Muslim Immigration

About time we had some good news right?  Seems our friends in France have managed to beat back the always unpleasant Le Pen clan and reaffirm their commitment not only to all things French as they certainly should but also to Europe and even more expansively the world.  After the UK packed it in and the USA abruptly took leave of its senses and joined the circus I really wondered if the Europeans would follow suit and go on holiday as well.  Thankfully that does not appear to have been the case despite our good frenemies the Russians trying to pull a Trump on them at the last moment.  Got to love the French.  Tougher than they seem sometimes.  Not all brie and a nice bottle of wine that’s for sure.  Anyway, I thought this might be a good excuse to take one more shot at the whole immigration issue as it appears to be a pretty big deal overseas.  Well, here too I suppose but not really the same thing.  Folks in Europe are a lot closer to all the mayhem going on in the Middle East right now, have done a lot more to help the refugees from that benighted region of the world, and have been trying to assimilate people a lot more foreign and sometimes dangerously anti-social than the occasional bad hombre arriving in the USA from our long suffering neighbor to the south.  So let me say a few more words this week about immigration with Muslim immigration as the specific example.

First let me just say this issue I feel has nothing or should have nothing really to do with how one personally feels about the religion of Islam... Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!

American Conservatism and Nazism: The Economic Dimension

Welcome friends!

I suppose you may have noticed the flurry of articles comparing the political movement of our president-elect Donald Trump and his conservative Republican Party to that of Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Party so many years ago in early twentieth-century Germany?  I suspect it’s probably rather difficult to avoid noticing certain similarities.  Of course conservatives themselves have been preemptively calling their political opponents fascists and Nazis for some time now so I suspect some people must assume it’s all a bit of tit for tat but I really don’t think so.  I thought this time out I’d discuss yet another point of similarity this time involving economic ideas.

If you’re interested in history at all you may recall the little mustachioed monster of fame originally rose to power in Germany the conventional democratic way.  Yes, like vampires of film he only managed to wreak his havoc after having been duly invited in.  Of course in his case the havoc didn’t literally involve sucking blood but rather dismantling the democratic institutions of the nation and going on to murder millions of his countrymen and various other people besides.  By all accounts the initial impetus for his rise was a rather severe economic depression and the inevitable social divisions and in particular racial divisions the economic meltdown and social instability dredged up from the darkness of ages past.

In this context I think it’s important to realize one of the great and abiding mysteries for economic conservatives everywhere is why they don’t always do as well as they feel they ought to do under free markets.  It’s not much of a mystery or issue for liberals and leftists who believe markets don’t always perform that well anyway, which is to say markets can break down and exhibit instability, many types of markets have undesirable characteristics and results (monopolies, monopsonies, oligopolies, oligopsonies), certain common conditions render even gold-standard perfectly competitive markets problematic (externalities, information and other power asymmetries), and markets of any description do not necessarily do a very good job distributing goods and services to the people one might think should have them under any particular theory of social justice.  No, the problem for liberals and leftists is the relatively straightforward although obviously still quite daunting issue of how to fix the problems with markets to make things turn out better.

Conservatives are in a different mental place altogether.  They accept the free market as a panacea for all the material and distributional issues a society may face so if problems remain despite the presence of an apparently free market that’s really a rather remarkable state of affairs.  The primary way conservatives have historically attempted to explain this great mystery is that yes, market systems are inherently flawless and fantastic and so on, but someone is “rigging” the market behind the scenes as it were to make it not work out right.  Sabotage or I suppose as conservatives might say sabatoogie.  For Hitler and the Nazis the shadowy culprit was international Jewry.  One can imagine this wasn’t the most difficult sell in the world at that time and place given the rather obvious otherness of Jewish people in the context of self-adoring European nationalists and racists, the troubled history of Jewish people in Europe since the Middle Ages, and more prosaically the fact some Jewish people had managed to do pretty well for themselves under the prevailing market system.  Make no mistake about it.  Although the Nazis fashioned themselves “socialists” and talked a lot about collectives in certain cultural and military contexts when it came to economic matters they were pretty much conventional economic conservatives.  They didn’t challenge the economic elite of the nation and in return the economic elite of the nation didn’t challenge them.  They were all about keeping labor in line and leftist labor agitators out.  Their goal was an unholy merging of big business, (undemocratic) government, and the military machine.  Hitler won the support of most of the upper classes in the Germany of the day because he basically represented a potential money making opportunity for them.  Obviously it didn’t end too well.  Can’t do much with smoking rubble and a big pile of corpses.  But by the time they figured out which way the wind was blowing there wasn’t a whole lot they could do about it.

