (Part 1 and Part 2), we talked about how the words we choose convey meaning, whether that meaning was intended or not.  The decision to stop using the term ‘illegal’ to describe people was meant to avoid stigmatizing a person and instead use the term to describe activity, according to the AP.  Critics of the move say that it was done intentionally to reduce the negative connotation of illegal immigration, thus making it easier for politicians to grant amnesty or provide other benefits to people who entered the country illegally.  But, from a logical perspective, this decision goes well beyond immigration and further erodes the concept of personal responsibility.

We are a country of tremendous personal freedoms, but with that freedom also comes personal responsibility.  If we are to survive and thrive as a nation, we must hold people accountable for their actions.  Look at how we already do that now.  If a person graduates medical school and gets the proper certifications, we call them a Doctor.  Someone who wins an election to the Senate is a Senator.  An athlete that wins the Superbowl is a Superbowl champion.  Someone who is convicted of a felony is a Felon.  These examples could go on, but the point is that we identify people with what they do and how they behave.   In a society that does not believe that people were born into a caste or a certain role and instead have the freedom to pursue their happiness, our actions and behavior define us to a large degree.

To separate a person’s behavior with how we view that individual is to take away the idea of personal responsibility.  If we can only use negative terms to describe behavior it is as if that behavior occurred on its own, without someone making a decision to behave that way.  Imagine if we said that a robbery was committed but the person who committed it was not a thief?  Instead, they are an ‘undocumented owner of goods’.  Or what if a person who could not control a drug habit was not a drug addict? What if a drunk driver was really just a ‘non-sober vehicle operator’.  A murderer could just be an ‘unlicensed end-of-life caregiver’.  Would anyone ever be responsible for the negative acts they committed or would all those bad things just occur without anyone causing them?

If the AP made the decision to strike the term ‘illegal immigrant’ for a short-term political goal, then their decision is shallow and partisan.  However, the unintended consequence of that decision is the further slide into a culture where no one is held responsible or takes responsibility for their bad actions.

Comparison of Quantitative Easing and S&P

What Does Cyprus Mean for Us?

The recent events in Cyprus have many in our country debating whether Cyprus and the larger financial problems mean anything for the U.S.  There are two questions that people ask most: 

1.  Will the events in Cyprus affect us?

2.  Can we become like Cyprus if our debt becomes too large?

First, it is important to quickly cover some background on Cyprus and the larger problems in several European countries like Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain (PIIGS).  The bottom line is that all of these countries face growing turmoil due to large debt compared to their GDP.  Their ability to pay back their debt is in serious doubt so other countries are unwilling to loan them more money unless they take steps to curtail their deficits through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, typically referred to as austerity measures.  For more background on austerity, I refer back to an older post on the topic:  The Myths of Austerity.  The biggest difference between a country like Cyprus and the U.S., and this is important, is that Cyprus does not have a sovereign currency.  They belong to the Eurozone and use the Euro as their currency.  That means they cannot simply print more money to pay off their debt.  Cyprus made headlines recently because of the seizure of portions of private bank accounts to help pay off their debt.

So to answer the first question, can Cyprus affect the U.S, the answer is no in the short term but possibly in the long term.  Cyprus is a tiny country so their economic problems should not directly affect the U.S.  However, the problems in Cyprus and the reaction to the problem of seizing people’s private funds could cause more widespread concern in the PIIGS countries.  If people in those countries believe that their bank accounts could be targeted as well, they could cause a run on the banks and create greater economic problems throughout Europe.  The other short term problem that could happen is if countries throughout Europe decide that the Euro is no longer a viable currency and a nation like Germany, tired of being forced to bail out their Mediterranean neighbors, decides to dissolve the Euro experiment.  Although some feel this is a better option in the long term, the short term chaos would cause problems here in the U.S. since Europe is our largest trading partner.

Now for the second question, can something like Cyprus happen here, the short answer is no but the larger answer is a little less definite.  Remember when I said that we have a sovereign currency.  So technically we can always pay off debt by printing more money.  The problem becomes when we accumulate too much debt and print too much money.  Experts disagree on when that point occurs, but if more currency is put into circulation, eventually the value of all of the currency decreases.  That is inflation.  Now creditors will want more return for their investment because each dollar they receive back is worth less, so the price of borrowing goes up.  Now some argue that despite all the money that the Fed has printed over the last few years that inflation is still low.  They miss the point in two areas.  One, the official inflation rate or Consumer Price Index (CPI) is low because it includes housing rental prices, which have been low due to the crash of the housing market.  With a lot of empty houses due to foreclosure and people underwater and unable to sell their homes, rental prices dropped.  But, think about the things you buy every day like gas and food and you get a sense of real inflation.  Also, higher unemployment rates have kept inflation low because fewer people have money to spend.  However, no one can argue that an almost limitless printing of money will eventually cause inflation.  Without a gold standard to back up our money, the currency gets its value from the full faith and credit of the government.  In other words, creditors have to believe the money has value.  If there is so much of it in circulation, the dollar will lose value, making everything we buy more expensive.

So Cyprus and the events in other European countries are important to watch for a couple of reasons.  One, a larger economic catastrophe in Europe will affect our economy.  Two, the problems countries like Cyprus and Greece have with their debt is actually a better comparison to the issues our states and cities will face due to debt or bankruptcy.  The national debt of Cyprus is about $19 billion.  The debt of California is about 20 times that and like Cyprus, California does not have a sovereign currency.

