Paul Ryan is a Big Fat Liar

              Paul Ryan, himself  a recipient of Social Security survivor's benefits, is apparently either ashamed of it, or the most mean spirited and hypocritical  man in the US Congress. Another option is that he's simply a liar, whoring himself to the God of privatization and profit. Of course. like in Oz, the face behind the curtain  is something else, in our case Big Pharma.  

        The recent draft proposal of the latest scam to repeal the Affordable Care Act rolled out by Ryan  is loaded  with venality and subservience to private interests at the expense of those members of the working public who most need affordable health care.

        In an incredible leap of illogic,  the proposal ballyhoos "Increased ability to contribute to health care savings accounts." Wow! So these minimum wage, or thereabouts, workers who actually have no savings because their earnings don't reach that far, will be allowed to put money they don't have and won't have into accounts they can't afford? And where will that money come from? Rent? Food expenses? Gasoline?  To top off the incredible smoke and mirrors of this alleged "good deal" reflect on  just how little of any major medical emergency will actually be covered by most uninsured person's health savings accounts if any.  

       Here's an example based on reality, not Paul Ryan bullshit. The "average" hospital stay in the US is 5 days. It's 4.6 days actually, but I'm rounding  up and I'll tell you why later. In Maryland, that translates to $11,840 dollars. which brings up several corollary questions.

        Can someone who is uninsured even have a medical savings account? No. Just no. Unaffordable, period, as discussed above.  Who pays the bill (the entire bill)? We do.Now the "rounding up" thing. Factually, those whose medical care of last resort is to show up at the Emergency Room "in extremis" tend to be far worse off and require significantly longer hospitalization than the average admittee, another reason for regular preventive doctor visits, which these folks won't be able to afford if the ACA dies.

        Secondarily, how affordable are healthcare spending accounts for the "average," whatever that  might be, family? In the current marketplace, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, while premium costs are rising slightly slower than in years past, deductibles  are skyrocketing, which means that healthcare costs are actually increasing even more than premiums as a result. Many workers now have deductibles in excess of $1000. The average American family now spends out of pocket  monthly, for an individual family policy about $750 monthly, and these are 2015 numbers.  For many, if not most, families this doesn't leave a hell of a lot for a medical spending account! For employer sponsored plans, the family monthly cost is lower, but deductibles are high and going higher as employers pass out of control drug costs on to their workforce.    

        Additionally, in a "tough break, next case" proposal, State Medicare spending would be capped per beneficiary. Need that bypass operation? "Sorry, you've used your Medicaid up, guess you're gonna die." How very Ron Paul of the Congress, no? Some will remember the Paul rally where when the question arose re: health care for the poor, audience members screamed "Let 'em die!"

        In a another bewildering  provision,  those who don't get coverage at work would get a "$2,000  to $4,000 tax credit." Truth told, most people in this situation don't pay very much in taxes anyway, but who's counting? I guess the explanation goes like this "Remember that tax refund you're waiting for? well, good news, you'll be getting $240 more (average marginal rate times $2000). Too bad your drugs are at cost, since you're uninsured.  So your "Hep C" treatment with Harvoni will cost $94,000 (but look at the bright side, you'll get $240 more in tax refund, so all you need is another $93,760! Funny how that all worked out, huh?"  

       And finally, the subsidies for those unable to afford the entire cost of the healthcare will vanish.  Wait before you smile. Understand  this: we will still pay for these persons' healthcare, only now it will be for an amputation and hospital stay costing tens of thousands instead of the cost of routine doctor visits and reasonably cheap diabetes maintenance. Likewise,  women who cannot afford Ob-gyn visits will present at an ER in pre-eclampsia, and we'll all foot the bill for extended hospital care. Ask any Nurse you know who's ever worked NICU or OB.   

        The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) which is one of just a scant handful of Reagan era humane pieces of legislation, mandates such care, but if individual Medicaid is capped, these expenses will be dumped on the hospital, and again we will all pay!

       You really want to decrease health care expenditures, Mr. Ryan? Then repeal the 2006 law forbidding Medicare /Medicaid from negotiating drug costs. Tell Big Pharma no! As of now, the fastest rising cost in the whole panoply of medical expenses is the cost of medications. As of last year Medicare/Medicaid spent about  $220 billion on medications at the manufacturer's retail asking price. This far outstrips what insurance companies pay, which is estimated to be about 50% or less of "list  price." Applying  that "guesstimate" to Medicare/Medicaid means that we all are subsidizing the 20% net profits of the top ten Big Pharma companies by about  $110 billion annually. This is costing every human in America $353.69 annually which we shouldn't pay.

