The human mind treats a new idea the same way
the body treats a strange protein;
it rejects it.
PB Medawar
Obama SOTU 2013: More of the Same
More demagoguery, zero-sum politics and absolute hypocrisy: same old same old political rhetoric I've heard at least 100 times. Just as a sample, Obama wants to take credit for the results of the shale oil and gas boom--largely on private or state-held lands--while taxing the industry to fund his green tech boondoggles, an unacceptable intervention in the private sector, the hubris of a planned economy, a model which has always proved to fail in practice. In addition, he once brought up his climate change initiative, with a thinly veiled threat to assert (nonexistent autocratic) authority if he doesn't get the legislation he wants: unconstitutional at its core. It violates the very concept of a balance of powers.
I was immediately put-off with his pseudo-science nonsense. Anyone with a basic background of applied statistics knows how difficult it is to develop comprehensive, reliable models, especially of economics and weather. Here is Obama's promotion of alarmist nonsense
Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.For SHAME! He is essentially and deliberately exploiting recency bias:
Recency bias is the tendency to think that trends and patterns we observe in the recent past will continue in the future. Predicting the future in the short term, even for highly changeable events like the weather or the stock market, according to events in the recent past, works fine much of the time. Predicting the future in the long term according to what has recently occurred has been shown to be no more accurate than flipping a coin in many fields, including meteorology, economics, investments, technology assessment, demography, futurology, and organizational planning.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that with all the intelligence supposedly going on that such things as the breakup of the Soviet Union, the crumbling of the Berlin wall, the former head of Sinn Fein meeting with the Queen of England, the worldwide economic collapse of recent years, the so called "Arab spring," the recent attacks on U.S. embassies in several Muslim countries, and a host of other significant historical events were not predicted by the experts?Mark Perry of Carpe Diem frequently points out we have drastically cut down CO2 emissions; e.g., consider this post: Technologies opposed by environmentalists – fracking and genetic modification – have cut CO2 emissions to 20-yr. low. What was the catalyst? Obama's lecturing on a topic he has no demonstrated competence? Or the lower costs of abundant local supplies? It's clear he wants to take credit for lower utility bills and he wants to give pushing-on-a-string tax breaks. Already there are over 500 publicly-accessible compressed natural gas stations (some near major airports). Plus "When Honda started retail sales of the natural gas Civic, it also began offering a home refueling device called Phill, now sold by an Italian company called BRC FuelMaker. The device can refuel a vehicle overnight when connected to a gas line from a home served by natural gas. But at this time, Honda does not recommended home refueling “because of moisture and other contaminants inherent in some natural gas supplies.” This is a shame, as the ability to refuel overnight could help address the limitations with fuel pump availability." (One would think competing manufacturers would offer enhanced filtering functionality.) Cost savings to conventional fuels range from a third to a half. There are plenty of other incentives for vehicle owners including favorable publicity, and natural gas suppliers have an incentive for home or business owners to one-stop shop their energy needs. What Obama could and should do is address exaggerated environmentalist fear-mongering and stall tactics over fracking and other technologies. He's walking a thin line between consumers and his crony environmentalist allies: he wants to have his cake and eat it, too.
The reason I picked this minor topic is because it is representative of his general approach to government: he gives tax credits to cronies; he wants to tax parties not a natural constituency of his political base. And in the same speech he pays lip service to tax reform, whereas all the special carrots and sticks he is pushing for adds more floors to the unsustainable house of cards which is our convoluted tax system.
His Alice in Wonderland understanding of the economy is especially apparent in his discussion of the minimum wage and central planning of the economy to build the middle class (through implied redistribution policies): he is either profoundly an economic illiterate and/or stubborn. He is continuing to push policies which don't work. He seems to see business as part of government redistribution policies. There are lots of jobs that pay more than minimum wage. Why? Because of supply and demand. But he doesn't seem to think supply and demand operates for starter jobs. Most minimum wage jobs are taken by low-skill, inexperienced workers, whom often must undergo training and experience to become more productive. As they become more productive, their employers compensate them accordingly, or they have to train replacements. If the minimum wage is raised, I will hire only those workers I would pay at that rate without said policy. Or I would hire people on a part-time basis, say, to span the lunch rush. The single best thing Obama could do to improve the lot of low-skill workers would be to waive employer mandates and regulations. Getting $5/hour may not sound great in the short run, but it's better than unemployment and can lead to better paying jobs in the long run. I still remember on scholarship at OLL getting up to mop floors at 6AM as a freshman; certainly a valedictorian could be used in a more productive capacity, but my scholarship didn't cover room and board, books, etc.