Obesity and Medical Costs

A discussion on another site came up recently about healthcare costs so I decided to post this picture on this site.  It is a comparison of obesity rates on the left and medicare costs per person on the right.  In both charts, darker is higher.  While correlation does not always mean cause and effect, the correlation is pretty clear.

Vox Logicae

Pork For Our Time

 In 1938, British Prime Minister  Neville Chamberlain met personally with Adolf Hitler to work out a deal to prevent conflict in Europe.  He basically agreed to let Germany take part of Czechoslovakia without repercussions.  When Chamberlain returned from Germany after making a deal with the devil, he told the British people that they would see “Peace for our time”.    Chamberlain’s name has become synonymous with the term appeasement and people have used his actions to show that you cannot negotiate with a madman.  If you examine his words in more detail though, it is even more disturbing.  When Chamberlain said “for our time” he had to know that Adolf Hitler did not have peaceful intentions and eventually there would be war.  He just didn’t want to deal with it, despite the fact that Germany was only growing more dangerous every day.  In other words, as long as we have peace now, who cares what happens later.

Unfortunately, we see this same sentiment today when it comes to dealing with our nation’s debt.  Experts argue about when the debt will become a crisis, but few will dispute that excessive debt hurts our country.  We also know that, if nothing changes, the debt will only get worse.  And nothing is really being done about it.  Despite the fact that Rep. Ryan’s budget is already under attack by some, it only begins to address the debt ten years from now.  The budget submitted by Sen. Murray never balances the budget so will never address debt.  

So where does the problem lie?  The majority of Americans feel that the government should live within its means.  However, mention reduced spending on any program, and some group will protest.  To make things worse, few politicians have the courage to propose reduced spending to any specific program because of the repercussions.  In some ways, that makes our behavior even more cowardly than Neville Chamberlain’s.  At least his decision to sacrifice part of Czechoslovakia was based on life and death decisions, war and peace.  The decisions our elected leaders take now to guarantee ‘Pork for Our Time’ and push this problem off to future generations is strictly based on political gain.  And the American people are not facing the threat of another World War like the British were in 1938.  Will we be willing to sacrifice anything to avoid passing the burden of debt to future generations or will we only be concerned with ‘our time’?

Why Worry about the Debt?

Austerity the Boogeyman

Anyone who is using the term ‘austerity’ to describe the proposed budgets in Congress is irresponsible and dangerous, and here is why.  A debt that is already large and continuing to get larger is not good for this country.  I’ve already written about how non-discretionary spending will become an increasingly larger portion of our spending in Budget, how the debt hurts our foreign policy in It’s the Debt Stupid, how solving the debt problem will become more and more difficult over time in The Biggest Loser, and how nothing in the Ryan or Murray budgets comes close to being described as ‘austerity’ in Myths of Austerity so I don’t want to revisit those ideas in this post.  

So why is using the word austerity irresponsible and dangerous?  First, it is simply not accurate.  Neither budget cuts spending.  They reduce the rate of growth of spending.  If an alcoholic drinks 8 beers every night, plans on drinking 10 tomorrow but only drinks 9 when tomorrow comes, did he cut down on drinking?

But more importantly, the word austerity scares people and makes them think that we are about to take draconian measures.  People equate austerity with chaos and rioting in the street so using the word makes it less likely that people will be willing to consider any deficit reduction measures.  

Here’s the problem.  Imagine the debt is a cavity on your tooth.  In Ryan’s plan the cavity keeps getting worse for 10 years and then stabilizes.  In Murray’s plan the cavity will keep getting worse forever.  Either way, the cavity is continuing to decay for a while.  Now imagine your friend or a loved one tries to scare you about seeing a dentist to get a filling.  Being scared, you do nothing until eventually the tooth gets so bad you need a root canal or get the tooth pulled completely.  By scaring you about handling the problem at an earlier stage, the problem got worse and required more drastic measures.  The same analogy from the Biggest Loser post could be used here as well.  Imagine that you have an overweight friend.  Their excess weight is causing health problems but they just continue to put on more weight.  Would you scare them by talking about how horrible exercise is or how brutal eating right is going to be, or would you explain to them the health risks of obesity and look for sensible ways to address the problem?  If you scare them now into doing nothing, it will only get worse.

Scaring people with the word ‘austerity’ will have the same effect on doing something about the deficit and debt.  Make people aware of the facts and let them make a decision on deficit reduction, but don’t use the boogeyman of austerity to scare people away from the facts.  When you see the word ‘austerity’ trying to describe any attempt to reduce the deficit, call the writer out as irresponsible and false.  I think the American people know that we can not continue to add to our debt year after year with no plan in sight to reverse that trend.

The Iraq War Revisited

The 10th anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war has brought out renewed questions on the legitimacy, effectiveness and outcomes of the Iraq War.  It has also brought out renewed claims from some critics who believe that we went to war with Iraq for oil or that the administration lied about WMD to make the case for war .  If you believe those claims you may be surprised that those ideas do not hold up very well to logic.  You can say a lot about the intelligence leading up to Iraq, whether Iraq distracted us from Afghanistan, how well we fought the insurgency and a host of other issues but let’s examine the idea of a war in Iraq from a logical perspective.

On Oil:

1.  Iraq was never a major supplier of oil to the US, and despite having large oil reserves, is only the 12th leading exporter of oil.   In 2012 Iraq only exported half as much oil as Iran.

2.We did not take Iraq’s oil during or after the Iraq war.  Iraq never was a major supplier of US oil and we import less of it now  than we did before the war.  Also, Britain only imports a very small percentage of its oil from the entire Middle East so it is unlikely that Britain and the US colluded to steal Iraqi oil.