       Why does the above matter? In simplest terms, if the "no negotiating drug prices" loophole were closed, the least optimistic estimated savings to Medicare/Medicaid would amount to about $9,200  annually  for every single insured person under the ACA, and since about half or more don't get any premium subsidy, it's actually double that.

       So tell me yet again, Speaker Ryan, why you need to gut the  Affordable Care Act. Admit it, it's the name thing isn't it? Look around at your colleagues, like Louie Gohmert (embarrassing ain't he?) who are refusing to hold town hall meetings because they are afraid of their constituents' displeasure with your attempts to demolish the ACA. Or perhaps ask Tom Cotton who got filleted and deboned in public over exactly this issue.

Culturally illiterate and Blissfully Unconcerned

        The Trump administration’s proposed budget, as it has been ballyhooed to his  masses of co-deplorables,  eliminates the federal agencies that are the bedrock of America’s cultural and artistic vision: the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. Shutting down these critical agencies is not a financial decision to balance the federal balance sheet: Their budgets are relatively  small, and together with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting also, unbelievably, on the chopping block, they constitute just under  0.02 percent of the annual federal budget. For the math challenged, that's 1/5000th   of the whole budget. However, their impact is exponentially large and has garnered bipartisan support across the country for their role in job creation and attracting businesses into communities.

        Fun fact,  about 1/3 of the total federal budget is comprised of programs which cost below 25 billion or less, which is roughly the same as the amount allotted to both of the previously mentioned agencies. Secondarily that's about how big a budget share  is spent on farm and agricultural subsidies, which are almost universally agreed to be gratuitous corporate welfare.

       What may well be even more significant is that  those dollars, unlike farm subsidies which enrich those who are already well off, serve as incentive money for local efforts.  State humanities councils leverage about $5 in additional private money for every federal $1 dollar spent at the local level,  providing seed money that attracts additional foundation, corporate, state government and individual support. This essentially makes the NEA and NEH the sole federal organizations which produce more than they receive. Don't even get me started on PBS. Only a psychotic game show host (oh, wait, he was, wasn't he?) would believe that PBS is unessential to our collective cultural well being.

       But why? Why spend this money at all? As an educator, I can give an answer based on experience, and that is that many of my best students were those who were engaged in school sponsored  arts programs. Not talking about only super bright kids who dabbled, here, I'm referring to across the board  performance for just about every kid who played an instrument including voice, acted, drew, danced, molded clay, etc. My second language learners who were in music programs even seemed to acquire English faster.

        Yeah, I know, that was your experience, but...? Well the but is that my experience turns out to be just about the norm nationwide when comparing "arts kids" with non arts-involved  students. I also was an SAT prep coach. Data shows that there is an essentially linear improvement curve on SAT verbal performance relative to years of arts education.  the results are similar for math SAT scores. Comparing average  "arts involved" student and "non arts involved" student scores shows that for those kids having 4 years of an arts curriculum or involvement,  the Math score was 7% higher, while verbal was  a whopping 11.9% higher!  These are "get in" or "don't get in" percentages for many universities!

        I reiterate, Trump doesn't seem to know or care that the arts matter. He should since, in a 2005  Harris poll, 93% of those surveyed agreed that "The arts are vital to providing a well rounded education for children."  86%  agreed that "an arts education encourages and assists in the improvement of a child's attitudes toward school."  80% agreed that "incorporating the arts into education is the first step in adding back what's missing from public education today."  So let's get this straight. He isn't responding to the multitude of the American people.

        Not having been a public school student, and relegated to military school (I can understand why, now) Mr. Trump simply has no soul where the arts are concerned. his apparent standard for art is to be found in the number of expensive portraits of himself which he has commissioned and paid for with what his contributors thought were charitable donations. Further proof is apparent in his selection of a moronic pyramid scheme princess  as SecEd, a post for which she is singularly unqualified.

       Write, call,  or e-mail your  Congressperson, tell them to leave arts funding alone. After all, it is one of the few remaining vestiges of  civilization we still have.

Even When He's Right, He's Wrong

       Walter Williams, the Black apologist heir - apparent to Dr Thomas Sowell,   actually got one right in an op-ed of February 23, stating that  protective tariffs are harmful to the vast majority of American consumers. You remember, those extra charges on imports Mr. Trump insists will bring jobs back to America?  

