What's up world? i'm back here again, it's been a little bit since i last gave any of my schpill. Things have been pretty good of late, i can't complain. Yesterday, i had to turn down the opportunity to go to Kenya for a missions trip later in the year. it kinda sucked but i think it was quite necessary. i'm trusting that i'll be well into the new gig by then (august) and i just don't think it's so smart to go in asking for 12 days off when you're still fresh in the sea. Hopefully i'll be able to go next time around when i more settled and have gotten my life together. I'm still hoping to be able to take five days off for Camp Quality in July; at least that's only a week, so hopefully they can understand but ten working days, errr i dunno what i would say if i was the hiring manager. You'll have to be the best thing since sliced bread for me to agree with that. I think i'm pretty darn close to sliced bread, but i'm not there yet.
I have been reviewing my job searching strategy and looking at ways to tweak it. the saying goes "good things come to those who wait" but then doesn't the bible also say "the violent take it by force" (and yes it was speaking of the "violent" in a positive light). So i'm trying to find that perfect balance/sweet spot between the patience and the taking. I've always felt uncomfortable calling offices about job openings but that's just a step of hard faith i'm willing to take. it's funny because i got an article in the mail today talking about how saying To Whom It May Concern or Dear Sir/Ma on cover letters may be the kiss of death. Hmm who woulda thought. I just assumed to do that when no hiring manager was listed on the job posting. But it talked about how one should call to find out who the hiring manager or who the position reports to. It said HR people look at To Whom It May Concern as a sign of laziness. Wow, that was a smack in my face. Good thing i hadn't sent in the application for this really really good position that i saw. Cross my fingers and trusting God I get some favor for it. But lately i do feel like i can see the light at the end of the tunnel. I'm thinking and believing that things are getting ready to look up and sooner than later, i'll be done with this rollercoaster ride of job hunting. Either way, i have to take a upbeat look because it's not like any other decision, i can't just stop looking for a job LOL.
Showing posts with label Front page. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Front page. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Headed to where it ALL began...
So the trip begins tomorrow. I'm getting more excited as it draws near. I'll be out for a month or so but hopefully i'll be able to get a few posts while i'm gone. Since i won't be in the middle of nowhere. Just finished packing and now the countdown begins. Going to be a long flight...Let's get it!
Monday, June 15, 2009
Iran
I'm hoping for a revolution in Iran. Please God. I guess W. was right when he said all people have an inner yearning for freedom. But I'm getting off track. The good people of Iran deserve freedom and fairness. Where is the leadership and support for a people that look to be free from oppresion? Where is the support from the Last Best Hope? Where is the support from the standard bearer of freedom in this world? American leadership remains silent. "Freedom [America] don't fail me[Iran] now". As I write this, no condemnation from the American administration. I'll [naively] keep my hope up.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
More from The WSJ
Yes, my favorite newspaper is Wall Street Journal because of the financial analysis on there as well as the excellent editorial. It's a fine Newspaper. Anyhow, yesterday, Shelby Steele , one of my favorites, wrote a magnificent article about the so called post racial president. Very excellent piece.
But of course "post-racialism" is not a real idea. It is an impression, a chimera that grows out of a very specific racial manipulation that I have called "bargaining." Here the minority makes a bargain with white society: I will not "guilt" you with America's centuries of racism if you will not hold my minority status against me. Whites love this bargain because it allows them to feel above America's racist past and, therefore, immune to charges of racism. By embracing the bargainer they embrace the impression of a world beyond racial division, a world in which whites are innocent and minorities carry no anger. This is the impression that animates bargainers like Mr. Obama or Oprah Winfrey with an irresistible charisma. Even if post-racialism is an obvious illusion -- a bargainer's trick as it were -- whites are flattered by believing in it.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Oh Lord
So apparently Liberty University has taken off a Miss California video off their website. That's not such a big deal to me, I can understand that. What I don't understand is this.
What's up with Christians so quick to condemn. Whoever wrote this blog post, I hope they're perfect and have never sinned. I guess they want to stand and be known as "the spiritual one". I guess. I believe Jesus told the woman that was caught in adultery to 'go and sin no more'. He didn't pounce on her and join her accusers in their bashing and almost stoning of her. I'm happy most of us on the right and most Christians that I've seen around are support her but comments like this are disheartning and not very Christ-like.