3.  We have not benefited from Iraq’s oil in any significant way.  Most of the oil contracts after the Iraq war have gone to Russia and Asia.  Any benefits we may have achieved were from reconstruction contracts on the oil fields after the war.

4.  Gas was a little over $1.70 a gallon in early 2003, hardly a cause for major concern about global gas prices.  Iraq only contributes about 3% of global oil exports so could not significantly impact supply and cost.

On the Claims that the Administration simply fabricated the case for WMD:

1.  We know Saddam Hussein had WMD before the 1991 Gulf War and used them against Iran and the Kurds.

2.  From 1991-1998 much of Iraq’s WMD program was destroyed but Hussein never fully cooperated with UN weapons inspectors.  In 1998 those inspectors left the country before fully resolving the WMD issue.

3.  In 2002, Hussein was cooperating to some degree with Hans Blix, the lead UN inspector.  But, there were problems with documentation provided by the Iraqis and Blix was not able to make a conclusive determination on the state of Iraq’s WMD program.

4.  The UN passed Resolution 1441  in November 2002 unanimously, including Yes votes from countries like Russia and even Syria.  This resolution said that Iraq would face ‘serious consequences’ if found in violation of the resolution.  Resolution 1441 was passed because Iraq was found to be in violation of Resolution 687 or the terms that ended the 1991 Gulf War, which included WMD and conventional weapons as well as reparations to Kuwait for the 1990 invasion of that country.

5.  Even with the threat of war, Hussein refused to fully cooperate.  Now if you try to think logically through the possibilities in 2003 you have to believe that either a) Iraq still has WMD or b) Saddam willingly and unilaterally disarmed.  It appears in hindsight that either option b was reality or that the weapons were moved before the US-led invasion.  In 2003, would you have honestly come to the conclusion that Saddam completely disarmed, given the history of the dictator?

6.  The administration did not find WMD in Iraq and almost lost a second term because of that.  Surely an administration that could fake 9/11 and make up a phony war for oil could ‘plant’ a few barrels of WMD somewhere in the vast deserts of the country to cover their clumsy grab for oil.  (That is sarcasm, folks)

7.  Even if you look at this from a purely selfish perspective on the part of the President, if he made up the intelligence leading to the war, he had to know that no one would find WMD which would threaten his Presidency.  Why would you intentionally mislead people to start a war with dubious benefits to you and a lot of potential pitfalls?

So what is most likely from a logical perspective:

1.  The nation and the administration just went through 9/11 and were understandably shocked.  Imagine if you have been mugged on the street.  The next time you go out in the street in that area, you will probably be a lot more wary and think that anyone who looks remotely shady could be another potential mugger.

2.  Intelligence, which is never completely conclusive, indicated that there was a possibility that Iraq had WMD.  Keep in mind that intelligence is not black and white, yes or no.  It is a matter of interpreting information and coming to the best conclusion based on the facts you have.

3.  You have a dictator with a known history of possessing and using WMD who refuses to fully cooperate with inspectors and does not have a favorable opinion of the US, to say the least.

4.  You make the conclusion that Iraq has WMD and is a threat.  I think this can be a case of confirmation bias where you tend to see evidence to confirm what you already think.  This can also be a case of group-think as a result of an administration and a nation horrified by 9/11 with a desire to do something about it.  Both of these are mistakes and in hindsight led to a clearly bad decision, but was it predicated on outright lies and a grab for oil?

I am not absolving the administration at the time for faulty intelligence, committing some of the mental errors described above and failing to plan adequately for the post-invasion period.  There were definitely mistakes made.  But to say that this was a war for oil or a war caused by lies just does not pass the logic test.

The Truth about the Sequester

The purpose of this post is not to blame the right or the left for sequestration.  There is enough blame to go around on both sides.  For a reminder of how we got to sequester, go back and read an earlier post on the topic:  How the Sequester Got Started.  The real purpose of this post is to cut through the various and sometimes conflicting views on whether or not the cuts are minor or serious.  

Imagine you run a family budget and you have to cut about 2% per year from spending.  Now a little over half of the budget is tied up in house, car and insurance payments that you are not willing or able to cut.  So that 2% cut has to come from the other half of your budget, which makes it a 4% cut from that half.  Let’s say that 25% of the budget is for entertainment and recreation and the other 25% is for living expenses like food, gas and day to day items.  Keep in mind that these don’t represent an actual family budget, they are just to show a point.  

Let’s say you decide to spread that 4% cut evenly over the entertainment and living expenses portions of your budget instead of cutting one part 8% and the other 0%.  Now if we just focus on the 4% cut to living expenses, imagine that you can’t cut your gas costs or your food costs for whatever reason.  So your day to day items budget has to absorb all of that 4% cut to the living expenses portion, which could amount to closer to a 12% cut in that area.  Keep in mind that you are already halfway through the year so a 12% cut is really like a 25% cut of the budget you have remaining for the year.

Take the numbers above and substitute non-discretionary spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for your untouchable house, car and insurance payments.  Substitute Defense and non-Defense discretionary spending for you living expenses and entertainment budget (the terms don’t mean anything so don’t read into whether Defense is entertainment or living expenses).   Now you can see why it is possible to say simultaneously that these cuts only represent 1-2% of spending and cannot possibly be devastating and that they represent up to 35% of some programs and will be painful.  Statistics and numbers can be manipulated to say what you want them to say.  Although the cuts are only 1-2% of the overall budget, they were targeted at smaller portions of the budget and do not allow for flexibility in how they are implemented.  In the family scenario above, you might get by with a 25% cut in your day to day items budget.  Could you do the same with your food or gas budget?

