...that's what readers of David Brooks' column today would be left to conclude.
Writing on the horrendous massacre of 16 Afghans by an American solider, he claims:
"But these days it’s especially hard to think through these situations because of the worldview that prevails in our culture. According to this view, most people are naturally good, because nature is good. The monstrosities of the world are caused by the few people (like Hitler or Idi Amin) who are fundamentally warped and evil. This worldview gives us an easy conscience, because we don’t have to contemplate the evil in ourselves. But when somebody who seems mostly good does something completely awful, we’re rendered mute or confused. But of course it happens all the time."
Of course, he offers no evidence, so we're only left to conclude he has discovered how to describe the worldview of citizens of Earth by inventing a Moralitometer.
Furthermore,
"In centuries past most people would have been less shocked by the homicidal eruptions of formerly good men. That’s because people in those centuries grew up with a worldview that put sinfulness at the center of the human personality...This worldview held that people are a problem to themselves. The inner world is a battlefield between light and dark, and life is a struggle against the destructive forces inside. The worst thing you can do is, in a fit of pride, to imagine your insecurity comes from outside and to try to resolve it yourself. If you try to “fix” the other people who you think are responsible for your inner turmoil, you’ll end up trying to kill them, or maybe whole races of them."
I would like to nominate David Brooks for the Nobel Prize for his intimate knowledge of the "worldviews" of "most people" in "centuries past." I can't wait to try out his Time Machine and Moralitometer.
Forget the Gospels
"Forget all that give your money to the poor stuff. When I read the Gospels, I see that if there was one thing that Jesus wanted, if was for guys not to wear condoms when they have sex with their wives. Now let's retreat to our castles and order our armies to kill, enslave, rape and rob Africans, Jews, indigenous Americans, Muslims and anybody else we can use to make some cash."
- A bunch of assholes from the Middle Ages to today
- A bunch of assholes from the Middle Ages to today
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell Lies about His Love of Big Government and Red Tape
Virginia's governor just signed into law additional bureaucratic red tape that restricts freedom and forces big government to get between a patient and her doctor, while calling it "empowering" for women.
If politicians want to save the lives of innocent children, there are simple ways to do so: for example, by providing women with decent health care and education. Instead, Governor McDonnell ha...s magnanimously cut health and education funding during every one of his years in office.
If politicians are willing to take steps that have been demonstrated to actually save lives, then we can take them seriously when they talk about values and abortion, which is a difficult issue. If they are unwilling to take such steps, then we can and should dismiss such lies with the contempt they deserve.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/virginia-pre-abortion-ultrasound-mandate-enacted.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
http://www.wusa9.com/rss/article/180336/158/McDonnell-Budget-Targets-Health-Care-Cuts-
If politicians want to save the lives of innocent children, there are simple ways to do so: for example, by providing women with decent health care and education. Instead, Governor McDonnell ha...s magnanimously cut health and education funding during every one of his years in office.
If politicians are willing to take steps that have been demonstrated to actually save lives, then we can take them seriously when they talk about values and abortion, which is a difficult issue. If they are unwilling to take such steps, then we can and should dismiss such lies with the contempt they deserve.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/virginia-pre-abortion-ultrasound-mandate-enacted.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
http://www.wusa9.com/rss/article/180336/158/McDonnell-Budget-Targets-Health-Care-Cuts-
Hypocrisy, Jingoism; Israel, Iran
The contention that Israel should attack Iran to disrupt its nuclear program means, of course, that Iran is justified in bombing Israel and the United States, which actually have nuclear weapons, run assassination, bombing cyberwarfare and intelligence programs against Iranian scientists and are the most bellicose nations on earth.
It is dangerous and foolish to encourage countries to bomb Israel and the United States. Similar proclamations against Iran can only occur in an environment of such hysterical jingoism that making the same arguments with respect to Israel that are incessantly made with respect to Iran (e.g., "Iran Must Bomb Israel Before It Is Too Late," "The USA Must Cease Its Nuclear Program or Face Economic Sanctions") is so far off the spectrum of reasonable discussion as to be insane.