Here in the USA we have a roughly similar sort of dynamic going on right now.  Conservatives have been talking up the magic of the marketplace as they have been these past two centuries or so but as was the case in Germany in the early twentieth century some workers just aren’t doing all that well financially.  Liberals are trying to explain why that might be the case in terms of technological change and the rise of more effective international competition and more generally just trying to get people to think realistically about the distributional issues associated with market systems but of course conservatives aren’t having it.  They’re too busy looking for the scoundrels who have been rigging the markets to make them not function as they should.  They know it can’t be the economic elite or captains of industry because under conservative philosophy those are the people responsible for all good things in the world and the most deserving of our respect.  It must be someone else.  You can tell they have something like this on their minds because they’re always talking about taking the country back from someone.  But who?  And how did they get hold of the country in the first place?

I suppose a few American conservatives accept the traditional antisemitic line endorsed by the Nazis but not very many.  We just don’t have the history for that sort of thing to really take root.  We didn’t have medieval pogroms or Christian crusades.  We have lots of immigrants from all over the place and always have had.  We like to talk about religious freedom.  Some nativist groups have gotten on that wagon over the years including the neo-Nazis and KKK but it’s a bit of a hard sell for the man in the street.  No, in an American context the much more tempting and satisfying scapegoats are the so-called “black” people, the descendants of the slaves the old-timers kidnapped and brought over to work in their fields and who did a lot to build the country into what it is today.  That despicable but surprisingly long-lasting labor and social arrangement generated a type of social cancer that has proven quite difficult to eradicate or sometimes simply to contain: racism.  According to this theme markets are not working properly because our darker hued compatriots and possibly their illegal immigrant allies (and misguided liberals of course) have captured the government and are using it to wreck markets and funnel resources to the undeserving.  As I’ve noted before the story doesn’t entirely make sense to me according to the available facts because poor “black” people have been doing just as badly as poor “white” people and I think even a little worse and most illegal immigrants are struggling economically as well.  But I suppose the theory is that even though they’re trying to wreck markets and funnel resources to themselves they must not be very good at it because all they’ve managed to do in practice is wreck markets.  So in the eyes of conservatives the solution to our problems is to take the political system back from the people who have captured it, “black” people and their foreign allies, and put it back under the control of people who understand how the market is meant to work and will presumably not mess with it: rich old “white” people.  They would like to find a permanent solution and are forever thinking of ways to limit and shrink democratic government and correspondingly expand the power of the autocratic economic elite but they can only do so much at one time.

Of course, one must admit our conservatives are not nearly as bad as their historical counterparts.  No one has suggested carting anyone off to death camps in the countryside.  Not yet anyway.  I would find that reassuring were it not for the fact we’re not really comparing apples to apples.  Germany in the era of the Nazis went from the social turmoil of a lost war through an epic economic depression to the upheaval of total war.  One supposes these conditions must have had some influence on the complete moral meltdown we all remember today.  Here in the USA we’re having it relatively easy right now.  We have some economic problems that are particularly acute in some areas of the country but overall we’re not doing so badly.  We have some ongoing military conflicts but not really anything beyond what is more or less normal for us these days.  We’re basically on a pretty even keel right now and yet the person the American public chose as their president was Donald Trump. One can’t help but wonder if Germany in the 1930s had been doing as well as we are today would Hitler and his party of dimwitted goons have gotten anywhere near the reins of government.  Or would they have spent their lives railing against the system in some Bavarian beer hall?  Or flip it around.  Let’s say Trump’s economic incompetence and anti-regulatory zeal unleashes a major 1930s style depression.  People in the so-called “heartland” are out of work.  They’re going hungry.  They’re fearful for the future.  What will their philosophy suggest was the cause of the calamity and what do you suppose they will see as the solution?  Or let’s say a major war breaks out.  I mean a big one.  Nuclear.  Biological.  It’s us against them and our backs are against the wall.  But who is us anyway?  Does it include the people conservatives formerly suspected of attempting to steal the country from them?  Will we need to come up with a final solution to the enemy within?

Let’s not let our arrogance get the better of us here.  We’re not immune to the forces that blighted Germany in the not so distant past.  History can repeat itself and will unless we fight tooth and nail to make sure it doesn’t.  All pepped up and ready to argue with all your might against the ignorant and destructive forces Mr. Trump has ridden to political power and clearly plans to nourish and encourage the next four years?  Ready to stand up for our American way of life and our shared values of democracy, reason, kindness, and humanity?  Good.  Let’s meet the new year head on and fight the noble fight together.

Brexit

Welcome friends!