So what does this all mean?  One, it means that both sides are partially right and partially wrong when describing the effects of the cuts.  Take Defense cuts once again.  They represent half of the sequester cuts, despite the fact that they are less than 20% of spending.  When you take into account that they cannot cut personnel costs or costs for ongoing operations you see that the DoD has to make the cuts in limited areas like training and new equipment.  Not exactly good news if something unexpected happens, like say Syria or North Korea.

This also means that if the American people are not willing to seriously look at non-discretionary entitlement spending that any future cuts will come from an increasingly smaller piece of the pie.  Entitlement spending is already over half of the US budget and along with interest on the debt, will only increase in proportion every year if no changes are made.  I have already written on entitlement programs and compared the life expectancy when the programs were created to the life expectancy now at the link here Budget.  It doesn’t take a mathematician to realize that the longer people live and the more medical care costs, the more that these programs will cost the nation.  Are we willing to say that maybe 60, 62, 65 or 67 are not the same as those age milestones were in the 1930s or 1960s?  Are we willing to make any spending cuts at all that are not tied to a game of chicken called the sequester?  If so, are we only going to make those cuts from less then one half of the budget and shrinking?

What the Biggest Loser can Teach us About the Debt!

If you have seen an episode or even heard of the Biggest Loser TV show, you know what the show is about.  If not, the basic premise is that people who are extremely overweight go on a reality show where they live away from their families and compete to lose weight under the demanding routines of their physical trainers.  Their entire lives become focused around proper nutrition and punishing workouts in a last-ditch attempt to reverse their unhealthy lifestyles.  So what can this show teach us about the nation’s current debt situation?

The contestants on the show are clearly obese and at risk for a host of health problems.  If you think about the path that got people to that point, you have to wonder at what point did they realize they had a problem?  At what point did their weight and health become a crisis?  When they were 30, 50, 100, or even 200 pounds overweight and increasing every year, where were the alarm bells?  How did they get to 300, 400 or even 500 pounds without themselves, a loved one, or a friend doing something about it?

Our nation’s debt is following the same pattern as we speak.  Experts and politicians argue whether we are in a debt ‘crisis’ or not and struggle to even define what constitutes a debt crisis.  Here is what we do know.  We are almost $17 trillion in debt and increasing that every year.  Even the Ryan budget, which is regarded as extreme by those on the left, only gets us to a balanced budget in 10 years.  In other words, in 10 years we only get to the point where we stop putting on weight but we have not lost a pound in that 10 years and have continued to pack on the weight, only more slowly.  Maybe we are not at a debt crisis now, but what does it take for the country to recognize that the trend is not good and that if nothing is done, we will just keep adding to the problem?

Because the contestants on the show have become extremely obese, their problems are compounded.  First, they require major lifestyle changes to improve their health.  They try to change their eating habits drastically and endure tough workouts.  These workouts are made more difficult by the extra weight that affects their joints and  hearts, and by the fact that their bodies are typically not ready for physical activity due to years of sedentary lifestyles.

Likewise, the worse the debt becomes, the harder it will be to reverse the problem.  The interest alone on the debt will be like that extra weight threatening the body’s health.  The shear amount of debt to pay off will force future generations to take more drastic measures.  Compare that to the minor and gradual lifestyle changes that can be taken when a person is only 15 or 20 pounds overweight and can simply cut out that extra dessert, reduce portions slightly and get out for a daily walk.  A crushing level of debt will require a radical change in diet and punishing physical activity to get it under control.

A couple of decades ago we were probably at our ‘ideal weight’ when it comes to the debt.  Four or five years ago we were showing telltale signs of being overweight.  In the last four to five years we have been packing on the pounds at a very rapid pace.  If we are not in a crisis yet, why wait until we get there?  Why wait until we are so heavy that it is tough to move and we have so much weight to lose.  Why not push away from the table now, start exercising and reducing the waste in our diet so that we can make some positive changes before we need Jillian and Bob yelling in our faces.  Now some will argue that the debt is different than weight because we can simply print more money.  That is true, but that is like converting your weight from pounds to kilograms because it sounds better, or going on a quick fad diet to drop a few pounds.  You haven’t changed the fundamental problem.  Printing money eventually just lowers the value of all the money in circulation so while we address the immediate debt, we cause inflation.  And while we may have dropped a few pounds or paid off some debt temporarily, if we don’t change our lifestyle we will just keep adding it back on.

Before every contestant on the show reached the point of being morbidly obese, there had to be a point where all the bad signs were there and they chose to ignore them.  Do we need to do the same as a nation?  Let’s put down that piece of cake and go for a walk while we still can.

The Myths of Austerity

If you spend some time on blogs and message boards you see a lot of different reactions to the current discussion in Washington about our debt and deficits.  Inevitably, someone talks about the debt crisis in Europe and the PIIGS countries in particular.  In these discussions, I have seen a few alarming flaws in logic regarding the word austerity that is typical of the reason why we have a difficult time discussing this topic in our country.

Pundits, politicians, experts and everyday people argue whether or not we have a debt problem in this country, and if we do, what is the best way to address it.  Is it increased taxes, decreased spending, or a combination of the two?  This article is not to address those issues.  But what it is important to address are fundamental logic flaws about the concept of austerity in Europe that many people in this country have.  To do so, I will focus on Greece in particular as an example of the worst of the problem.

