Facebook makes me nuts

I have been obsessing over this since I read a Facebook exchange this morning between two friends. I have been trying to stay out of political debates with real humans because I am actually no good at them. I need to be able to look things up and verify sources. I need time to work out my thoughts.

First of all, I read people's source material when they post links, and I read that material critically. Then I track down the source material's source material. I try to suss out opinions expressed as fact, look for nuance, and consider where an article is getting its information. Is it trying to scare or playing on emotion? Is it quoting reliable sources? Is it saying what the orginal post-er seems to think it says?

See, I am guilty of many of these things. Politics makes me emotional. I am also very judgmental. I have to watch myself. Practicing taking a step back and invoking critical thinking skills are two things on which I need to concentrate. Usually, when I internally accuse someone of being one-sided or partisan, it's because that's how I can be. That's why it's so recognizable.

So what am I talking about?

It's an economic argument. It's about regulation vs. free market. And, really, it's about interpretation of information based on one's own background, which often helps to determine one's political views. And in the USA, politics and economics are happily married, when you agree with the interpertation.

For Instance:

Definition: Marginal Tax Rate: the rate of tax payable on a person's income after business expenses have been deducted.

(My Observation: This rate has fluctuated in the United States for decades, and is currently at a comparatively low average, having been as high as 91% for some individuals or families.)

An Opinion: A 100% marginal tax rate is a cap on earnings.

My questions:
Is there such a thing as a 100% in the United States, and is anyone proposing it?

No, and not that I could find.

Does putting a cap on executive pay for those companies who are taking public funds mean that eventually all executive pay and then all pay will be capped?

No. This kind of extrapolation seems to me to be like saying that if a man can marry a man, then people will want to marry sheep. I think it's fear mongering.

Is someone putting a cap on all executive pay in the financial sector?

No.

Is it under discussion?

According to a Wall Street Journal article, "according to people familiar with the matter," yes, it is.

It appears to me, from further reading of the article, that there are already Federal Reserve supervisory powers and SEC powers that have been exercised over the years:

"Regulators have long had the power to sanction a bank for excessive pay structures, but have rarely used it. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency last year quietly pressed an unidentified large bank to make changes 'pertaining to compensation incentives for bank personnel responsible for assigning risk ratings,' a spokesman said. Since 2007, it has privately directed 15 banks to change their executive compensation practices."

And, accorging to un-named "government officials," "their effort...isn't aimed at setting pay or establishing detailed rules."

Further:

"'This is not going to be about capping compensation or micro-management,' said an administration official. 'It will be about understanding what is the best way to align compensation with sound risk management and long-term value creation.'"

You know what, you can't just skim, and when you start to look for answers to tax questions, what you get back is mostly colored in some way by politics, in that it is inevitably colored by people's political opinions on taxation as well as their misunderstandings regarding taxation.

Another question:

How does one compare economic data between the USA and the EU?

Seriously. I am just doing some hand held poking around research, which barely counts as research, while the baby nurses and naps, and it seems to me that it would be pretty tough to make a lot of assertions about who is doing better or has historically done better without some pretty serious number crunching and accounting for societal and historical differences. In that crunching, I further assert that it would be practically impossible to keep one's personal economic and political opinions out of it. I propose that it would be better for everyone to keep the EU out of discussions either as a positive or negative example. While I understand that we are currently living in a global financial market, its implications for individual countries and regions vary.

We are talking about one country with a 233 year history as a declared independent nation, comprising what is now 50 states, and possessing a colonial history going back 402 years, plus generations of indigenous cultures preceding that. The other is a political and economic union going back 59 years to an embryonic form as the "European Coal and Steel Community" of 6 countries to its current manifestation of a single currency (for the most part) union of 27 democratic countries, each with its own language, culture, and history going back centuries, through world wars and religious conquests.

I like apples and oranges, but it's not fair to put them in competition with each other. Nor is it useful.

When it comes to economic theory, you can find data to support whichever position you hold, rather like the bible. If you are a disciple of Mr. Friedman, it us pretty easy to predict the arguments. Likewise for followers of Mr. Krugman.