        To understand why tariffs are inflationary, consider the 2009 Obama tariff on cheap Chinese tires. The International Trade Commission had already determined that Chinese tire imports were disrupting the $1.7 billion market and recommended that the president impose the new tariffs. Members of the commission, an independent government agency, voted 4-2 on June 29 to recommend that President Obama impose tariffs on Chinese tires for three years.

        Analysis  showed that  adding an artificial "add on" cost to these cheap imports may have temporarily "saved" about 1200 tire industry US jobs. Economically, no tariff exists in a vacuum, however;  the tariff also forced consumers to spend $1.1 billion more on tires than they otherwise would have — or roughly $900,000 per U.S. tire industry job created.  And this is where Williams runs into the wall, because he then slams Obama as if there were no real reason for the tariff. In the case of tires, however, there is a more compelling reason - they were lousy tires! More on that later.

        Even so, what is valid, and speaks to Trump's  ignorance  (See Forbes and National Review, two very conservative sources for more!) is that retaliatory tariffs imposed by the Chinese further hurt our economy. In early 2010, China’s Ministry of Commerce imposed tariffs ranging from 50.3 to 105.4 percent on American poultry imports, which reduced exports by $1 billion as U.S. poultry firms experienced a 90 percent collapse in their exports of chicken parts to China.  

        In truth, it's obvious why the Chinese can make tires cheaper than the US; the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the average American employer has to pay about $35 per hour in salary and benefits to hire a worker on a production line. My analysis of the reasons for the huge cost of "benefits," which is  code for healthcare  insurance,  is another story.  A Chinese factory pays only about $1.36 per hour for the same work, and even this is not a free market wage, but is regulated by the government.

        In response, many companies (like Ivanka Trump and her father) have moved jobs to China to take advantage of the lower wages. Consequently, Chinese products tend to be cheaper to buy all over the world. In the case of tires, however, there is a more compelling reason, stated earlier - they were inferior  tires!

        Here's what Consumer reports had to say: "... if value is a priority, consider that the "best Chinese tire, Pegasus, cost about half as much as a  Michelin LTX M/S2. But  the Michelin will last  three times longer. Factor in the cost of buying two additional sets of tires, plus mounting and balancing, and you could save hundreds of dollars, not to mention get a better all-weather performing tire, if you choose the Michelin. Certainly if you are on tight budget,  buying a cheap tire is better than riding on worn-out tires. But as our tests show, buying bargain-priced tires such as these Chinese models is a bad  choice for the long haul." Even recapped decent quality tires would surpass the Chinese . Consumer reports rated 20 similar purpose tires, three of them Chinese. Those three placed 18,19 and 20th in the testing. in short - a bad product. Reading the entire consumer reports analysis reveals, furthermore,  that these Chinese tires performed at their worst under those road conditions which are the most demanding from a safety standpoint.

        If the Obama tariff had been on all foreign import tires, Williams would have had a case in point, but it wasn't. In fact all other routinely sold import tires are tariff free, and that includes those from India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.

        The bitter truth, however, and best indicator of  either Trump's ignorance or avarice (probably both) is that without fail, ever since Adam Smith, who I'm sure Trump cannot identify, tariffs have lined the pockets of the few at the expense of the many. While protectionism can be beneficial to sectors of the manufacturing economy, the economic reality is, that for those who can least afford it, the tube top tugboats in stretch yoga pants navigating the aisles of Walmart, four year old toddler with pacifier in tow, the cost of routine purchases will rise, fueled by the greed of companies who simply add the tariff cost to their own and blame someone else. Trump and his ilk will see no diminution of profit  in a tariff environment but we as consumers certainly will. 

       Essentially every economic publication in America, right or left, has weighed in with a similar opinion. I have rarely seen unanimity such as there is on this topic. Now it Trump were only literate or concerned!  

It's a Cold World in Stosselville

        The thing about John Stossel is that, apparently, he thinks that you'll believe everything he says without thinking too much as you read. A recent column starts (dare I say it?) on a note with which I completely concur, and continues right up until the last several paragraphs upon which his "choo choo jumps the tracks",  as the lovely, but lethal, Roxie Hart would have said.

       He begins with what I think is one of the few humorous aspects of the  DC train wreck that is the new Administration. That would, of course, be the Far Right's quandary  regarding the Affordable  Care Act. Having tried for five years to kill it, solely because it was colloquially known as "Obamacare,"  they now realize that they may well become villains if they do. Funny how once people actually have health care insurance they get accustomed to it, no?  Stossel's point,  being Stossel after all, is that, for some, the Affordable care Act is a "subsidy." Truth told, he is partially correct. This by extension, overlooks the fact that  much of US health care is subsidized in one form or another;  more on that later. But, admittedly, for those whose earnings are insufficient to fully pay for their own health care insurance, yes, the ACA is a subsidy.