What's up with Christians so quick to condemn. Whoever wrote this blog post, I hope they're perfect and have never sinned. I guess they want to stand and be known as "the spiritual one". I guess. I believe Jesus told the woman that was caught in adultery to 'go and sin no more'. He didn't pounce on her and join her accusers in their bashing and almost stoning of her. I'm happy most of us on the right and most Christians that I've seen around are support her but comments like this are disheartning and not very Christ-like.
Also, just as fast as she was embraced and used by many of these groups,
she risks now being dropped due to the appearance of these shameful photos,
both
those from the past and those she defends in her “Christian”
modeling. Welcome to the evangelical celebrity circuit where souls and
hearts don’t matter as much
as an effective PR blitz for the “cause.” People
are expendable.
It's a shame. I hope and pray we see more love and mercy from people on 'our side' than condemnation.
Monday, May 4, 2009
SImple Proposal
I'm on my way out for the day from work, but I just thought about this proposal. I'm not for open-borders, I'm actually very opposed to it. However I don't think it's practical to think you can round up 14million people to be deported. So a simple proposal, a path to citizenship. A very long path. $10,000 for individual/$20k for familes for guest worker program, five years later if in good behavior with the laws of the land and contributing (going to school or working) then permanent residency. And then if that continues five years later, citizenship. Any violation, you're out (including those that refuse to be legal). Fair? I think so. You generate some income to the American economy and take care of the illegal immigration. Two birds with one stone. By the way, you close the borders now.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The Conservative Case Against Torture?
I read this article and it left me scraching my head and thinking huh? I pretty much just took it apart and explain my thought process. I posted it on his comment section:
Hmm. Very interesting but not even slightly compelling. To prove to you, I'll just go ahead and take it apart: First, the title:1. "The Conservative Case Against Torture"-Waterboarding is not torture and to try to put it on the same scale as pulling fingernails off, pistol whipping or anything the chinese and Nazis did is simply insane especially when America has used this techniques to train our own forces. 2."But torture is clearly unconstitutional. When it ratified the Convention against torture and other cruel and degrading treatmentin 1994, the Senate defined “cruel, inhuman and degrading” as any practice that would violate the Fifth, Eighth or 14th Amendments."-His case against this being unconstitutional is very unconvincing because in that case you can say almost every form of war, interrogation or heck simple police roughing up would be unconstitutional. 3. Second, it completely shatters the myth of American exceptionalism. Ronald Reagan put it best when he called America “that shining city on the hill.” America is truly the greatest country in the world, in no small part because we have a Constitution that guarantees the rights of its citizens, and because we don’t torture. How can America be exceptional if it does the same kind of crap that the Russians, the Chinese, the Egyptians or the Arabs do? How can we say that we are freest nation, the best nation on earth, the last, best hope for civilization when we allow the state to waterboard, to humiliate and to beat up prisoners? -This one just made me go nuts. It simply shows a lack of knowledege and understanding of history. To say America is "that shining city on the hill" because we don't use harsh methods is simply false. What makes America stand out is the fact that such harsh methods are not used on a regular basis, are not used on normal individuals and such things are a last resort or should be, kind of like war. History shows us that. Dropping the mushroom on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, FDR putting japanese-americans in internment camps during WWII, Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus on HIS OWN CITIZENS and I'm sure there are more examples. But to say somehow America is the greatest country in the world because we've lived in some kind of utopia is not only not conservative, is pretty ignorant and naive. And this goes along with his argument about being Machiavellian-like. America doesn't flex its muscles unless it needs to and I sure as heck believe keeping millions safe is pretty darn necessary. Unless he wants to say America was wrong to drop the atomic bombs and suspend habeas corpus, where America will be two different countries, if we were even here today. 4. This one is the most ridiculous of them all: "Third, conservatives usually have a healthy distrust of the state. Why should they suddenly think that allowing the state to torture anybody somehow is a good thing? As a conservative (and I am a conservative), I am very leery of giving the state this much power. What prevents the state from using this kind of power on domestic “terrorists”?" This doesn't get any more bizzare and leaves me scratching my head. Why should we even have a military then? Since they can decide to use "that kind of power on domestic 'terrorists'?" I mean, I think my distrust for the state is based on when it goes outside of it's written constitutional duty, which includes protecting the citizens. I hope conservatives don't go the route of thinking that all government is bad. I know a lot of people love to quote Ronald Reagan saying that "government is the problem". But they miss the part that he said "in this situation, government is the problem". Some government is good, very limited but good. So to think because we distrust most of the state doesn't mean we become paranoid about our government using such power against regular citizens. 