Middle-class incomes? Let's face it: the President is not pursuing economic growth policies. You don't build an economy by raising the cost of labor or investment. Money is fungible; these are real costs to business. All Obama does with his statist policies is muck up the vision of businesses. Get the government out of the way of businesses.
Another way Obama shows his astonishing naivete was in the discussion of refinancing mortgages. The way he discusses this issue is characteristic: he portrays his opponents as irrational, but in fact he's stereotyping and oversimplifying in a disingenuous way. Guess what happens to bank margins in a refinancing, especially at artificially low rates. (Keep in mind we still have inflation of up to 2% a year.)
I'm not doing a comprehensive review here of the speech--I'm just hitting a few pet peeves. I may comment more in future segments.. Let me finish this commentary by singling out one paragraph of Obama's nonsense:
I realize that tax reform and entitlement reform won’t be easy. The politics will be hard for both sides. None of us will get 100 percent of what we want. But the alternative will cost us jobs, hurt our economy, and visit hardship on millions of hardworking Americans. So let’s set party interests aside, and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future. And let’s do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors. The greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next. Let’s agree, right here, right now, to keep the people’s government open, pay our bills on time, and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The American people have worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another.Expletive deleted! For those analytically challenged, this is his partisan recasting of the debt limit issue. Let us not forget Obama added almost $6T in his first term to the national debt--more than doubling the publicly held debt--not including social security reserves, et al. forced to invest in Treasury debt. Obama inherited a total debt about two-thirds the size of GDP. The size of GDP is sort of a natural credit limit. The debt is rapidly growing out of control. Even with anemic interest rates, we are spending nearly $300B a year in interest. If and when the Fed adjusts interest rates to historical levels we could see service on the debt doubling, tripling or worse. What has Obama done? Across-the-board cuts? We have heard about the sequester: with the burden split between defense and domestic spending, but in the last GDP numbers, I only read discussion of defense spending. Obama's "cuts" are accounting gimmicks like reductions of automatic spending increases and/or statistically insignificant cuts elsewhere. Not to mention the hypocrisy of Obama after voting against a debt ceiling increase in 2006 (when the deficit was about a trillion less).
Notice Obama uses terms like "fair", "balanced", "smart", and "shared sacrifice" to discuss his partisan policies, but we have already seen the credit rating agencies knock down ratings for the first time ever, which he blames on the opposition. He is also lying to the American people about the GOP wanting to shutdown the government,..., not uphold the full faith and credit of the US. He knows taxes are more than enough to pay interest on the debt. The only way that happens is if he chooses to make it happen, which I would regard as an impeachable offense. Using the SOTU to launch a partisan attack--utterly pathetic and unworthy of a legitimate President. If he was more of a leader instead of a party hack, there would be no brinksmanship. He'a like an arsonist starting fires and trying to blame a neighbor.
Prophecy and the Next Pope
I didn't want to reference the topic of papal succession, but there has been a flurry of speculation even in the news (cf here) about the infamous St. Malachy's prophecies of the Popes. Allegedly Petrus Romanus is the last Pope, whom will preside at the time of great tribulations for the Church, the destruction of Rome, the rise of the Antichrist, and the Apocalypse/end times. Of course, it's difficult to fit the actual popes to Malachy's cryptic prophecies, but according to many whom subscribe to the Malachy prophecy, Pope Benedict is the next-to-last Pope. There is speculation that just as John Paul II and Benedict had emerged after a long string of Italian Popes, we might see a non-European pope; one prominent cleric commonly rumored in the running is 64-year-old Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson. (An example of speculation on the Internet about Turkson and Petrus Romanus is here.)
How do I take these discussions as a Catholic? I do find speculation of the future very interesting; I recall reading a short book on Catholic prophecies which hinted of a catastrophic future encounter with a comet. But most Christians are aware of Matthew 24:36 (i.e., no one knows of the end times). Let's put it this way: if I knew of imminent catastrophes, I would short market indexes (not that it would do any good) or cash out. Instead I spent a little time today working on my retirement accounts. If you recall how I responded tongue-in-cheek to the 2012 apocalyptic nonsense, you may know my reaction to this speculation....
On the other hand, if there was a similar set of prophecies about the American Presidents about an American decline and loss of liberty with great tribulations under a statist, incompetent President...
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Nate Beeler, Columbus Dispatch, HT Carpe Diem |
The Supremes, "My World Is Empty Without You"