How about the UK voting to leave the EU?  Maybe like me you don’t follow European politics very closely but I bet you heard about that one.  Kind of a big deal.  Of course you may have heard about it without realizing it.  For a while I thought Brexit was some notable foreign personage we here in the US just don’t know much about, like Rooney or anyone named Nigel.  Eventually I decided to do my duty as a citizen of the world and read up on this mysterious Brexit and I discovered the word actually refers to British exit from the EU.  Yes, it seems so many EU states talk so frequently about leaving the EU they had to come up with a shorthand way to refer to the phenomenon so for example Brexit, Frexit, Grexit, etc.  Of course, from my perspective across the giant ass pond known as the Atlantic Ocean I don’t really care too much one way or the other.  Nor is the UK exiting such an arrangement particularly surprising to me.  I’m actually a little surprised there is an EU given Europe’s history of violence, nationalism, and greed.  But it did get me thinking a little bit about when federal political unions work and whether my smallish brain might say anything sensible on the subject in the context of a short and flippant blog post.  It’s actually a bit of a tricky area.  Here in the USA we celebrate the war ending our political union with Great Britain and the war that prevented some of our own states ending their political union with other states.  Humans being social animals I suppose people choosing to come together under one political system must represent an advancement of human civilization and be good in that sense but it’s also rather apparent it doesn’t always work out so well.  After boiling up a modest sized cup of coffee and thinking about it for the requisite ten minutes I decided to comment on two things Brexit brings to mind for me: distributional issues and political legitimacy.  Hey, come on.  It’s Brexit!  I should say something, right?  So let’s dive right in.

First, distributional issues matter!  Oh, did I say that before?  Yes, I’ve found whenever strange things happen in this world distributional issues cannot be far away.  I suppose that’s because we’re just not very good at talking and hence thinking about them.  Not hard to understand why.  It’s a bit awkward because of the implied conflict.  No one would like implicit conflict to become overt and of course one superficially attractive way to prevent that is to just not talk about the implicit conflict and hope no one notices.  Of course, that’s not a real solution because the implicit conflict exists and people are bound to notice it sooner or later.  And while one is resolutely not thinking and talking about it all kinds of funny things are liable to happen.  Then I guess a completely different source of silence on distributional issues is that those with economic power in any given system just don’t like the little people discussing such matters.  (No, I’m not talking about the Munchkins; I’m talking about you and me baby.)  It makes them nervous.  The inevitable result is people put off discussing these issues until funny things start happening and then they start foaming at the mouth like a pack of lunatics.

I bring up distributional issues because as far as I can tell one of the big issues some people in the UK had with the EU was the EU policy of free movement of labor between member states.  I’m sure I’ve mentioned before that from a distributional perspective the problem with free movement of labor is it reduces the bargaining power of existing labor, which is actually kind of a big deal because in some or let’s just say most distributional systems around today that’s the only thing that really matters for the wages of normal working people.  Under the sort of labor market arrangements that exist in the UK and USA the only bargaining chip the average Joe has is scarcity.  Either one has to have some attribute or skill that causes one to be scarce like being eight feet tall and able to bounce a ball or writing a fascinating blog every couple of weeks (yeah right) or labor in general has to be scarce, which isn’t bloody likely but I guess can sometimes happen in conditions approaching full employment.  Under normal conditions one’s wage is not based on what one actually does or how well or efficiently one does it or anything else of that nature.  As one can see from the experience of the USA over the past several decades the owners and CEOs capture most of the surplus from those sources.  No, in most situations one’s wage depends mostly on whether or not the firm can find someone or something cheaper to do the job.  So of course if you bring in a bunch of unemployed or underemployed people from someplace else who are willing to work for a lot less for whatever reason then the living standards of the workers already in whatever locale we’re discussing will plummet.  Every American knows the way to bust a union is to bring in scabs.  Same concept.

Now some people in the sort of distributional systems we’re discussing aren’t bothered by this at all.  CEOs looking for cheap labor are fine with this arrangement.  They’ll actually get paid more themselves for making the company more profitable.  People who own stock in the company might be pretty happy as well depending on how significant that particular stock is for their income or wealth.  And people who have money or are getting money some other way are usually just looking for a cheap toaster so they’re probably quite happy as well.  Or maybe that’s not entirely fair.  Some of them may also like the idea of helping out the unemployed and underemployed people entering the system even if it means some people already in the system struggle.  Hey, foreigners are people too.  My point is no one but a worker already in the system is likely to see a problem.  Well, OK, other people might see a problem if total demand goes down enough to matter to the overall economy because then we might be talking about a recession that could affect whatever source of wealth they’re drawing upon themselves but otherwise not really.  They most likely think everything is fine until a bunch of pissed off poor people chuck a rock through their window one fine evening.  Then it’s a big freaking mystery.  How did that happen?  Oh my goodness!  I came home with my cheap toaster and feeling pretty good about myself for helping all those struggling immigrants and suddenly Brexit!  Right upside the head!  I hate to think of anyone hurting their brains trying to think through such convoluted matters so let me just put it this way.  People need money.  People need jobs.  If a nation’s way of handling this most basic of social issues is to dump most of its citizens in a big room and let them fight it out like a pack of starving rats while a few people at the top focus on further enriching themselves and scouring the shops for cheap toasters and maybe helping poor people from other regions get a slice of pie just be prepared that one day something funny might happen.  And I don’t mean ha ha funny.