5. America is a beacon for freedom around the globe, but that only works when we act responsibly, in a way that promotes human rights and protects human dignity. We don’t act that way when we give the state the power to torture people in the name of protecting our safety. He sounds like an anti-war crowd more than a conservative here. Last point I know I went long but, republicans and unfortunately for me, conservatives, have allowed our opponets to define the argument. We sit here repeating "torture memos", "anti-abortion", "against gay marriage", these are a few examples. My question is why? When we let them define the argument we automatically lose. You let people call interrogation torture and before you know it you'll think sitting across the table and chatting with a jihadi is torture just because some left wing ACLU loon tells you it is. If this continues on both the national security level and politcal level, I can guarantee conservatives will never win an argument, less an election. And that will make America worse off. I'm with Ryan, give me another technique that would have given the info that saved thousands of lives or you'll just be ok going to the funeral of 3000 more people and telling them that sorry you lost your kid because we didn't dump some water on Khalid Sheik Mohammed. At least we're still "the beacon of freedom". What good is freedom if you're dead?
Update: I forgot to link it earlier. It's fixed now.
Hmm. Very interesting but not even slightly compelling. To prove to you, I'll just go ahead and take it apart: First, the title:1. "The Conservative Case Against Torture"-Waterboarding is not torture and to try to put it on the same scale as pulling fingernails off, pistol whipping or anything the chinese and Nazis did is simply insane especially when America has used this techniques to train our own forces. 2."But torture is clearly unconstitutional. When it ratified the Convention against torture and other cruel and degrading treatmentin 1994, the Senate defined “cruel, inhuman and degrading” as any practice that would violate the Fifth, Eighth or 14th Amendments."-His case against this being unconstitutional is very unconvincing because in that case you can say almost every form of war, interrogation or heck simple police roughing up would be unconstitutional. 3. Second, it completely shatters the myth of American exceptionalism. Ronald Reagan put it best when he called America “that shining city on the hill.” America is truly the greatest country in the world, in no small part because we have a Constitution that guarantees the rights of its citizens, and because we don’t torture. How can America be exceptional if it does the same kind of crap that the Russians, the Chinese, the Egyptians or the Arabs do? How can we say that we are freest nation, the best nation on earth, the last, best hope for civilization when we allow the state to waterboard, to humiliate and to beat up prisoners? -This one just made me go nuts. It simply shows a lack of knowledege and understanding of history. To say America is "that shining city on the hill" because we don't use harsh methods is simply false. What makes America stand out is the fact that such harsh methods are not used on a regular basis, are not used on normal individuals and such things are a last resort or should be, kind of like war. History shows us that. Dropping the mushroom on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, FDR putting japanese-americans in internment camps during WWII, Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus on HIS OWN CITIZENS and I'm sure there are more examples. But to say somehow America is the greatest country in the world because we've lived in some kind of utopia is not only not conservative, is pretty ignorant and naive. And this goes along with his argument about being Machiavellian-like. America doesn't flex its muscles unless it needs to and I sure as heck believe keeping millions safe is pretty darn necessary. Unless he wants to say America was wrong to drop the atomic bombs and suspend habeas corpus, where America will be two different countries, if we were even here today. 4. This one is the most ridiculous of them all: "Third, conservatives usually have a healthy distrust of the state. Why should they suddenly think that allowing the state to torture anybody somehow is a good thing? As a conservative (and I am a conservative), I am very leery of giving the state this much power. What prevents the state from using this kind of power on domestic “terrorists”?" This doesn't get any more bizzare and leaves me scratching my head. Why should we even have a military then? Since they can decide to use "that kind of power on domestic 'terrorists'?" I mean, I think my distrust for the state is based on when it goes outside of it's written constitutional duty, which includes protecting the citizens. I hope conservatives don't go the route of thinking that all government is bad. I know a lot of people love to quote Ronald Reagan saying that "government is the problem". But they miss the part that he said "in this situation, government is the problem". Some government is good, very limited but good. So to think because we distrust most of the state doesn't mean we become paranoid about our government using such power against regular citizens. 