Greece is in an economic crisis because their debt to GDP ratio became so high that their ability to ever pay back their debt was put in question.  As a result, their bond rates increased making it more difficult for Greece to pay back debt.  In addition, the global market crash in the late 2000s affected Greece’s GDP, making it even more difficult to get their debt under control.  Because the country is part of the EU they do not have the same flexibility with their money that the U.S. does.  But, the fundamental problem for Greece was that their debt to GDP ratio simply became too high.

Now this is where austerity comes in.  Austerity was essentially forced on Greece as a condition to secure loans.  In other words, other countries said we do not want to give you more money until you demonstrate that you are going to take measures to get your debt under control.  So austerity was a result of out of control debt, not the cause of it.  I can’t count how many times recently I have heard people try to state that austerity was the cause of Greece’s problems.  Now, the other problem I see in this country is that many people are trying to equate Congressman Ryan’s recent budget proposal with austerity.  There are several logic flaws with this also.  First, if you try to look at what any U.S. budget proposal is, it is not really spending cuts, it is mainly slowing the rate of spending increases.  In other words, if I gain 3 pounds a year and one year I only gain 2 pounds, I didn’t cut any weight.  I just got heavier a little more slowly that year.  Second, the austerity measures in Greece are a combination of spending cuts, tax increases and other measures such as the privatization of some industries.  So to only equate austerity with spending cuts is not logically valid. In fact, austerity in Europe more closely resembles a balanced approach to deficit reduction, just on steroids.  There is a good link below that covers the austerity measures in more detail.

So what does all this mean?  When discussing our options for the deficit and debt, it is important to not only look to what other countries are doing but to fully understand what they are doing in context.  Austerity did not cause Greece’s debt crisis, over-spending on social programs, and a decrease in revenue due to a lowered GDP and problems with their tax code caused their debt crisis.  Their ability to handle debt differs from the U.S. because they are a member of the Eurozone and not in control of their own currency.  However, what made their debt a crisis was that they let it reach a level that made creditors doubt the country’s ability to pay it back.  Austerity was an attempt to fix the debt crisis and was required as a condition to get access to more money.  Finally, austerity for Greece involves large cuts in spending and large increases in taxes, large compared to what the U.S. is discussing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13940431

A Different View on Income Inequality, The Times they are a Changing

If you spend some time on discussion boards about politics, you are bound to find some people who rant about rising income inequality and how greedy people are trying to take over the world and make everyone else poorer.  The only thing the people making these posts can’t agree on is whether all of the greedy people trying to take over the world are led by George Soros or the Koch brothers.

Let me offer a different view on income inequality.  It is hard to argue with the facts that the wealthiest in the world have increased the gap between their wealth and that of the poorest  over the years.  But instead of some massive conspiracy, let’s consider a more benign, but real reason why this is happening.  I will readily admit that the concepts I am going to talk about appear in Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers.

There are some jobs out there that are constrained by physical limitations.  For example, if you are a plumber, even a really good plumber, you can only fix so many toilets in one day. You have to physically get to all of the locations and do manual work that can only be done so quickly.  So although a plumber may make a decent wage per hour or per job, there is an upper limit on his or her income that only changes a little over the years to adjust for inflation and for some minor fluctuations in supply and demand.

Contrast the plumber with that evil person out to take over the world, Taylor Swift.  If Taylor Swift was alive 200 years ago she could have used her voice and talents to sing songs for local people and may have been able to scrape together a living doing so.  If she had been in business 50 years ago, she could have used her talents to record records that would have likely sold to people only in the U.S. with a population that is smaller than it is now.  But right now, Taylor Swift can record a song, using a process of recording that takes roughly the same work and effort as it did 50 years ago, but that song can be downloaded by billions of people around the world.  Her income potential has increased by a rate almost beyond comprehension simply by being alive in the digital, global age instead of 200 years ago.  Compare that with the plumber or other manual worker who is still just as limited by physical constraints as they were years ago.

You can also apply this concept to corporations.  Before the industrial age, companies were limited in how big they could become.  Products were made by hand and had to be moved over land or by sea, but there were only so many markets with the money to purchase goods.  Now, production capacity is so much greater, transportation is better, there are more people in the world and more of them have a working wage to buy products.  And that does not even include products and services that are not physical any more and can be digitized and spread rapidly throughout the world.  

The world is constantly changing.  Concepts such as the internet, globalization, and digitization all change the way we work and conduct business.  That is a fact of life.  Sometimes people try to see vast conspiracies when the explanation is simpler – the times they are a changing.

A Different View on Income Inequality, The Times they are a Changing | voxlogicae

A Different View on Income Inequality, The Times they are a Changing | voxlogicae

A View on how the Largest Economy in Europe views Debt

Germany agrees to 'historic' balanced budget - The Local

Japan urged not to escalate tensions over Diaoyu |Latest News |chinadaily.com.cn

Japan urged not to escalate tensions over Diaoyu |Latest News |chinadaily.com.cn

Another example of why our debt is important.  If we have to react to a crisis like this, what leverage do we have?

Words Have Meaning, Part 2

In Part 1 of this post, we discussed how the use of words to describe a topic or problem can be misleading or confusing and cause people to ignore the larger issue at hand.  In this part of the post we will look at two current topics of concern and see how the words used to describe them are inadequate.  In the interest of fairness we will discuss a topic from both sides of the political spectrum to show that neither side is immune to the problem.

Many watched and followed on social media as Senator Rand Paul filibustered the nomination for CIA director and demanded answers for the administration’s policy on drone strikes.  Newspapers have recently begun covering drones and their capacity to strike at and spy on citizens.  Just google the term ‘drone strikes’ and you will be amazed at the number of results.  So let’s look at the term.

