Sunday, November 4, 2012

Milksop's View of the Election

Eli,
This is a comment made by "Milksop" to one of your recent posts. I thought it deserved a fuller airing. Milksop, if you object, let me know, and I'll take it down.

Bill.


A woman came to my door today asking if I was registered to vote, and whether I was leaning toward Romney or Obama. I told her that I was voting for Gary Johnson, because I see no difference between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. She wondered why. I told her that in spite of promises to the contrary, President Obama did not close Guantanamo Bay Prison, engaged in legally questionable assassinations without offering any justification, prosecuted medical marijuana providers, subverted due process with Bradley Manning, instructed defense contractors not to give out legally required WARN notices due to sequestration, etc. I don't see any reason why Romney would do differently.

She replied that she agreed, but it was important to save the economy, and Romney would ruin it. I told her that I didn't want to legitimate the claim that the President is responsible for running the economy which both candidates make. I also told her that I didn't see any point to having a good economy if we lose all our civil rights.

She told me that as far as civil rights go, Romney would destroy them more by getting rid of contraception and abortion. I replied that with regard to contraception, I think there is a freedom of religion principle being violated. The abortion issue I struggled a bit more with.

Later, I read up on Roe vs. Wade on Wikipedia, because I was wondering how the Supreme Court justified the idea that the right to an abortion was a constitutional right. To my surprise I found that there seemed to be fairly widespread agreement among both conservatives and liberals that the constitutional justification for the ruling was basically nonexistant. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg herself stated that the ruling essentially destroyed a fledging abortion liberalization movement that focused on legislative relief, and Benjamin Wittes remarked that the ruling "disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply."

I thought this gave an excellent explanation for the political quandry we find ourselves in now. Conservatives feel like they haven't been able to have their say, so they're motivated to push for increasingly (and outrageously) extreme laws with respect to abortion. Like Justice Scalia said in another case, "[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish."

On the other side, it's understood that the ruling that protects abortion hangs by a thread, requiring constant desperate attempts to protect it by those who support it. In either case, both sides are focused obsessively on a single issue while the rest of the system falls to pieces. It's like fighting over the remote control while burglers are cleaning out the rest of your house of your possessions (G-d forbid).

I told the woman at my door, who flew out from California to try to raise support for Obama here, that if I woke up the day after Election Day and either Obama or Romney was president, I'd be depressed. I will continue to feel hopeless that the two sides of the culture wars can speak to each other respectfully and thoughtfully, getting a fair chance to explain our positions and be heard, instead of appealing to lightning rod issues to energize the base.

I should probably go prepare to drown myself in silly sitcoms on November 7th.

Malloy says everything but Hartford to be declared disaster areas


Eli,

Wait a minute. I thought Hartford has been a disaster area for years now.

Bill


Malloy says everything but Hartford to be declared disaster areas

Scott Lincicome's "Campaign Jeep Shots"

Eli,

I'm pretty much a one-issue voter, that issue being free trade. This election, like many, will be tough. The major party candidates do not espouse free trade. However, there is Gary Johnson.

The irony of Chris Matthews defending outsourcing (whatever that means) is rich.

Bill

From Scott Lincicome's Blog:

Campaign Jeep Shots

Because I long ago gave up on the 2012 campaign's horrible trade debate, I've been desperately trying to avoid wading into this week's dumbest trade-related controversy: the Romney campaign's commercial claim that bailed-out (and now Fiat-owned) Chrysler plans to resume Jeep manufacturing operations in China.  Fortunately, AEI's Claude Barfield took one for the team and summed up my angry, depressed thoughts pretty perfectly:
In this campaign, economic "truthiness" has long since disappeared. The latest evidence of this is the flap over Governor Romney's claim on the campaign trail and in ads running in Ohio that Chrysler is planning to ship jobs to China by opening a plant to make Jeeps in that country. Another ad makes a similar claim for General Motors. This produced sharp rejoinders from GM and Chrysler, and earned Romney four Pinocchios from the Washington Post's factchecker, Glenn Kessler. My cynical side mainly deplores the ineptitude of Romney's timing: He should have waited until later in the week before the election in order to avoid the blowback from the Obama team and zealous factcheckers.