5. America is a beacon for freedom around the globe, but that only works when we act responsibly, in a way that promotes human rights and protects human dignity. We don’t act that way when we give the state the power to torture people in the name of protecting our safety. He sounds like an anti-war crowd more than a conservative here. Last point I know I went long but, republicans and unfortunately for me, conservatives, have allowed our opponets to define the argument. We sit here repeating "torture memos", "anti-abortion", "against gay marriage", these are a few examples. My question is why? When we let them define the argument we automatically lose. You let people call interrogation torture and before you know it you'll think sitting across the table and chatting with a jihadi is torture just because some left wing ACLU loon tells you it is. If this continues on both the national security level and politcal level, I can guarantee conservatives will never win an argument, less an election. And that will make America worse off. I'm with Ryan, give me another technique that would have given the info that saved thousands of lives or you'll just be ok going to the funeral of 3000 more people and telling them that sorry you lost your kid because we didn't dump some water on Khalid Sheik Mohammed. At least we're still "the beacon of freedom". What good is freedom if you're dead?
Update: I forgot to link it earlier. It's fixed now.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
My mind is brewing...a simple proposal
I just read an article over at FoxForum by Juan Williams, "Obama's Outrageous Sin Against Our Children". It's a pretty good analysis on how the pres continues to double speak on the education scene. Williams focuses on the DC Voucher Program which has proved to be very effective for minority (I dislike using this word) students. These less fortunate kids were able to get a $7500 scholarship to attend a private school, the kind Obama sends his kids. But the Democrats killed the funding for it, mainly because they've sold their souls to the devil. Just to be clear, I believe this was in the stimulus bill so we can blame those three republican senators that voted for the bill as well. As Juan pretty much says, well done politicians for "helping the kids". So these kids are done with this effective program as of the end of this school year and the ones that were selected to start next year, well sorry to you as well. See you at the hell hole we call public school. I was fortunate enough to grow up in pretty decent suburbs and attend good public schools, especially after moving to Texas. But I have seen and have heard enough about inner city schools that have done nothing more than kill kids incentives to get an education. So this move by this administration and this congress is no less than despicable.
But that is not the point of this post. I have been a long time critic of Republicans and now I have a proposal for them as well as for Conservatives. As most of us believe in school choice and despise the Teachers Unions (rightly so), what do we do about an issue like this. It seems like Republicans are just sitting back and whining, "Oh Obama killed the Voucher system, blah blah blah". Ok yeah that happened, now what? If they were smart Republicans would hold a fundraiser to raise money for as many kids as possible to stay in this program. They can start off with those that are already in the program and go from there. But since the Repubs don't seem to be doing anything right these days, how about a group of Conservative think tanks and organizations hold a joint fundraiser, get all the big names and raise money for these kids?
I know this is such a wild wild idea, I can imagine why no one ever thought of it. Sarc. But this would accomplish a few things. First it would help children that are receiving good education in a good environment continue to do so and in the end be better contributors to society as a whole. These kids will be able to develop their God-given skills and become future doctors, investment bankers, lawyers, teachers etc. Another thing that would come out of this is political. As far from the truth it is, Republicans and conservatives are wrongly labeled as not compassionate and not caring about "the community". So look at this as sort of a political makeover. We know it's not true, conservatives give to charity plenty times more than liberals do, that is a FACT. But an event like this would put this on display and show the general misinformed public our true colors. I am not a fan of pandering, but some might see this as pandering. I don't but I can understand how it can be interpreted as such. Call it what you want. This is just doing what we always do, except we'll do it with a little showmanship and in the end it will publicly shame Democrats as the hypocrytics they are when they speak of doing "what works for the kids".