Second, political legitimacy matters!  If one is going to form a political union with some other people everyone involved has to not only buy into the notion they have some things in common and should coordinate with one another but that the coordinating system is fair and legitimate.  Now I’ve never really looked up the details of how the EU works because, you know, I’m American and we just don’t usually follow that sort of thing very closely, but I’m guessing it’s basically OK.  I sometimes rib my European friends but I’ve never said they were idiots.  They know as much about democracy as anyone else.  But what seems funny to me is despite the presence of this overarching federal EU government the only thing I ever seem hear about in this country is the national politics of various European nations.  Why is that?  I mean here in the USA we have the federal government and then we have various state governments but we hear a lot about the federal government, which kind of makes sense since that’s the bit that ties us together as a nation.  Europe seems to have gotten things a bit out of balance as far as I can tell.  Indeed, I found I was completely incapable of naming anyone in the EU government until I read an article on Brexit and discovered the president or whatever of the EU is some guy named Juncker.  Did you know?  I mean, something isn’t right.  The head of the EU should be a big deal, like the president of the US.  Who gets elected to the EU parliament should be a big deal, like who gets elected to the US Congress.  Why does no one know who the hell they are?  Is anyone taking it seriously at all?  Does it not actually do anything?  I read a little article on EU politics the other day that said although there are pan-European political parties the norm is that the citizens of each country just discuss things on their own and then elect some local guy to represent their interests in the EU parliament and that’s the end of it.  I’m not entirely sure Europeans really see themselves as one body of people with a common heritage and set of values who really should be united in a common political framework.  More like a bunch of competitors trying to get one over on everyone else.  That’s not going to work.  Particularly when one adds distributional issues to the mix.  Here in the USA we all know people in some states get more back in government benefits than they put in while the reverse is true in other states.  It’s OK because we’re part of the same freaking country.  If people are tanking in one part of the country it seems perfectly fine and correct to most people the rest of the country should help them out.  If some people in some states act like idiots well it’s all in the family.  I’m not sure Europeans think the same way.  My impression is their inclination upon seeing a fellow member state in any sort of trouble is to find some way to capitalize on the situation.  That’s no way to run a country.  Or even a pseudo-country.

Well, I feel that’s really all I’m comfortable saying about Brexit just now so maybe we can wrap it up.  We can keep it short this week.  Political unions are great in my opinion.  Indeed, I look forward to the world government conservatives are always fretting about because then we’ll finally have a political system that can address global issues.  But we clearly have a heck of a lot of work to do before that can happen in terms of working out some thorny issues and disagreements in the political, social, economic, and philosophical realms.  Can’t force human evolution.  Has to come naturally.  Apparently we can’t even manage a European government right now.  Oh well.  Let conservatives have their little celebration.  They earned it.  The UK and EU had issues they just couldn’t work out.  Hooray!  We have the rest of history to get our act together.  We’ll try again another day.  One day we’ll have enough experience and insight to make it work.  That will be a day the rest of us can celebrate.  (And yes, I did notice the interesting way conservatism has entered the discussion.  I’ll have to write a little something on that later.  Hint:  Some conservatives focus on one thing and some on another but don’t waste your time trying to see how it all fits together because it doesn’t.  That’s why conservatives are at one another’s throats right now in the US.  Kind of funny really.)

The Happiest Blog Post on Earth!

Welcome friends!

Happy New Year everyone!  I think 2014 is going to be the best year ever!  I really do!  Yeah!  OK, yes, I realize I say something along those lines every year but hope springs eternal as they say so let’s all put our best foot forward and just do the best we can and see what happens.  Sure beats the alternative of moping around waiting for everything to fall to pieces.  To commemorate the auspicious occasion I thought I’d write up a relatively happy post this week. Not that any of my posts are particularly unhappy but I suppose I may get a little too critical sometimes.  Anyway, I thought I’d start the year off with some thoughts about a little holiday trip I made to Disney World, that center of garish colors, plastic smiles, and juvenile marketing that rises like a magical shopping mall from the swamps of central Florida.  All kidding aside, the trip did give me a few things to think about so I might as well take a moment to share... Sorry but only selected archived (previous year) posts are currently available full text on this website.  All posts including this one are available in my annual anthology ebook series available at the Amazon Kindle Bookstore for a nominal fee.  Hey, we all need to make a buck somehow, right?  If you find my timeless jewels of wisdom amusing or perhaps even amusingly irritating throw me a bone now and then.  Thank you my friends!