One can only hope that we all would like to get to the same place, my place being a world of peace, justice, freedom, and self-reliance. Thing is, we don't agree on what those terms mean, nor do we agree on how to get there. These issues are fraught with politics, and therefore, emotion.

In any case, I don't think it's helpful to bandy about terms like "USSA," "socialism," "fascism," or "communism." It distracts, it misleads, and it does injustice to those who have suffered under actual communist, socialist, or fascist regimes.

After all, this is America. No one will ever be able to take away the guns or turn this into a country in which the state owns the means of production or personal property has been abolished. I just don't see it happening. Being alarmist gets you attention, but it does little else.

People can say they are trying to make a point by using such terms, or using them for "effect," but really, the only point they are making is one of ignorance and the only effect it has is to turn off any possibility for common ground or thoughtful discussion.

In the same vein, referring to people as, for example, "Bama" or "Don Corleone Geithner" is neither constructive nor mature, and such things should be confined to discussions involving people with whom you agree. Now, I have been known to toss out a "Prince Dumbass" in the past, but I have long tried to stick to respectful terms of address such as "President," "Senator," "Ms.," and "Mr." because I want people to listen to me, not immediately shut down. I want, above all, to be thoughtful and reasonable.

Do I like what is going on in the United States right now? Yes and no. The economic mess is just that: it's a mess. There are no simple answers, and there is no single villain. President Bush did not manage to flush America down the toilet, and I doubt that President Obama will, either. I have a knee-jerk reaction to public funds being directed to private firms who previously wanted the government out of their pants, but it may well be necessary, unlike new baseball stadiums. I do think that there needs to be oversight, and the myth of a free market is just that. Economics in America are not conducted on a level playing field, human behavior tends toward the self-serving, and I believe that capitalism leads to short-term thinking. That's me. What do I have to back up my opinions? Observation, acecdote, data, statistics, and my interpretation of all the above through my bleeding heart lefty lens.

Amusing

I just saw this quote on the New York Times:

"Banking should not be exciting. If banking is exciting there is something wrong with it."-CLAY EWING, president of German American Bancorp., a community bank in Jasper, Ind.

It's just so Monty Python. I can see Eric Idle and Michael Palin now:

"Why did you get into Chartered Accountancy?"
"The thrills."

But it does point something out. You are handling people's money. It should be a sobering, serious business. It should not be the world's scariest rollercoaster. That's what theme parks and skydiving are for.

Empathy: Look it up.

I think that it's time that some gracious and charitable person sent the Grand Old Party a nice dictionary. Perhaps they could make it a package deal and throw in a thesaurus.

Then they can look up words like "socialist," "communist," and "fascist," as well as a new one: empathy.

I did not know that empathy was a bad thing, but apparently, looking for an "empathetic" judge is just President Obama sending out code to all the subversive liberals that he's looking for an "activist" judge.

I had better get my resume together.

Hmm. Conservatives seem to think that there is a looming liberal conspiracy to seat judges who have an "agenda". Instead of deciding cases based purely on the law, these judges will be trying to legislate from the bench and affect policy. The great thing about humans is that we don't think deeply about things, so we hear something like that, and we think "Yeah, judges should not do that!" and we don't question whether or not it is actually happening or what the words mean, if they even mean anything.

It's as if conservatives are not at all interested in seating judges who have an "agenda." Of course they aren't. They just need to have their agenda. But what we have to remember is that in their minds, the presence of a conservative agenda equals no agenda.

Oh my

Senator Specter is a democrat.

There's no way Mr. Coleman is giving up now.

Not to diminish the importance of the current health crisis

The advice from the CDC regarding swine flu:

• covering your mouth and nose with a tissue when coughing or sneezing,
• washing your hands often with soap and water, or an alcohol-based hand rub, and,
• staying home when you are sick.

So, pretty much what we're supposed to do anyway?

Socialism.

Just for "fun", the kind of fun that makes your eyes bleed and brain feel stabby, I put in a couple of Google news searches with the keywords "socialism" and "socialist." I went through 4 days and a total of 8 emails linking me to news stories from all over the country. Then I deleted the search.

It was pretty much as I expected.