But more seriously, there is a depressing, deeper irony in all of this. On the one hand, Romney long ago should have stepped up to the plate with a full-throated defense of offshoring/ outsourcing as a key element of the competitiveness of US (and other nations') corporations—and ultimately as a force for generating additional jobs back in the US. These ads undercut the larger economic message on the imperatives of global competition his campaign has fitfully attempted to mount.

But not to fear. Help has come from an unlikely source: The eye-opening defense of Chrysler and GM mounted by Obama's surrogates. Last evening on the Chris Matthews show (I know, hardly the place for economic wisdom or even literacy), Matthews and Steven Rattner (backed by NY Times reporter Bill Vlasic) ridiculed Romney by pointing out that offshoring/outsourcing by corporations was a positive good for the US in that in today's global economy, in order to survive and succeed, US corporations had to produce their products in the markets they wanted to serve.

Rattner stated that this is a basic fact of life for the automobile industry. Jeeps made in China would feed a growing Chinese consumer demand for this iconic car, and would not come back to the US. This basic fact flies in the face of Obama dogma, which largely equates foreign investment by US corporations as the work of "Benedict Arnolds," as John Kerry asserted in 2004.

I suppose it's too late to demand that the Obama guys pull down all those ads condemning Romney as the "Outsourcer-in-Chief"; but maybe the Romney team can quickly flood a few Ohio TV markets with the "Rattner defense."
Barfield's point about the economics of outsourcing/offshoring is something I've discussed here many times: the vast majority of this routine economic practice is undertaken to satisfy foreign demand, not to ship foreign-made goods back to the United States, and it typically leads to more US employment, not less.  The FT's Alan Beattie reiterates these facts in a nice blog post that also belittles the whole Jeep kerfuffle:
More sympathy might be due to the Obama campaign if it didn't itself routinely equate foreign investment with sending jobs overseas, particularly its ill-advised attacks on the idea that a territorial corporation tax system would reward US companies for offshoring employment. As informed opinion on the subject routinely points out, the overall evidence is that foreign investment is a complement rather than a substitute to domestic expansion. If you want the specifics, read this.
If Beattie's links don't convince you about the economic benefits of outsourcing/offshoring for the US economy, go here or here.  Or if you want to understand the abject absurdity of political ploys to curb outsourcing, go here.

Of course, none of these truths will change the last few days of the 2012 campaign's moronic trade discourse, but the Jeep controversy does leave me wondering one thing: why didn't Kessler, Matthews, Vlasic and their media colleagues (particularly at the Washington Post) mount such a rational defense of outsourcing when the President and his PAC were spending millions of dollars to demagogue the "evil" outsourcing of Bain Capital and Mitt Romney?

Oh, right.

Man, I can't wait for this campaign to be over.


Saturday, November 3, 2012

Who Will Vote?

Bill,

The strikingly different predictions now bubbling up in both the mainstream media and the blogosphere (to which we of course, are proud contributors), highlight the depth of our bitterly divided electorate. The contrast between those who predict  victory for Romney or triumph for the President appears to depend entirely on their perception of who will show up at the polls. The Romney enthusiasts see a reprise of 2010, when enraged conservatives eradicated a 25 seat Democratic majority in the House and 7 seats in the Senate. Obama supporters see an electorate similar to the composition of the 2008 version that yielded the 4th largest Democratic margin of victory in history.

As usual, both sides live in universes that are incompatible with each other. Both of them cannot be right, unless we have some form of a tie, in which case the result will not be decided by the people, but by someone else.

Too many parts of the Obama coalition are either unenthusiastic, disengaged,  or disillusioned. Obama has himself to blame for some of that. On the other side, the right is so determined to get rid of the President that it doesn't care that his opponent is a man who seems entirely devoid of  principle. Either Romney was lying in the primaries or he's lying now. Do you have any idea what he believes at this point? Does he?