First, the sophisticated aircraft we are talking about are Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), not drones.  Drones are actually a different type of system and are very simple machines usually used for target practice.

But more importantly, why is the concern about ‘drone strikes’ misleading?  First, drones or UAS do not strike on their own.  This is not the Terminator where Skynet has come on line and the machines are taking over.  Unmanned aircraft are controlled by someone so to be concerned about ‘drone strikes’ makes the situation impersonal and ignores the real actor involved.  Second, the government has had aircraft that could be used to strike at people for decades.  A Predator is not the first aircraft that could fire a missile.  Look into how the U.S. targeted Admiral Yamamoto during WWII, or how we targeted Qaddafi in the 1980s, Osama Bin Laden in the 1990s, or Saddam Hussein in the 2000s using aircraft or cruise missiles.  So, why now are people suddenly concerned about aircraft strikes, just because there is no pilot on board?  

A better term to describe this problem would be extrajudicial killings, or more importantly extrajudicial killings of U.S. citizens.  That term sums up the real concerns, which is what authority does the government have to kill people, particularly U.S. citizens, without due process.  The term ‘drone strikes’ just confuses the process by focusing on an instrument and scaring people about a tool that is neither good nor bad and does not put peoples’ attention on the real problem.  Would we solve anything if we pass a law that addresses ‘drone strikes’ on U.S. citizens but leaves the door open to use helicopters, fighter jets, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, slingshots, and poisoned blow darts to kill people without trial?

The same could be said about the calls to curb ‘gun violence’ or enact more ‘gun control’.  Like the drone strikes phrase, guns are inanimate objects that are not violent.  Guns are not good or evil by themselves, they are a tool or device.  If people are really concerned because of some of the recent, high profile events like Newtown, MA or Aurora, CO a better problem to tackle would be the connection between mental illness and violence.  Does anyone think that Adam Lanza would have stopped what he was going to do if he came upon a sign that said the school he approached was a gun-free zone?  Or do we think that James Holmes was not going to attack a theater until he discovered that there are high capacity magazines out there.  If Colorado had passed the law limiting magazines to just 15 rounds a year sooner, would that have stopped anything?  We have to be intellectually honest here.

The real problem is why are people reaching a mental state where violence by any means occurs, whether that be with a gun, knife, bat, or by pushing someone off of a subway platform.  Until we begin to address the connection between mental health and violence, we are just avoiding the real issue by making laws that limit magazine capacity or change the way a buttstock on a gun looks.

So now that you have seen two current examples of how the wrong choice of words, either intentionally or unintentionally, can affect how we approach problems, what other examples will you see in everyday life?

Call to Action on the Budget

This is an interesting link from Heritage.org on the budget.  Looking at this from a logical lens, I think items 2, 4, and 6 will depend on what side of the political spectrum you are on.

 However, it is hard to argue with the opening paragraph.  Regardless of whether you are a Democrat or Republican or favor more or less spending, the country needs a budget, period.  Not a continuing resolution or a short-term fix.  How can we prioritize where our spending goes when only one of the two houses passes a budget every year?  http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/11/morning-bell-6-things-the-next-u-s-budget-should-do/

Big Gulps and Big Responsibility

As I write this post there are articles being posted that a judge in NYC has reversed Mayor Bloomberg’s large sugary drink ban.  My opinions on the ban are torn between two opposing thoughts.  

On the one hand, it seems that banning large sugary drinks is probably not very effective.  I can’t see how limiting large beverages is going to put a dent in a very complex obesity problem.  The larger concern that people raise is that it is a restriction of our freedoms.  We should be able to eat and drink whatever we want and do what we want to our bodies, right?

On the other hand, what we do to our bodies affects us all to some degree.  Health care costs related to obesity are extremely high and getting worse.  Because of the way our health care system is set up, those costs affect us all.  

So, while we all want to enjoy our personal freedom, with freedom comes responsibility.  While Mayor Bloomberg’s approach to this problem may have turned out to be ineffective, what actions should our elected leaders take to address the obesity problem in this country, if any?  If we want to retain our personal freedom, how do we also promote personal responsibility.  For people in favor of the ban I would say where does it stop?  What else can be banned?  For people who say they can eat and do whatever they want, I would say that is fine, just don’t ask the taxpayers to pay for your bad choices.  

The message is that freedom is not just a right we we enjoy, it is a responsibility we must take seriously.

Words Have Meaning, Part 1

The next time you read or hear something in the news, I want you to think of the particular words being used.  What type of meaning is the person trying to portray and does that meaning match the problem or issue at hand.  Words do have meaning and when they are not used correctly, can be part of the problem.

Here are two examples:

The War on Drugs
Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Both of these phrases have been used to describe societal efforts to solve a problem.  Both of the campaigns have involved a tremendous amount of time and resources.  The effort to curtail ‘Drunk Driving’ has seen some success, while the ‘War on Drugs’ has seen much less success.  The links at the bottom of this post show statistics for both problems.

So, why do we need to examine the words used to describe these two campaigns?  The ‘War on Drugs’, if taken literally, is a war on an object, a thing.  First, not all drugs are bad, so from the beginning the title of this effort does not make sense.  No one is trying to take down a Crestor or aspirin cartel.  But more importantly, drugs are the symptom of a larger, complex pattern of behavior that includes addiction, mental health, poverty, gangs and money, to name a few areas.  To say we are going to spend time and money to fight an inanimate thing and not focus on the root behavior and problems that lead people to abuse drugs, does not make sense and does not appear to have led to any real results.