        Then in a sort of left turn, Stossel actually spends much of the rest of the op-ed addressing another and far more unfair genre of  subsidies. That would be the continuing and disgraceful subsidies, enacted during the Depression and continuing today, for  agricultural and similar production.  Along the way to Agriculture, Stossel describes both "DOEs" (Energy and Education) as subsidies in form, a point which could be argued, but in light of the current SecEd could be correct, since Mrs. DeVos has as much as said that she would subsidize religious schools with public funds if given the opportunity. Stossel laments the fact that Reagan actually supported increased education funding!

        The same may well be said to apply to tax incentives and exclusions for various energy companies, although fuel prices adjusted for CPI changes are at historic lows. In an aside, note that the Gingriches and Bachmanns who predicted $10 per gallon gas if Obama was elected or reelected have been notably reticent to discuss the error of their ways.  Either way, the real meat of the article is agricultural subsidies, which as I have detailed elsewhere at length are a national welfare program aimed, not at low income persons in need, but at some of our more affluent citizens (and corporations).  

           There have been farm subsidies in the USA since the Depression. Their "necessity" has been debated long and hard and the considerations , especially in some areas are a source of concern as they cost the nation more for food than a free market would command. A parallel concern is that they reward what are in many cases big agribusinesses with the tax dollars of the rest of us. In the case of corn and ethanol production mandates, they reward corn producers with a guaranteed market at a guaranteed price, a "sweetheart deal" no other American production sector (other than agriculture) is provided.

       In a rare swipe at the Right, Stossel accurately describes the economic and political mess that is the Big Sugar industry in America. Sugar subsidies are a national disgrace, and unlike corn subsidies which actually tend to insure more corn than we need grown domestically, since there is no foreign competitive "cheap" corn producer,   sugar subsidies limit the amount of cheap sugar available  by restricting the amount of imported sugar allowed. This has the effect of making literally everything made in the USA using cane sugar more expensive. How much more? Sugar import limits make the price of cane sugar in America somewhere in the 30%  higher than free market range.

       A prime example is  Coca Cola, made everywhere else with cane sugar, but in the US with corn sweetener, strictly as a cost issue.  Remember the abortion that was "New Coke?"  That was not about any dissatisfaction with the "old" formula, still tucked safely away in that Atlanta bank vault, but rather about masking any possible customer reaction to shifting to corn sweetener. Of course, "by popular demand" back came the "Old Coke" now sweetened with corn sugar, but with the original just a dim memory, too far gone to remember for comparison.

        Likewise, Stossel remarks on the singularly ludicrous "Mohair" subsidy. Really? Really! The problem here is that apparently he makes no differentiation whatsoever between needs based subsidies to enable people to remain alive who might otherwise not be able to do so, and categorical subsidies to rich and, in many cases, corporate interests which simply increase their profit margins

       But then, because we knew he would, because we knew he has to, being John Stossel, he took a hard right turn into the wall, by equating Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to "handouts  and entitlements."  His rationale for Medicare being a "handout" is based on his assertion,  correct but with grossly misplaced accusations, that the cost of healthcare grossly exceeds what most of us have paid  into Medicare. As true as this is, one might point out that we all pay or have paid precisely what the law has required. If that is deemed  insufficient, then there are but two real avenues of redress, the first, but wrong and unpopular in Biblical proportions,  would be to increase Medicare premiums.

       The second would be to address the real reason for the incredible cost of Health Care in America. In short summary, as I have addressed this issue in several previous blogs, consider Big Pharma, multiple billing, "for profit" healthcare as an industry, vice a national priority and finally, look to the 2006 Act which created Medicare part D. This "gift to Big Pharma" mandates that Medicare must always pay the asking price for all drugs. This law means that the Epi-pen (to choose a drug whose name resonates) which costs $300 with a coupon from the manufacturer, and even far less in many insurance drug plans, will cost taxpayers the full $650 or so. The VA, however, which isn't precluded from bargaining drug costs by law pays between 40 to 58% less for ALL drugs. So Stossel has a point, but points the finger at us Medicare "handout recipients," many of whom make in a month what about he spends on a suit, as the greedy leeches on the social animal. Why would he do that? Because John Stossel has whored himself to all things conservative just as Marco Rubio has whored himself to Big Sugar interests.