The lies and cheerleading for America and its few allies bombing any country in the world at any time are Orwellian.
As for the cited New York Times author's lies that Israel defensively bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981, the Chairman of the Department of Physics at Harvard, who has been at Harvard since 1955, inspected the facility and writes that he:
"discovered that the activities at the time (including the OSIRAK reactor) were peaceful, and could be monitored. He constantly reminds people that the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the OSIRAK reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive international safeguards. The 1981 bombing of this reactor did not delay Iraq's nuclear bomb program. On the contrary it started it. Either the President and Congress deliberately misled the American people in 2002-3 or they stupidly ignored experts who knew. This is a lesson people must learn. It might happen again with Iran unless we speak out to stop warmongers."
As to the potential effect of a war on Iran:
"We estimate that almost 655,000 people— 2.5% of the population in the study area—have died in Iraq."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/israels-last-chance-to-strike-iran.html
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/
Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey. Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, and Les Roberts. The Lancet, October 11, 2006.
It is dangerous and foolish to encourage countries to bomb Israel and the United States. Similar proclamations against Iran can only occur in an environment of such hysterical jingoism that making the same arguments with respect to Israel that are incessantly made with respect to Iran (e.g., "Iran Must Bomb Israel Before It Is Too Late," "The USA Must Cease Its Nuclear Program or Face Economic Sanctions") is so far off the spectrum of reasonable discussion as to be insane.
The lies and cheerleading for America and its few allies bombing any country in the world at any time are Orwellian.
As for the cited New York Times author's lies that Israel defensively bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981, the Chairman of the Department of Physics at Harvard, who has been at Harvard since 1955, inspected the facility and writes that he:
"discovered that the activities at the time (including the OSIRAK reactor) were peaceful, and could be monitored. He constantly reminds people that the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the OSIRAK reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive international safeguards. The 1981 bombing of this reactor did not delay Iraq's nuclear bomb program. On the contrary it started it. Either the President and Congress deliberately misled the American people in 2002-3 or they stupidly ignored experts who knew. This is a lesson people must learn. It might happen again with Iran unless we speak out to stop warmongers."
As to the potential effect of a war on Iran:
"We estimate that almost 655,000 people— 2.5% of the population in the study area—have died in Iraq."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/israels-last-chance-to-strike-iran.html
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/
Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey. Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, and Les Roberts. The Lancet, October 11, 2006.
The USA Did Not Become Rich due to Free-Market Capitalism
Q: "How did the United States become a rich country?"
A: "Free-market capitalism."
(e.g., http://www.amazon.com/Bottom-Billion-Poorest-Countries-Failing/dp/0195311450 and http://www.amazon.com/Lexus-Olive-Tree-Understanding-Globalization/dp/0385499345/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329149909&sr=1-1)
Oops, they forgot to mention, the United States had the highest average tariff rates in the entire world from the Civil War until the 1930s.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij_Bp_ivL6Mm8S7-NXJUv9CdDMIEPbUU-bgH5XNl-ZKy6JEusXlt4Kqyi6_Rmog3yj1OsrAhPDChKo_tBxIlJh0dmg3yMo4VUSXgp8Ir7_zBiQ6fMdjI90JrlivW5ogI3zViQpRzYoo8Tw/s1600/protection+pic.jpg (from http://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329150057&sr=1-4)
Protection of infant industry is also how Communist China is becoming a rich country and why countries with plenty of natural resources and government completely out of the way of business (Mongolia, Somalia) are not rich. Oh yeah, and there were also those imperialism and slave-trade things (God decided to put the natural resources of Britain, Denmark, Switzerland, France, etc., in other people's countries. The US is, of course, Britain's colonial descendant.).
Repeat it three times: the United States had the highest average tariff rates in the entire world from the Civil War until the 1930s. The United States had the highest average tariff rates in the entire world from the Civil War until the 1930s. The United States had the highest average tariff rates in the entire world from the Civil War until the 1930s.