My heart wants to believe, but my head says different. Either Romney will coast to a surprisingly easy victory, or we will have a mess that makes 2000 look like a garden party

Eli

Infrastructure

Bill

I was born in New Bedford exactly 8 days before Hurricane Carol arrived. The storm, similar in many ways to Sandy, reached landfall on the morning of August 31.  The effects on the city and the surrounding low lying areas were devastating, as the 110 mph winds and 14 foot storm surge swept up Buzzards Bay and inundated the shoreline. Most of the inner harbor, the city's lifeblood, was destroyed. Sixty souls in the path of the storm perished, along with 6500 homes, 3000 boats, and  nearly half a billion dollars in wealth.

Eight years later, my father fulfilled his life long dream of building a house on the water. He picked a rocky bit of shoreline on Clark's Cove just inside the Dartmouth line. Remembering the tumultuous and tragic circumstances of  my arrival, he chose high ground, 35 feet above sea level, and built a six foot sea wall 10 feet back from the high water mark. I'm happy to report to you that Sandy left the home I grew up in untouched.

As a result of  Carol and the New England Hurricane of 1938, the Eisenhower administration approved 10 million dollars dollars for approval of construction of the New Bedford hurricane dike. After the predictable cost overruns, the dike was completed in 1962 at a total cost of 17 million.


The dike closed across the entire harbor Monday afternoon. I'm sure the good citizens of New York wish they had similar protection.

Of course, between conservatives  on one side and environmentalists on the other, such a structure could never be built today.

Eli


Leading from Behind

Eli,

I'm reading "Life" by Keith Richards, (yea, that Keith Richards). On his leadership of the Rolling Stones:

“It's not a matter of cracking the whip, it's a matter of just sticking around, doing it, so they know you're in there, leading from the front and not from behind.” 

Take that Obama.

Bill

The Jones Act. Killing Commerce for almost 100 years.

Eli,

I have a high degree of conviction a reason the recovery (as measured by employment) from the 2007-09 recession is slower than the recovery from the 2001 recession which was slower than the recovery from the 1990-91 recession is the increased weight of job and commerce limiting policy decisions.

Consider the Jones Act, (officially The Merchant Marine Act of 1920) which mandates all goods transported by water between US ports be carried in US flag ships, constructed in the US, owned by US citizens, and manned by US citizens or permanent residents.

The Jones Act rises to attention periodically, like say, after a major storm strikes the East Coast and people wonder why it is so difficult to transport goods from one part of the country to another part of the country. See below the story from TheHill.com on waiving the Jones Act in order to get  fuel to Northeast ports.

Would fewer people be suffering right now if our policy choice had been to let the market determine the best way to carry goods between US ports? According to the Obama administration the answer is Yes, fewer people would be suffering.

So my question to you, as an unabashed believer in industrial policy, and other job limiting, price distorting measures, if these policies are bad in a crisis, why are they good in normal times?

Bill

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/transportation-and-infrastructure/265607-administration-waives-shipping-rule-to-get-fuel-to-northeast-ports


Obama administration waives shipping rule to get fuel to Northeast ports

By Pete Kasperowicz - 11/02/12 02:04 PM ET
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Friday issued a temporary waiver of the Jones Act, which will let foreign fuel tankers dock in Northeast ports and help get fuel to areas that are seeing fuel shortages in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

The decision was made just days after reports of gas shortages in New York City and parts of New Jersey, which has led many gas stations to close and also led to reports of violence as people hunt for fuel. 
The Jones Act, part of the Merchant Marine Act, requires all water-borne goods shipped between U.S. ports to be moved on U.S.-flagged and U.S.-made ships, and staffed by U.S. citizens. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the waiver of this rule would last until Nov. 13 to address shortages caused by Sandy.

"The administration's highest priority is ensuring the health and safety of those impacted by Hurricane Sandy, and this waiver will remove a potential obstacle to bringing additional fuel to the storm damaged region," she said.

Napolitano said the waiver would let any ship carry fuel from the Gulf of Mexico to the Northeastern United States. DHS said officials are "continuing to monitor the situation" and are prepared to take "additional actions as necessary to ensure that the energy needs of the region affected by Hurricane Sandy are met."