       In like manner, Stossel also stoops to characterizing  Social Security as a "handout." There is little need for pointing out the error of this statement as it relates to the vast majority of Americans, who work for forty years or so, pay into the system and get back a return that is relatively modest. Of course Stossel would probably favor privatization, so "his kind of people"  can make a profit.  

His last "handout" claim - Medicaid - is justified only because many Americans still cannot afford, or do not have, any healthcare insurance.  Of course, an even larger handout is the cost to all the rest of us, insured or not, in paying the cost of ER treatment for these folks, under a Reagan era law, and a humane one, which prohibits denying care to anyone.  A subset of that, with which I am conversant, having had both  parents live long lives and both of them in long term care facilities for several years, is that even 3/4 of a million dollars in savings, as well as employer provided health insurance incentives  is insufficient at today's obscene cost scales to cover such treatment for very long.  One is left with the "impoverish grandma" scenario, before Medicaid will cover expenses.

       Interestingly enough,  John Stossel's last book is entitled "No they can't!" Why Government fails - But individuals succeed" Of course it bears little real resemblance to reality, which is that for a nation of 300 millions plus, individual efforts, while perhaps noble, are simply too miniscule in scale to care for those who, for whatever reason, aren't retiring with $110 + annually and healthcare for life. This is, in many cases,  the sophomoric resort of many, who like Stossel, subscribe to the school of thought which is "If I could do it, why can't everybody else?" Libertarians love this stuff, as it allows them to shed that last vestige of conscience, sort of like the Ron Paul supporters who yelled "let 'em die," when the subject of health care arose in a debate.   As a social liberal, I see this as more likely the "I've got mine- f**k you" school of human interaction.

          A close second rationale , for a disturbing number of Libertarians and Far Right Republicans of the current stripe, seems to be that all this applies as an inverse  multiple  function of  how many differences there are between what you are and what they think you should be. If there are two degrees of difference (religion and race, for example), then you are only 1/4 as deserving as if Caucasian , Native born and Evangelical Christian. Throw in immigrant and gay and the number is only 1/8. It is a cold, unforgiving and unconcerned world out there in Stosselville!  

Scriptural teaching. Really?

        As a preface, this was posted to facebook as a response to an article by a fine young man urging gay bashers to stop using the Bible while,  of course,  using the Bible to justify his position. This was my response:

Another, perhaps even more rational, approach would be to simply put all Biblical issues in the context of the oral tradition (writ much later) of a relatively small group of Semitic tribesmen, which has no more or less relevance to the modern world than the Ramayana, the Analects, the Avesta, Dhamapada, or the Book of Mormon (just kidding on the last one).  This is to say that every significant sized  group of like minded people have evolved guidelines for civil coexistence. Almost all have a creation myth, although Christianity smugly calls theirs the Creation Story! Most of these groups have also evolved oral traditions (if they lived pre-writing) some of which include a supernatural "enforcer" to make sure everyone behaves.  This ranges from the God of the Hebrews who blithely  orders or suborns (among other atrocities): cannibalism ( De 28:53), slavery (Ex 21:5-6), Hatred of parents (Luke 14:26), Mass murder (numerous, notably Sam 6:19 and Josh 8:1),  and  abortion (num 5:1-25) to the great flood in Gilgamesh (probably the source of the Hebrew flood "story." 

               I know, I know, but all that changed with Jesus. Yes, the tone did, but the reality of oral tradition, written many years (45 at the earliest, more like 100 plus) later is that much of what is attributed to the actual words of Jesus can't possibly be. Who took notes in the Garden of Gethsemane? The apostles were sleeping, remember?  Much of the mean spiritedness toward women derived by the early Church and justified as being "scriptural" is merely the dogma of Paul, not the philosophy of Jesus.
                The simple truth (far too simple for those who need  their religion with a touch of hocus pocus, fire, brimstone, judgement  and magick) is that you  can believe in the supernatural nature of your religion if it gets you through the night; or you can look to the logic of these general rules for group behavior and coexistence if that floats your boat.  After all, the "Golden Rule," of which Christians are so proud and possessive  appears in the Analects of Confucius at least 650 years before Christ. Heck, a version of it even appears on the remnants of Hammurabi's code of laws ca 1600 BCE.  Buddha's fingerprints are also all over it.
                Here's a hot  flash:  neither the  Buddha or Jesus is ever quoted or attributed as even having an opinion on sexuality, other than the Buddha's abjuration against forced sex and advocacy of equality for women. Mary Magdalene, in several of the Nag Hammadi Gospels (the ones the Council of Nicaea decided you shouldn't be allowed to  read)  is referred to as " the one (of the apostles) Jesus loved the best"  and the "one he kissed on the mouth."   So any real "Christian" point of view on sexuality, is dogma, derived from Paul  the misogynist and the old men who seized power in the late 300s AD after Christianity became sponsored by the Roman Empire.