The idea that the US developed due to free-market capitalism is a fantasy used for political purposes.
A: "Free-market capitalism."
(e.g., http://www.amazon.com/Bottom-Billion-Poorest-Countries-Failing/dp/0195311450 and http://www.amazon.com/Lexus-Olive-Tree-Understanding-Globalization/dp/0385499345/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329149909&sr=1-1)
Oops, they forgot to mention, the United States had the highest average tariff rates in the entire world from the Civil War until the 1930s.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij_Bp_ivL6Mm8S7-NXJUv9CdDMIEPbUU-bgH5XNl-ZKy6JEusXlt4Kqyi6_Rmog3yj1OsrAhPDChKo_tBxIlJh0dmg3yMo4VUSXgp8Ir7_zBiQ6fMdjI90JrlivW5ogI3zViQpRzYoo8Tw/s1600/protection+pic.jpg (from http://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329150057&sr=1-4)
Protection of infant industry is also how Communist China is becoming a rich country and why countries with plenty of natural resources and government completely out of the way of business (Mongolia, Somalia) are not rich. Oh yeah, and there were also those imperialism and slave-trade things (God decided to put the natural resources of Britain, Denmark, Switzerland, France, etc., in other people's countries. The US is, of course, Britain's colonial descendant.).
Repeat it three times: the United States had the highest average tariff rates in the entire world from the Civil War until the 1930s. The United States had the highest average tariff rates in the entire world from the Civil War until the 1930s. The United States had the highest average tariff rates in the entire world from the Civil War until the 1930s.
The idea that the US developed due to free-market capitalism is a fantasy used for political purposes.
Critique of WSJ's Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic about Global Warming
Today the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece, "Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic about Global Warming."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Who are these "sixteen concerned scientists?"
Only two do academic research on climate.
1. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris [apparently he believes that asbestos does not cause cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_All%C3%A8gre];
2. J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting [professor of advertising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Scott_Armstrong];
3. Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University [a physician who studies heart attacks http://www.rockefeller.edu/research/faculty/labheads/JanBreslow/];
4. Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society [former Exxon researcher http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=252]
5. Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences [former president, Exxon research];
6. William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton [specializes in optics]
7. Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K. [apparently he studies semiconductors]
8. William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology [a meterorologist with a master's in administration and a master's in science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kininmonth_%28meteorologist%29]
9. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT [FINALLY this guy actually does academic research on climate http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm];
10. James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University [plastics researcher http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-dept/mcgrath/frameset.htm?vita.htm];
11. Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences [policy wonk http://www.fas.org/about/bio/nichols.html];
12. Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne [nothing need be said];
13. Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator [ditto];
14. Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem [the SECOND climate research, says that solar rays are heating up the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv];
15. Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service [a rocket scientist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Tennekes];
16. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva [nuclear physicist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonino_Zichichi; here is what his organization has to say about climate change http://www.federationofscientists.org/PMPanels/Climate/ClimatePMP.asp].
The data is easy enough to find:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
As are the opinions of actual climate scientists on the subject:
"Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe 'global average temperatures have increased' during the past century. Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that 'currently available scientific evidence' substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure."