On the other hand, the fight against ‘drunk driving’ targets a specific behavior.  It is not a war against cars, it is not a war against alcohol, it is not a fight against driving.  It is a focused effort on one kind of dangerous and criminal behavior.  And from the statistics, the rates of drunk driving incidents have been decreasing.  I am not trying to imply that drunk driving is decreasing simply because of the phrase used to describe the effort against it, but I do think there is some value in ensuring that we focus resources on finding and fighting real problems and not symptoms.  We can only do that we properly define and describe the problem in the first place.

After describing how the words we choose to describe a problem are important, the next post on this topic will look at events and problems that are clearly in the spotlight now and examine the words used to describe them.  In the meantime, think about how the idea of how we use words in our everyday lives can affect the outcome.  Do you just “go to the gym”, or do you conduct well-planned strength training?  Did you just “get a degree”, or did you gain a valuable education when you went to school?  Do you “make a quick phone call” to a loved one, or have a meaningful conversation with someone?

http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF-Rates.gif

http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/monitoring-future/trends-in-prevalence-various-drugs

Fitch Downgrades Italy

Fitch Downgrades Italy's Credit Ratings – WSJ.com.

Keep in mind, as the post http://voxlogicae.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/credit-ratings-and-debt-to-gdp-ration/pointed out, Italy’s Debt to GDP ratio is about 126%. The U.S. is not far behind at 107%.

The Abortion Debate from a Logical Lens

Have you ever had an argument or discussion with someone, maybe even a loved one, and after a while realized that the two of you weren’t even arguing about the same thing?  A lack of communication or a poor choice of words clouded the issue?  A recent discussion on another site highlighted the fact the the sometimes emotional debate we see in this country on abortion is completely missing the point.  

The two sides on this issue describe themselves as pro-life and pro-choice. On the surface, this is already a problem because in any true debate the two sides should, at a minimum, be opposed to each other’s views.  In the labels used for the two sides in this argument both sides are “pro”-something different.

The real debate we need to have is ‘What is Life’?  What do we consider human life and when does it begin?  This debate also has implications for the other question of when does life end?

The argument about when life begins covers a range of opinions.  On one side of the debate, life begins at conception.  On the other end of the debate, life begins at birth.  So there are about 9 months in between in which the two sides of this debate are not arguing the same point.  If you believe that life begins at conception, then the idea that an abortion is a ‘choice’ someone can make is a scary thought.  We can not choose to end the life of a friend or neighbor so why can we choose to end the life of a baby in the womb under anything but extreme circumstances?  If you believe that life does not start until birth then the thought of someone against abortion being pro-life is also absurd because, in your opinion, there is no life to be for in the first place.

When we as a society can come to grips with that is life and when life begins, then the abortion debate can not carry the same labels it does now.  But where do we stand as a society?  

At a minimum, it appears that most do not believe that life only begins at birth.  In California, the jury in the Scott Peterson case convicted Peterson in the death of his unborn child.  California is hardly a conservative bastion, yet they indicated by their conviction that they believed Peterson took the life of an unborn child when he killed his wife, Laci.  Most states restrict late-term abortion after the fetus is considered viable.  The definition of viable is left open to interpretation.

However, an understanding of the term viable and a broader understanding of what we consider life is all-important to this debate.  Once you establish that line, it is no longer a question of choice, it is a question of life.  Prior to that line it is not a question of life, because no life is established.

The discussion on what we consider human life also has much broader implications.  If we only use the term viable to describe life, then should we keep people on life support systems in the event of injury or illness?  If their life is no longer ‘viable’ without outside support, are they still alive?  Does someone else get a ‘choice’ on what to do with the life support decision?

Regardless of which side of this debate you are currently on, the larger issue of how and when we consider ‘life’ is one of the most important discussions we can have in this country that has implications beyond abortion.  Only when we look past the currently false argument of pro-choice vs. pro-life can we have meaningful progress on this issue.

Vox Logicae: Filibuster the Debt! | voxlogicae

Vox Logicae: Filibuster the Debt! | voxlogicae

Filibuster the Debt! | voxlogicae

Filibuster the Debt! | voxlogicae

“The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” — Admiral Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff on August 27, 2010

“[O]ur rising debt levels…poses a national security threat…. And it also sends a message of weakness internationally.” — Secretary of State Clinton on September 8, 2010

“Our nation is on an unsustainable fiscal path. Spending is rising and revenues are falling short, requiring the government to borrow huge sums each year to make up the difference.”  - National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, The White House December 1, 2010

If the most pressing issue for our country is the rising and unsustainable level of national debt, what are we doing about it?  First, there was a bipartisan commission led by Simpson and Bowles. Their recommendations were largely ignored.  Then there was the super-committee that failed to develop any meaningful plan to fix the debt crisis.  This debt, which is increasingly driven by mandatory spending on social security and medical programs, threatens to cripple our country’s future and force future generations to suffer.  This crisis requires a call to action.

Watching Senator Paul conduct a filibuster today to get information on drone strikes, one has to wonder why nothing like this is being done on the Senate floor to call attention to the larger problem of the debt.  While everyone acknowledges the problem and no solutions are forthcoming, will one Senator take a stand and go down in history as the one person in this country who started to turn the tide of rising national indebtedness? The upcoming votes on a Continuing Resolution and the debt ceiling will provide two opportunities to take a stand on this all-important crisis.  All we need is one Senator willing to bring attention to this problem until meaningful and comprehensive measures are implemented to address mandatory spending.

If you think that the debt is a problem for this country, and you think that something needs to be done about it, pass this message on.  Also, write to your Senator to encourage action on the most critical issue of our day.  

http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm

Doing nothing is no longer an option if we do not want to crush future generations in debt because of our inability to make hard choices.

