Cromwell

Four notorious right-wing economics commentators (I’m not sure it’s accurate to call them economists) penned an op-ed in yesterday’s NYT calling for a deferral of tax “reform” and an immediate cut to the corporate tax.  In their view, the benefit of the tax cut will be enjoyed primarily by employees, not shareholders, and some of the rest will generate new investments and growth.

I’m not an economist, and I haven’t made a study of this, but I can apply common sense to the facts.  Their argument is implausible, for the following reasons:

1.  Plenty of corporations are already sitting on cash mountains.  To the extent that the money is being used at all, it is for share buybacks, not for wage increases or new investment.  Why would increasing the size of the mountains make any difference?
2.  It makes sense to conclude that workers would get most of the benefit from the additional corporate earnings if you assume that they, and not the management or the shareholders, hold most of the bargaining power.  This would occur in fields with labor shortages and/or powerful unions.  Does that sound like an accurate description of most businesses in America in 2017?

It is my understanding that the vast majority of studies show that the principal beneficiaries of a corporate tax cut are capitalists.  If and when this happens (and I think it will), expect the cash mountains to grow, and for share prices to rise, and not much else, other than an increase in the federal deficit.

Paul Krugman looks at the evolution of retail and, quite reasonably, asks why retail jobs aren’t treated with the same respect by the government and the public as a whole as mining and manufacturing jobs.  Here are the reasons:

1.  The effect of lost mining and manufacturing jobs is less diffuse, but more intense:  When the mine closes, there frequently is no work to be had in the area.  The same is less true of the local Walmart.  When your community goes down the drain, people complain, and get noticed.

2.  Mining and manufacturing jobs have traditionally paid better than retail jobs:  No elaboration is necessary.

3.  Mining and manufacturing jobs bring in money from outside the community, while retail jobs recycle local resources:  In a sense, mining and manufacturing create “exports” that add wealth to the community.

4.  Mining, and to a lesser extent, manufacturing jobs require specialized skills that do not necessarily translate to other employment:  If you lose your job at a store, you can probably get another retail job requiring similar skills somewhere else in your town.  If you’re a miner, and the mine closes, what do you do now?

5.  Mining jobs have a mythology attached to them; retail jobs don’t:  Being a miner is physically difficult and dangerous work, so miners have been viewed as a sort of heroic band of brothers fighting both capitalists and the elements. There is no retail equivalent of that.  As a result, miners have “Matewan,” and retail workers have “Superstore.”

All that aside, retail is a far bigger component of our economy than mining, and you have to be concerned about where all these workers are going to go in the future.  Are all of our retail employees going to end up working in ALFs?  If not there, where?

The newbie dictator named Kim.

No one knows much about him.

This much is for sure.

If he really wants war,

His chances of winning are slim.

There is no doubt the Conservatives are going to win an overwhelming victory in the upcoming election.  Here are the real unknowns:

1.  Will the divisions on Brexit in the Conservative Party get better, or worse, after the election?  I’m guessing the answer is worse.  The economic stakes for the country will become more pressing and obvious as time goes on, and party discipline will be less of an issue with a huge majority.  Effective opposition to the government may well shift from Labour to pro-business members within the party.

2.  What happens to Labour after it is crushed?  One imagines Corbyn will resign or be replaced, but his followers will still be there.  In my view, the odds on a split and the ultimate demise of the party are no worse than even.

Obama’s foreign policy credo was, famously, “Don’t do stupid stuff.”  He delivered, too;  whatever mistakes he made were the result of inaction, not adventurism.

As you would expect, the Trump Administration has quite a different ethic. Based on what we’ve seen thus far, I would describe it as “Doing stupid stuff is perfectly OK as long as it makes you look like a decisive, unpredictable, strong leader.” That’s likely to get us in a lot of trouble down the road, but America voted for it, so the entire world will have to live with the consequences.

Mohammed’s Radio

Democrats are restless

But they’ve got no place to go.

And Trump is always trying to tell them

Something they already know.

And so their anger and resentment flow.

 

(Chorus)

Don’t it make you want to rock and roll all night long?

Mohammed’s radio.

I heard somebody singing sweet and soulful

On the radio.

Mohammed’s radio.

 

North Korea’s got their problems, too.

Even Netanyahu’s got the West Bank blues.

I went and asked Steve Bannon ’cause I thought that he would know.

I knew he stood up all night listening to Mohammed’s radio.

 

(Chorus)

 

Republicans are desperate

Trying to get things through.

Though they’re cutting tax

Ignoring facts

Their leaders just don’t have a clue.

And so their red is bleeding into blue.

 

(Chorus)

 

Parody of “Mohammed’s Radio” by the late, great Warren Zevon, who belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Gay marriage.  Abortion battles.  Pornography on the internet and on TV. Bathroom bills.  Sometimes it seems like our society is just drenched in sex.  No wonder some Christians want to resort to the “Benedict option” and head for the hills.