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
97%, or even 84%, or 74%, is quite a large margin, as 5% is extremely low. The issue is far more settled than many others. For example, one-third of Americans believe that the Bible is literally the word of God and true in every detail: that Adam and Eve were created out of nothing 6,000 or so years ago; a snake tricked them into eating a magical apple; two of every species of animal on earth lived on a boat as the world was totally flooded; slavemasters have the right to beat their slaves since "the slave is his money"; men can sell their daughters into sexual bondage; children who curse their parents should be executed; Jonah spent a few nights in a whale's stomach; the holy spirit came down from heaven and impregnated Mary; etc., etc. More than three times as many believe Obama is a Muslim; 8 percent of Americans have personally seen a UFO.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1701/poll-obama-muslim-christian-church-out-of-politics-political-leaders-religious
http://www.newspolls.org/articles/19620
As for liberal elites trying to control our lives, in 2006, 59% of Republicans believed in global warming, a number that has somewhat declined thanks to propagandists like these "concerned scientists" and their lapdogs in the media. A large percentage of Republicans must be angst-filled liberal elites trying to control our lives.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/01/modest-rise-in-number-saying-there-is-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/
A number of countries have already implemented carbon taxes. For example, Norway, which has a 3.4% unemployment rate and a 4.3% poverty rate and Switzerland (3.5% and 6.9%). To assert that a carbon tax harm countries' economies should be backed by some evidence rather than parroting Ayn Randisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty
If consensus means unanimity, there is no consensus about a great deal of things. If consensus means general agreement, then the consensus scientific report is the one put out by the IPCC. The authors of this report argue that, among other effects, climate change will very likely cause:
in Africa: "By 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change."
in Asia: "Endemic morbidity and mortality due to diarrhoeal [sic] disease primarily associated with floods and droughts are expected to rise in East, South and South-East Asia due to projected changes in the hydrological cycle."
in Australia: "By 2020, significant loss of biodiversity is projected to occur in some ecologically rich sites, including the
Great Barrier Reef and Queensland Wet Tropics.
- "In southern Europe, climate change is projected to worsen conditions (high temperatures and drought) in a region already vulnerable to climate variability, and to reduce water availability, hydropower potential, summer tourism and, in general, crop productivity."
in Latin America: "Productivity of some important crops is projected to decrease and livestock productivity to decline, with adverse consequences for food security. In temperate zones, soybean yields are projected to increase. Overall, the number of people at risk of hunger is projected to increase."
in North America: "Cities that currently experience heat waves are expected to be further challenged by an increased number, intensity and duration of heat waves during the course of the century, with potential for adverse health impacts."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html
Any one of these is reason enough for serious action.
If people want to have a discussion of the science, we should. It is comical to cite this group as having some sort of authority on the issue of climate change. If there are alternative explanations, then these people, most of whom are unknown, should do what respected scientists do: publish their work in scientific journals so that the evidence can be fairly evaluated. The Wall Street Journal, The Road to Serfdom and rove.com are not scientific journals, nor can the reality of the matter be discovered by doing a Google search for "global warming hoax."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Who are these "sixteen concerned scientists?"
Only two do academic research on climate.
1. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris [apparently he believes that asbestos does not cause cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_All%C3%A8gre];
2. J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting [professor of advertising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Scott_Armstrong];
3. Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University [a physician who studies heart attacks http://www.rockefeller.edu/research/faculty/labheads/JanBreslow/];
4. Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society [former Exxon researcher http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=252]
5. Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences [former president, Exxon research];
6. William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton [specializes in optics]
7. Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K. [apparently he studies semiconductors]
8. William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology [a meterorologist with a master's in administration and a master's in science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kininmonth_%28meteorologist%29]
9. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT [FINALLY this guy actually does academic research on climate http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm];
10. James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University [plastics researcher http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-dept/mcgrath/frameset.htm?vita.htm];
11. Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences [policy wonk http://www.fas.org/about/bio/nichols.html];
12. Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne [nothing need be said];
13. Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator [ditto];
14. Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem [the SECOND climate research, says that solar rays are heating up the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv];
15. Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service [a rocket scientist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Tennekes];
16. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva [nuclear physicist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonino_Zichichi; here is what his organization has to say about climate change http://www.federationofscientists.org/PMPanels/Climate/ClimatePMP.asp].
The data is easy enough to find:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
As are the opinions of actual climate scientists on the subject:
"Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe 'global average temperatures have increased' during the past century. Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that 'currently available scientific evidence' substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure."