Some of my favorite headlines:
Socialism is taking hold of United States
Socialism is really cannibalism
Comparing Christ to a Socialist
Pol: Now ‘United Socialist States’

Most frightening:
Spencer Bachus and the '17 Socialists' in Congress
(Mr. Bachus might be trying out for a re-remake of "The Manchurian Candidate," or maybe he just wants to be Ms. Bachmann's campaign manager. I am not sure.)

And, less obviously amusing:
Hundreds express frustration at Johnstown's 'tea party'

Submitted for your approval, a general definition of "socialism:"
"a general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods."

That is not what we have in America, nor is it what Mr. Obama is proposing. It's also not what they have in Europe. Oh, and socialism and communism are not the same thing.

According to a Rasmussen study, only 53 percent of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism. Twenty percent said socialism is better, 27 percent don’t know which is better.

It's fear, misunderstanding, and name-calling, all balled up into a little ball of white hot ignorance.

Maybe all the people who think taxation is stealing and don't want the federal government all up in their business will also be happy to forgo clean water, electricity, public safety, parks and recreation, disaster clean up, and national security. Sure, that's an extreme point of view, but, fire with fire, since apparently, we are returning to the exact way Germany was just before Hitler took over.

The left does it, too (just without the racism)

So here's the thing. I believe that the protests on Tax Day were hysterical, not in a funny way, but in a stark-raving, beyond reason sort of way. I mean, come on: "American taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's ovens"? Really? That's wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. It was a mob of people who, in my opinion, are mostly just threatened by Mr. Obama himself. Otherwise, they should have been out protesting sometime during the last 8 years when the seeds were sown, and those tax codes applied.

But it's easy to get people all riled up, as I said before.

Here's a neat example from the left. Pete just sent me a link to a facebook group against the ban on organic farming, going on about how Monsanto was behind legislation that was going to make organic farming NAY! even your pretty little backyard garden AGAINST THE LAW! Grandma will be taken away in chains, a few stray string beans dangling from her dirty gardening gloves. Even our First Lady will be led away to the delight of the White House Paparazzi.

You know, when something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Likewise, if something sounds too bad to be true.

People need to get some sense about themselves, if only for my sake. I am PMS-ing, and I do not have time for this sort of nonsense.

While it does appear to be true that Big Ag had their panties in a bunch over Ms. Obama's organic garden and sent her a letter urging her to use "crop protection products" e.g. chemicals, in and on her White House Garden, and thereby on her children and Guests of State. It made them "shudder" that it was going to be organic.

Well, to be fair, it would have made me shudder were it NOT going to be organic, but I do not have millions of dollars in lobbying money in a hidden pocket in my trenchcoat, unless you count an ever-growing percentage share in many American financial institutions.

My first reaction to the facebook group was "That sounds like bunk to me." I mean, I would not put it past BigAg; I have a healthy mistrust of mega-corporations, but still. It sounded hysterical. And I have to apply the same amount of scrutiny to all ideas for my opinions to be legitimate.

Granted, I did not troll around for hours on the internet, but it does, indeed, sound like a bit of hysteria. Snopes has a page, and you can read the actual text of the actual bill (always a good idea. If I ever have a minute, I'll get back to my whole Fannie&Freddie thing.). It's a hundred and seventeen pages long, if you have a minute (summary here). The bill has been introduced and referred to committee, and just as a note: all 41 co-sponsors are democrats. One of them might be yours.

Here's my take: people need to calm down and put their energy toward the real problem. The bill itself does not appear to do what they are saying it will, and it's probably coming from the right place, e.g. ensuring the safety of our food. Sure, call your congressperson and express concern over some of the wording in the text that, when broadly interpreted, could possibly be applied by not-so-well-meaning persons in limited circumstances to hurt small and organic farmers, but while you are at it, lobby for things that might actually help, like regulations on feed lots and large scale food producers, as well as testing on imports. Advocate for help that goes directly to small, local, and organic farmers because from what I understand, localizing will do a lot to make our food safer and healthier. Our whole food system needs to be overhauled, and acting like a bunch of hysterical tea-baggers is not going to help anything.