But that is not the point of this post. I have been a long time critic of Republicans and now I have a proposal for them as well as for Conservatives. As most of us believe in school choice and despise the Teachers Unions (rightly so), what do we do about an issue like this. It seems like Republicans are just sitting back and whining, "Oh Obama killed the Voucher system, blah blah blah". Ok yeah that happened, now what? If they were smart Republicans would hold a fundraiser to raise money for as many kids as possible to stay in this program. They can start off with those that are already in the program and go from there. But since the Repubs don't seem to be doing anything right these days, how about a group of Conservative think tanks and organizations hold a joint fundraiser, get all the big names and raise money for these kids?
I know this is such a wild wild idea, I can imagine why no one ever thought of it. Sarc. But this would accomplish a few things. First it would help children that are receiving good education in a good environment continue to do so and in the end be better contributors to society as a whole. These kids will be able to develop their God-given skills and become future doctors, investment bankers, lawyers, teachers etc. Another thing that would come out of this is political. As far from the truth it is, Republicans and conservatives are wrongly labeled as not compassionate and not caring about "the community". So look at this as sort of a political makeover. We know it's not true, conservatives give to charity plenty times more than liberals do, that is a FACT. But an event like this would put this on display and show the general misinformed public our true colors. I am not a fan of pandering, but some might see this as pandering. I don't but I can understand how it can be interpreted as such. Call it what you want. This is just doing what we always do, except we'll do it with a little showmanship and in the end it will publicly shame Democrats as the hypocrytics they are when they speak of doing "what works for the kids".
Monday, April 13, 2009
I've been gone a few eh?
good lord. I didn't realize it's been almost two weeks since my last post! What the ? I've been a little busy with work and extra-curricular activities. But I am here again. What has happened since I blogged last?
Oh yea, made 22 this past saturday, sunday was easter, ehhh whatelse? I think I have short term memory or something b/c i can't remember much past this weekend. It's a shame.
But speaking of birthday, I had a pretty good one this year even though it was very different. No, I didn't "go out" or "do it big". I'm just not in the feeling of doing that anymore, at least at any serious extent. But I got some really cool gifts...clothes, concert tickets (jealous?), giftcards, and I even treated myself to a few things. First time buying anything for myself apart from food. Family and friends always make the birthday great. I'm grateful to all my friends and family that helped make my birthday weekend a really good one. I'm very appreciative.
Oh yea, made 22 this past saturday, sunday was easter, ehhh whatelse? I think I have short term memory or something b/c i can't remember much past this weekend. It's a shame.
But speaking of birthday, I had a pretty good one this year even though it was very different. No, I didn't "go out" or "do it big". I'm just not in the feeling of doing that anymore, at least at any serious extent. But I got some really cool gifts...clothes, concert tickets (jealous?), giftcards, and I even treated myself to a few things. First time buying anything for myself apart from food. Family and friends always make the birthday great. I'm grateful to all my friends and family that helped make my birthday weekend a really good one. I'm very appreciative.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
God save us from government intervention!
As if we needed to be more convinced, but if we do here's more evidence:
----
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By
Meg Sullivan
8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.
In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.
Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.
"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."
The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.
Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.
Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.
"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"
NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.
"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."
Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.
The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.
NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.
Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.
"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."
-UCLA-
----
Sounds pretty familiar...hmm
----
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By
Meg Sullivan
8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.
In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.
Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.
"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."
The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.
Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.
Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.
"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"
NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.
"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."
Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.
The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.
NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.
Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.
"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."
-UCLA-
----
Sounds pretty familiar...hmm
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Round One
Finally Here! Long awaited, long anticipated, and yes LONG OVERDUE! Welcome to 'myschpill'. My mind is always running at a 100 miles per hour and I always have something to say so i figure i might just put some of it into writing. Plus, i know y'all wanna know what I think. I've been wanting to get into this whole blog thing for a while so why not go for it! I definitely would like to get feedbacks from y'all and i guess i don't mind to hear what your thoughts are. I'll be blogging about everything from sports to the hot topic of today...politics! It is what 30 days to election day. And then, I guess i'll share some of my wisdom with y'all. I'm just kidding but feel free to hit me up on here with some 'pify' comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