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
97%, or even 84%, or 74%, is quite a large margin, as 5% is extremely low. The issue is far more settled than many others. For example, one-third of Americans believe that the Bible is literally the word of God and true in every detail: that Adam and Eve were created out of nothing 6,000 or so years ago; a snake tricked them into eating a magical apple; two of every species of animal on earth lived on a boat as the world was totally flooded; slavemasters have the right to beat their slaves since "the slave is his money"; men can sell their daughters into sexual bondage; children who curse their parents should be executed; Jonah spent a few nights in a whale's stomach; the holy spirit came down from heaven and impregnated Mary; etc., etc. More than three times as many believe Obama is a Muslim; 8 percent of Americans have personally seen a UFO.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1701/poll-obama-muslim-christian-church-out-of-politics-political-leaders-religious
http://www.newspolls.org/articles/19620
As for liberal elites trying to control our lives, in 2006, 59% of Republicans believed in global warming, a number that has somewhat declined thanks to propagandists like these "concerned scientists" and their lapdogs in the media. A large percentage of Republicans must be angst-filled liberal elites trying to control our lives.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/01/modest-rise-in-number-saying-there-is-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/
A number of countries have already implemented carbon taxes. For example, Norway, which has a 3.4% unemployment rate and a 4.3% poverty rate and Switzerland (3.5% and 6.9%). To assert that a carbon tax harm countries' economies should be backed by some evidence rather than parroting Ayn Randisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty
If consensus means unanimity, there is no consensus about a great deal of things. If consensus means general agreement, then the consensus scientific report is the one put out by the IPCC. The authors of this report argue that, among other effects, climate change will very likely cause:
in Africa: "By 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change."
in Asia: "Endemic morbidity and mortality due to diarrhoeal [sic] disease primarily associated with floods and droughts are expected to rise in East, South and South-East Asia due to projected changes in the hydrological cycle."
in Australia: "By 2020, significant loss of biodiversity is projected to occur in some ecologically rich sites, including the
Great Barrier Reef and Queensland Wet Tropics.
- "In southern Europe, climate change is projected to worsen conditions (high temperatures and drought) in a region already vulnerable to climate variability, and to reduce water availability, hydropower potential, summer tourism and, in general, crop productivity."
in Latin America: "Productivity of some important crops is projected to decrease and livestock productivity to decline, with adverse consequences for food security. In temperate zones, soybean yields are projected to increase. Overall, the number of people at risk of hunger is projected to increase."
in North America: "Cities that currently experience heat waves are expected to be further challenged by an increased number, intensity and duration of heat waves during the course of the century, with potential for adverse health impacts."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html
Any one of these is reason enough for serious action.
If people want to have a discussion of the science, we should. It is comical to cite this group as having some sort of authority on the issue of climate change. If there are alternative explanations, then these people, most of whom are unknown, should do what respected scientists do: publish their work in scientific journals so that the evidence can be fairly evaluated. The Wall Street Journal, The Road to Serfdom and rove.com are not scientific journals, nor can the reality of the matter be discovered by doing a Google search for "global warming hoax."
The 2012 Election and the Investment Theory of Politics
In his book, Thomas Ferguson attempts to apply microeconomic capitalist theory to politics, with a great deal of predictive success (http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226243176). The basic idea is that elections are times when groups of investors buy control of the government. A corollary is that analyzing campaign contributions will indicate which investors control which politicians and which faction of the business party (Democrats or Republicans) will emerge the winner. (Note that the predictive value of such analyses diminishes with the scope of the election: it is much more useful for presidential elections than for the people running for the local school board.) Money can be used to influence consumer (voter) behavior, whether businesses are selling cars or candidates. The 2008 election was polling rather closely until the financial crisis, when Wall Street and associated blocs of interest groups contributed mightily to Obama's campaign, leading to a secure victory for Wall Street policies and Obama; while Bush only slightly out-raised Kerry, and won with a much smaller margin; in 2000 Bush out-raised Gore, leading to the ouster of the vice president of a popular government during the midst of an economic boom; in 1996, etc., etc., et al. This theory also helps elucidate why candidates' policies are so close to each other on major issues (Obamacare = Romneycare; Obama voted for TARP; Obama withdrew from Iraq based on Bush's timeline; etc.), despite public opinion and much rhetoric to the contrary, which, to reiterate in the latter case, comes from advertising industry focus groups (change, yes we can, freedom, believe in America, etc.) and co-opted media lapdogs and has little relation to policy. Corporate money helps politicians lie.