                So if you still hate gays for "scriptural" (Old Testament) reasons, be prepared to swallow a lot of unpleasant things  that go along with it. Don't work that Sunday shift, sell your daughter into slavery, kill your neighbor if he mows the yard on Saturday, dash an infant's brains out (Psalms), don't eat the shrimp or lobster on the seafood buffet and the biggest laugh of all for all you nose picking, semi literate, cousin marrying members of the Westboro Baptist fan club - Lay off the ribs, because the Devil's in the pork. The other option, of course is be a rational human being and use the brain you've evolved. And I do believe that's all I have to say about that.  

The New Apologist Is At It Again

      The new apologist is at it again! I'm referring, of course to Walter Williams, who has apparently become the new Black Conservative op-ed "go-to guy" since the unlamented retirement of Dr. Thomas Sowell. Of course like Dr. Sowell, Williams is also older than I, and I am 74.  Like Dr. Sowell, he should remember the Civil Rights movement and recognize which political movement  in America was largely responsible for such improvements in the condition of Black Americans as came from that movement. Alas he does not.

        Like Sowell, Williams has a degree in economics. Like Sowell, he is given far too much credit for wisdom because of it.

Walter Williams' latest farcical column, entitled "What's the Cost of a Higher Minimum Wage" posits that increasing the minimum wage categorically damages the economy by increasing unemployment. He then extrapolates is as being even worse for Black Americans. He actually goes so far as to cite a "study" done in, of all places, South Africa in 1925.The  hubris displayed in such a ploy is exceeded only in  the belief that it will be believed.   Alleging that 91 year old data from a nation mired in post war depression and Apartheid relevant is mind bogglingly  naive.

       A bit about Economics before we get too far into this. When an individual studies most mathematically based pursuits, for example, Trig, Calculus, Algebra, there is the basic bedrock on which these subjects are founded. That is that by following accepted and established procedures, with the possible exception of  Quantum Physics, it is possible to take numbers, use them in formulae and arrive at actual, factual results, which will  be the same result every time one does so. The same is true for Chemistry, most Physics, Biochem, etc. They are sciences, and  while new breakthroughs may change what we perceive as factual truth, there is little hesitance among rational people to embrace new information as it is proven factual.

        Then we move to the "soft" sciences, such as Psychology and Sociology, where the primary measurement device used is statistics. While mathematically based, there is no factual or  "right" answer in these areas, simply probability. But then we have the soft science so soft that it is unworthy of even that classification. I am referring to, as you already knew I would to the study of Economics. True, there are formulae, mathematical processes and quantification, but.....there is no such thing as truth in Economics.

        In mathematics, two plus two will equal four today, next week, next year and in every language. Economists, however,   still labor, to a degree,  under "rules" (observations really) which are based on trade in a mercantile society of just over 250 years ago, in a world of unregulated greed and commerce. An economist's best effort on the two plus two example should be more like "two plus two should equal four, if we didn't forget anything."  And yet, we have pundits such as Walter Williams making positive statements such as: "There is little question in most academic research that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in unemployment."

          This statement alone would lead the ingenuous reader to assume that there actually are hard data examples which support the allegation. In fact, most "studies" on the effect of increasing the minimum wage aren't really studies in the academic sense of the scientific world. If I cite a drug study (any one, pick one) of a drug approved for prescription the approval is based on "studies." In these cases, the manufacturer actually does double blind statistical analysis on patient trial groups who get either the real drug or a placebo. they them collate the data, analyze for side effects, results, disregard the placebo effect, etc. Even so,  what they provide to the FDA  is frequently, just a probability study that the drug has enough potential to cure that side effects and any other risks are justified if approval is granted.

        If drug studies were done in the same fashion as Economic "studies" the process would be more like, "let's ask a bunch of doctors what they think will happen if people take this drug." Why? because most studies, such as Williams refers to re: raising the minimum wage are really the opinions of Economists who are asked the question, "What do you think will happen if we raise the minimum wage."  I know, I know,  "Mike, you're kidding , right?" Nope.