Using Logic to Combat Opponents of School Vouchers

Rightwingers Pouring Big Money into Tennessee Voucher Campaign | voxlogicae

This post is an example of how to use logic to combat misinformation.

Debt to GDP Ratio

Credit ratings: The numbers behind the ratings | The Economist

With all the attention that the PIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) in Europe receive for their debt problems and supposed austerity measures, it is interesting to see how the U.S. compares to their debt to GDP ratio.  Only Greece has a considerably higher ratio than the U.S

It's the Debt, Stupid

With the sequester in the news right now, the discussion about the nation’s debt and deficits rages on.  There are some who say that the debt is not out of control and we should not worry about our increased debt.  Others feel that we must do something about our rising debt but disagree how to attack the problem.  The two political sides differ on whether increased taxes, decreased spending or some combination of the two are the correct approach.  

For those wondering whether excessive debt is a problem, the saying goes “Those Who Fail to Learn From History are Doomed to Repeat It”.  A look back at the Suez Canal crisis of 1956 is telling.

Without going into all of the details of the Suez Canal crisis, which can be explored in more detail here: http://www.economist.com/node/7218678, the event took place in 1956 at a time when global politics were changing.  Britain, France and the other countries of Western Europe were declining in influence as the U.S. and Soviet Union were emerging as the world’s only superpowers. 

When Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, Britain risked losing vital maritime access to India.  At the risk of overly simplifying the situation, Britain, France and Israel put forces on the ground in Egypt.  The U.S. and Soviets opposed their actions but with Britain and France holding United Nations vetoes, there was not much the U.N. could do.  However, when President Eisenhower influenced the IMF to refuse loans to Britain, the British economy could not handle the economic pressure and they were forced to end their military actions.  

“America struck at Britain’s fragile economy. It refused to allow the IMF to give emergency loans to Britain unless it called off the invasion. Faced by imminent financial collapse, as the British Treasury saw it, on November 7th Eden surrendered to American demands and stopped the operation, with his troops stranded half way down the canal. The French were furious, but obliged to agree; their troops were under British command.”

Britain obviously had a substantial amount of debt from the aftermath of World War II (which they just paid off to the U.S. in 2007 , by the way).  Their reliance on other nations for loans made them vulnerable in foreign policy.  Not only did this vulnerability force them to withdraw from Egypt, it signaled the change in the balance of power from “Old Europe” to the United States that has stood to the present day.

What makes this story important now?  The U.S. now owes over $16 trillion.  Some of that debt is to countries that don’t necessarily share our interests in the world.  Imagine a potential conflict between China and Taiwan or China and Japan.  What if China tried to flex it’s muscle and claim additional territory in the Pacific or deny access to certain waterways?  What if we tried to intervene and China used our debt as leverage?  Could that mark our decline as a superpower because we could not manage our own financial situation?

Our world influence depends on our moral example, our military might, and our economic might.  Rising debt diminishes all three sources of power and risks making the U.S. less relevant on the world stage.   

More logic flaws from Mr. Reich

More logic flaws from Mr. Reich

Facts About the Budget

Let’s look at facts. Defense and international security assistance spending is roughly 20% of our country’s spending. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs comprise roughly 54% of spending combined. The interest on our debt is about 6%, but that number is expected to rise sharply as the size of the debt increases. The national debt stands at over 16.5 trillion dollars and there is no plan in sight to slow the rate of increase, much less decrease the size of the debt. To better understand 16 trillion dollars, keep in mind that scientists believe the universe as we know it has been around for about 13 billion years. That means that this nation is in debt more than $1000 for every year the universe has been in existence.

Let’s look at more facts. In the 1930’s when Social Security was originally created, the life expectancy was approximately 61 years. In 1965 when Medicare was created, the life expectancy was 70.2 years. Now it is 78.2 years. In addition, demographics have shifted from a point where 5 people worked for every retiree in the system to now where a little over 2 people work for every retiree. The bottom line is that people are living longer and taking advantage of these programs much longer than the originators intended. In addition, the shear cost of health care has increased dramatically due to many factors, including better technology. Now that a particular machine or treatment exists, it is difficult to deny to a patient, even if it is expensive. It is simply not sane to believe that these programs are sustainable in their current form.

Now with the fiscal crisis worsening we see in the form of defense sequestration, a complete lack of willingness of the people in this country to sacrifice a perceived entitlement. So instead, the cuts in spending are aimed at the one organization that can not publicly complain: Defense. Half of the cuts are aimed at the one organization that has sacrificed so much already throughout this country’s history and especially in the last decade. The cuts are aimed at Defense because, although most argue we need to cut federal spending, no one is willing to modify entitlements that are not guaranteed in our Constitution, were never intended to provide to so many for so long and are clearly bankrupting our Nation. Think about this and compare to the sacrifices people in this Country made on the homefront during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or World War II. Families not only stepped up to serve on the front, they sacrificed something at home as well. Right now, less than one percent are willing to serve on the front and no one appears willing to sacrifice at home.

As the sequestration occurs, the military will make due, recover and get the job done. It is what the military always has and always will do. Unfortunately, if it does occur it will mark a turning point in the character of our Nation that we may not be able to recover from. A country unwilling to sacrifice to ensure that those who come after them still have a chance at the American Dream will never understand the sacrifice of the less than one percent who ensure their Freedoms.

Vox Logicae on Twitter

A highly illogical argument. | voxlogicae

A highly illogical argument. | voxlogicae

Vox Logicae on Facebook