I have been hypothesizing for the last year or so that Obama would win reelection in 2012 because corporate profits are at a record high and Bush II's brand of state capitalism, i.e., the housing bubble and collapse, harmed many more interests than it helped. I have been surmising that the corporations that own our country at this time prefer a more managed form of state capitalism rather than the so-called laissez-faire version. Campaign contribution numbers are starting to come in and Obama has out-raised Romney, the choice of the Republican business establishment, by almost 3:1 (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php). This is to be expected at this point in the game, because we are early in the primary season and Obama is the incumbent. It is very unlikely that this almost 3:1 trend will continue. However, within the still-developing data there are some interesting points to consider using the investment theory of politics. To understand the fundraising data, look to the industries that are supporting each candidate (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638 and http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286).
First, even given the gap between Obama and Romney's totals, Romney is out-raising Obama 2:1 in Wall Street contributions (securities and investment). The reason should be obvious by comparing Romney's economic plan (http://mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-mitt-romneys-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth) and comparing it with Obama's record. Romney wants to cut taxes on investment income, cut corporate taxes, and eliminate the estate (death) tax.
The other industry that is mostly lining up for Romney is oil and gas. Hence, Romney is calling for expanded drilling rights, weakening environmental laws, and, in an ode to the importance of yearly $3.5 billion in direct government subsidies (welfare) for the oil and gas industry, not to mention the costs of securing access to Middle Easter oil, Romney is offering to expand the role of the government in research and development, where the public takes the risks that can then be privatized when they become profitable (the free market).
Some of the top industry investors in Obama stock also merit discussion (that lawyers are overwhelmingly behind Obama is too trivial a point to spend time on).
Interestingly, labor is not yet lining up behind Obama ($13,000 in total contributions), although surely that will change as people are subjected to wave after wave of propaganda about how Obama stands up for labor and, in a much more effective tactic, how scared labor should be about Romney's anti-union plans.
Obama significantly takes the lead in most sectors, but is particularly dominant in education, health care (health insurance, pharmaceuticals, hospitals), high technology (computers, software, biotechnology, etc.), and the media. Clearly these categorizations leave room for speculation.
As far as education is concerned, remember that this money is not (yet) coming from unions: these are for-profit education companies, who are hoping that Obama continues his push for K-12 charter schools, as well as professors, who cannot join unions and are counting on increased funding (at least, increased relative to Romney) from the state.
The reason why private health companies are pushing hard for Obama is obvious for anyone who actually knows what Obamacare is: a trillion-dollar giveaway to these companies. The linchpin of this law is the individual mandate, in which the state compels mostly healthy, young people (the elderly, poor and sick already being principally covered by Medicare/aid) to buy their product. Romney has promised to overturn Obamacare and, if elected, may very well do it. This is not what the health industry wants, despite conventional slogans.
The folks who own Silicon Valley recognize, just as the oil industry welfare kings do, that some of the best research (ahem, the computer and the Internet) come from massive government investments. Given Romney's plan to cut discretionary spending heavily, in contrast to Obama's continued support of Silicon Valley, this is to be expected.
The media companies favor Obama's efforts to extend coverage throughout the United States, as well as the aforementioned subsidies and those to Hollywood. Although there is indeed a Democrat-friendly bias in most mainstream news sources, this is not to be confused with whether or not the investment theory of politics serves any point. We will find out this answer in November.
One thing is to be sure: if fundraising is close, the election will also be; if one candidate has a lopsided edge, he will be assured victory. Based on this analysis, and big oil/gas' and especially Wall Street's disproportionate control over the wealth of the country, it is possible that lopsided contributions from them alone will be enough to vault Romney Co.'s investors over the interests represented by Obama, Inc. It is important to remember that the tail is wagging the dog, and the outcome of the election is decided by the vote of America's corporate boardrooms rather than small-town church basements.