        Another close analogy was the introduction of the HPV vaccine.  There was an instant outcry from various groups, most religious, all Conservative, that if we protected young women from HPV at an early age, they'd be more likely to have sex outside of marriage. The obvious conclusion, which escaped these loonies was that they were actually saying, "Regardless of what moral lessons and guidance we try to give our daughters, they'll chuck it all because we allow them to have a shot which will prevent a disease." This is, of course also the same logic which says don't give out information on contraception because it'll lead to more pre-marital sex and unwanted pregnancy. Of course as we all know now, the inverse has proven true, not in opinion polls, but in real life.

        So, are Economists ever right?  That depends on the definition and the scope of "right." A classic example of an "everybody knows that....." Economic fallacy is one that all of us who actually took Econ in high school, or like me, took Micro and Macro in grad school, have heard. It is the famous, and proven mostly false, time and time again, "Trickle Down Theory." this theory has also been characterized by an Australian politician as "the rich pissing on the poor"

              As often as tax cuts for the upper classes have been enacted, the most recent (as of yet) by Bush 43, the effects of this  increase in the pockets of the rich has resulted in .....wait for it.......more money in the pockets of the rich! (and Grand Cayman, and Switzerland, etc.)

        Studies cited by talking heads such as Williams are shot through with "if  x, then "perhaps"  y"  types of analysis. There are many predictions based on the bias of the person being questioned, but precious little data to justify them. It's almost as if they think we're so stupid that simply waving the word "Economist" in our face will make us believe anything which follows.

His use of three paragraphs of quotes from white supremacists from 1920s South Africa shows the true dearth of contemporary data to bolster his proposition.

        So what do real studies, you know analyses of real data, show? Below is a quote from a conservative economist. Note the lack of real numbers and the obvious bias of the author.

"Many poor Americans are unemployed and are obviously not helped by increasing the minimum wage. Among people who do work, only a tiny fraction of them are employed in minimum wage jobs, and many of those are teenagers from middle-class families. Of all the workers who will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage, only around one in ten lived in poor households in 2007. About two-thirds of those who will gain are second or third earners in a household, and many are teenagers in families who earn well above the median household income in the United States. If the goal of raising the minimum wage is to make the labor market more fair, then giving a raise to middle-class teenagers hardly seems like the best way to achieve it.

Wow! people who are unemployed don't get paid! And he thought it up all by himself!

Did you spot the biases based on belief, rather than fact?

first, the numbers: (data remember?)

People at or below the federal minimum are: Note, this does not include 23 states where the minimum wage is even 25 cents higher than the national minimum

Disproportionately young: 50.4% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).

§  Mostly (77%) white; nearly half are white women.

§  Largely part-time workers (64% of the total).

First Bias : Disproportionally young. Really? only 24% are teenagers, and for too many, their pay supplements the family income by necessity. Barely under half are over 24, adult and in many cases family breadwinners.

Second Bias: Citing gains among "second and third earners" is a statement which could only be made by a person who has a job which allows a single earner household.  In fact over 60% of American homes have two or more earners. Again the author's lack of real world knowledge colors his opinions.

Third Bias: There is a reason that 64% are part time employees. In some cases, as I am fairly sure the author believes is true for the majority, the worker is a student, ergo has to attend school as well as work. This still leaves the inconvenient truth that 76%  of these workers are not teens. So why the part time? Could it be so the employer doesn't need to pay medical benefits? I think we know the answer.

          Now on the other hand what do those supporting raising the minimum wage say?

A  study by Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester, and Michael Reich examines the impact of minimum wage changes on county-level employment and labor turnover from 2001 through 2008. Specifically, the authors’ analysis covered a period when there were two increases in the federal minimum wage during a recession, one in 2007 and one in 2008. This study’s finding of significantly reduced turnover among low-wage sections of the labor market offers a clear explanation for why they observed that employment does not fall in response to a minimum wage hike. Further, because their data was at the county level, there were numerous counties suffering high unemployment when minimum wage increases went into effect.

In short, the academic research suggests that even during hard economic times, raising the minimum wage doesn’t reduce employment.

Academic research, you know, like numbers?

       Now for another interesting factoid,. In an actual analysis performed on a theoretical "average" fast food restaurant, actually MacDonalds, the question was, "What would be the effect of a 15% increase in the minimum wage on the cost of product assuming that the entire cost of doing so was simply added to the product. In other words, not a loss of profit. The results were (again, this is simply math, not opinion or blind prediction based on bias) a 4.3%  increase in price. In easy to understand terms: your $5 meal would cost $5.21! Would that deter you from going there? Walter Williams says it probably would.