I have been hypothesizing for the last year or so that Obama would win reelection in 2012 because corporate profits are at a record high and Bush II's brand of state capitalism, i.e., the housing bubble and collapse, harmed many more interests than it helped. I have been surmising that the corporations that own our country at this time prefer a more managed form of state capitalism rather than the so-called laissez-faire version. Campaign contribution numbers are starting to come in and Obama has out-raised Romney, the choice of the Republican business establishment, by almost 3:1 (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php). This is to be expected at this point in the game, because we are early in the primary season and Obama is the incumbent. It is very unlikely that this almost 3:1 trend will continue. However, within the still-developing data there are some interesting points to consider using the investment theory of politics. To understand the fundraising data, look to the industries that are supporting each candidate (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638 and http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286).
First, even given the gap between Obama and Romney's totals, Romney is out-raising Obama 2:1 in Wall Street contributions (securities and investment). The reason should be obvious by comparing Romney's economic plan (http://mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-mitt-romneys-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth) and comparing it with Obama's record. Romney wants to cut taxes on investment income, cut corporate taxes, and eliminate the estate (death) tax.
The other industry that is mostly lining up for Romney is oil and gas. Hence, Romney is calling for expanded drilling rights, weakening environmental laws, and, in an ode to the importance of yearly $3.5 billion in direct government subsidies (welfare) for the oil and gas industry, not to mention the costs of securing access to Middle Easter oil, Romney is offering to expand the role of the government in research and development, where the public takes the risks that can then be privatized when they become profitable (the free market).
Some of the top industry investors in Obama stock also merit discussion (that lawyers are overwhelmingly behind Obama is too trivial a point to spend time on).
Interestingly, labor is not yet lining up behind Obama ($13,000 in total contributions), although surely that will change as people are subjected to wave after wave of propaganda about how Obama stands up for labor and, in a much more effective tactic, how scared labor should be about Romney's anti-union plans.
Obama significantly takes the lead in most sectors, but is particularly dominant in education, health care (health insurance, pharmaceuticals, hospitals), high technology (computers, software, biotechnology, etc.), and the media. Clearly these categorizations leave room for speculation.
As far as education is concerned, remember that this money is not (yet) coming from unions: these are for-profit education companies, who are hoping that Obama continues his push for K-12 charter schools, as well as professors, who cannot join unions and are counting on increased funding (at least, increased relative to Romney) from the state.
The reason why private health companies are pushing hard for Obama is obvious for anyone who actually knows what Obamacare is: a trillion-dollar giveaway to these companies. The linchpin of this law is the individual mandate, in which the state compels mostly healthy, young people (the elderly, poor and sick already being principally covered by Medicare/aid) to buy their product. Romney has promised to overturn Obamacare and, if elected, may very well do it. This is not what the health industry wants, despite conventional slogans.
The folks who own Silicon Valley recognize, just as the oil industry welfare kings do, that some of the best research (ahem, the computer and the Internet) come from massive government investments. Given Romney's plan to cut discretionary spending heavily, in contrast to Obama's continued support of Silicon Valley, this is to be expected.
The media companies favor Obama's efforts to extend coverage throughout the United States, as well as the aforementioned subsidies and those to Hollywood. Although there is indeed a Democrat-friendly bias in most mainstream news sources, this is not to be confused with whether or not the investment theory of politics serves any point. We will find out this answer in November.
One thing is to be sure: if fundraising is close, the election will also be; if one candidate has a lopsided edge, he will be assured victory. Based on this analysis, and big oil/gas' and especially Wall Street's disproportionate control over the wealth of the country, it is possible that lopsided contributions from them alone will be enough to vault Romney Co.'s investors over the interests represented by Obama, Inc. It is important to remember that the tail is wagging the dog, and the outcome of the election is decided by the vote of America's corporate boardrooms rather than small-town church basements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)