In any case, here are a couple of examples of why it's hard to find a rational discussion of this issue.

  

To be a $12 hamburger it would have had to be an $11.50 burger before! This is Walter Williams worthy.

 The second is as bad, since it portrays Wall Street as the villain, and while they have much to answer for, no one there is making minimum wage except maybe an apprentice janitor. Both are biased and horribly slanted by lack of understanding

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this is that none of those who scream loudest re: minimum wage don't have to work for it.

A close second is the judgmental nature of those who place less value on the nature of the work than the diligence with which it is performed.    

I knew I was rejoicing too soon

       I knew I was rejoicing too soon when Thomas Sowell announced his retirement from writing op-ed columns. Sadly, Walter Williams has appeared to take his place. Who would have ever guessed  there could be another Black apologist with so little real sense of history or truth in journalism. In one of Williams' first efforts to reach  the Daily Sun, He declares that liberals have lower standards of behavior than Conservatives.

     Wow, where to start? Ok lets analyze several points often made by the Far Right, almost always wrong, because they're lies.

     When the bulk of conservatives look at demonstrations of civil dissatisfaction , they see what they immediately characterize as "liberals," meaning they see persons of more than the Caucasian persuasion, and frequently together, for heaven's sakes. When violence occurs they continue to label it as "Liberal, even when said violence is instigated by law enforcement." When they see looting and wanton destruction of property, they lose every shred of critical thinking skill , if any , that they had ever possessed and brand the violators as "liberals" again.  When actual political liberals see the same behavior they label; it "criminal", since that's what it actually is. An inference of deep political philosophical belief in any direction other than anarchy  in the minds of said looters and police car burners is simply ludicrous not to mention dead wrong about 98% of the time. It is angry people behaving badly, period. They're almost certainly not voters, nor do they support real political beliefs of any real focus.

     

     Second, when Conservatives speak of Liberals' behavior in many cases the phrase "Black Lives Matter" is almost sure to pop  up, usually because much of Conservative White America has added a sotto voce  ending to the phrase which they seem determined to believe that most Black Americans intend, that being  "Black Lives Matter (more than white lives)."  This of course is intended to demean and belittle the efforts of those of all races who abhor the continued disparity in treatment of Black and White citizens by the police. There are far too many recent incidents of unarmed persons of color being murdered to even pretend it isn't a problem, nor can anyone claim that it is only a recent concern. The history of much of law enforcement turning a blind eye to racial inequity extends as far back as the 1870s. I'd say farther back, but before then, inequality  was mandated by law. After Reconstruction was ended, even though unconstitutional, Jim Crow maintained the status quo for Blacks in much of the U.S. until the Civil Rights Era. In fact Black Lives Matter would make more sense (since all lives should always matter) if it were phrased Black Lives Matter (even if whites may not think so).

     Finally, the claim in Walter Williams column cites the undeniably bad actions of that fringe of violent and usually apolitical  hangers on I mentioned in the second paragraph and extrapolates them to the entire liberal movement. In the spirit of Mr. Williams' own alternate facts viewpoint let's consider some groups of Liberals juxtaposed with Conservatives and at odds in various causes. As a person of color and of late middle age, I must assume that Mr. Williams considered the  Liberals  of many racial backgrounds, who walked across the bridge in Selma  Alabama, to be the exemplars of bad behavior, while the Conservatives who beat them, used water cannons against them and  urged their dogs to attack them must have been demonstrating the "better" behavior Mr. Williams was referring to.  Of course those good ole Wyoming  conservatives who beat Matthew Shephard to death were behaving righteously as well. The deeply religious inbreds  of the Westboro Baptist Church, when they picket with vile signs screaming filth at the parents of a dead coed in North Carolina are the well behaved ones and the mourners are unruly trash? How we doing so far?

        And finally, it would be difficult to be more Conservative than   the Ku Klux Klan. Modeling good behavior, as Christians, they have terrorized Blacks, Catholics and Jews in America for decades. If you're looking for a yardstick of decency try this: in Georgia, alone,  since reconstruction, more people of color (586) were lynched by white hate groups than the number who have died from violence in urban riots since. in America as a nation the number of persons killed by these "well behaved Conservatives" totals well over 3,000.

       In summary, like Thomas Sowell before him, Walter Williams doesn't even know what he doesn't know.