That’s a shame, in a way, because America is still a far more Christian place than they acknowledge, all of the public discourse about sex notwithstanding:

1.  Christian traditions still predominate:  They may have lost some of their original meaning, but they’re still here.

2.  Christian ethics are still generally accepted:  If you truly think America is a pagan country, you need to read a bit about what ancient Rome and Greece were actually like.  It will change your mind.

3.  Christianity infuses our politics:  I don’t just mean over abortion and gay rights.  Virtually all of the important political movements of the last 200 years, including the civil rights movement, have their roots in Christian thought.

Happy Easter!

A local home remodeling company is running a commercial in which they laud themselves for their success and their scrupulous business practices.  At the end of the ad, they give credit to God and speculate about how large their company could be, with His help, in the future.

The commercial irritates me for two reasons.  First, it is a cynical and not terribly subtle way of soliciting business from like-minded Christians.  Second, it essentially takes the position that the success of the firm is due to God’s favor, which presumably has been earned by the owners through their hard work and virtue.  It is a manifestation of what has come to be known as the prosperity gospel.

If the owners of this business were living in South Sudan, they wouldn’t be running this commercial; instead of attributing their success to God and their own righteousness, they would probably be hiding out in a swamp somewhere. The fact is that the world is full of injustice; some of us are just luckier than others.  This is an issue that all religions, including Christianity, have to confront.

The authors of the Book of Job understood this, and provided an answer. Whether you find it satisfactory or not is up to you.

Leaving aside, for a moment, their morality and policy merits, there are essentially three intellectually coherent ways to approach Syria today:

1. Assad is the only hope of peace and stability in the country, given his military and political strength and the support of Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia.  Defeating IS is the paramount objective.  We should, therefore, ditch our previous allies and work with the Syrian government and the Russians to bring peace.  This was Trump’s position during the campaign.
2. Syria is hopeless.  We can provide diplomatic support for peace wherever possible, but otherwise, we wash our hands of the place, because all of the other alternatives are even worse.  This is Obama in 2016.
3. We can bring about a solution to the Syrian problem without selling out our allies by intensifying our military involvement and thereby creating diplomatic leverage.  This could include creating no-fly zones or even by sending in American troops.  This is the Clinton/McCain/Graham approach.

As far as I can tell, the evolving Trump position is #2 plus taking just enough action against the government to piss off the Russians without creating any leverage for a favorable political settlement.  That makes no sense whatsoever unless you assume that being incoherent and unpredictable is an end in and of itself.

The genius of the “Summa Theologica” was that it was a successful synthesis of both pagan and Christian knowledge, and it made Christianity seem reasonable. The public generally accepted it, and it worked for hundreds of years.

The root of the intellectual problem with Christianity today is that knowledge has exploded, and much of what has become known over the last few hundred years is inconsistent with traditional Christian ways of thinking.  The general public views the Christian attempts to synthesize the new information as being inadequate, and has consequently turned its back on the church.  Christians, for their part, have frequently responded by simply rejecting scientific information that conflicts with their beliefs, which is hardly a selling point for religion in the 21st century.

What Christianity needs, in effect, is a new “Summa Theologica.”  Since Aquinas had far less material to deal with in his day that Christians do today, this would be a much more difficult task, and might be impossible.  Only an amazingly brilliant and audacious man would even attempt it.  Without it, however, Christianity is heading for an intellectual cave.

The French candidate named Le Pen.

She talked about Nazis again.

With her comments on Jews

It’s most likely she’ll lose.

And Trump will be minus one friend.

When your ideology runs into rough waters, you essentially have two choices: you can draw lines in the sand, expel all but your most committed and intellectually sound members, and hope for some future deux ex machina; or you can open up, redouble your efforts, and make strategic compromises with the world.  Benedict is a good example of the first option, and Francis, the second.

Benedict always reminded me of Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor.  Sure, he mouthed the party line about God’s love and all that, but his heart wasn’t really in it; he was far more interested in maintaining discipline and running liberals out of the Catholic Church.  It isn’t difficult to imagine him in a different age burning heretics with crocodile tears in his eyes. He’s probably disappointed he didn’t get the chance.

Francis, on the other hand, thinks the Christian message is far greater than a handful of doctrines revolving around sex.  He will push the limits of his authority as far as he can in order to make the message more appealing to the world as it currently exists.  Will he succeed, or will the dead hand of history ultimately prevail?  My bet would be on the latter, but at least he’s trying.

He was elected to make his struggling country great again.  He swaggers.  He lies, blatantly.  He changes his positions on a dime.  He’s contemptuous of the media and democratic institutions.  He’s a great believer in military action, import substitution, and fossil fuels.  Everyone watches him and wonders what he’s going to do next.

Is it Trump or Putin?  You decide.

The difference is that Putin is an icy, experienced bastard with clear and understandable objectives.  He doesn’t have Trump’s foibles.  He’s going to play Trump like a fiddle.

Due largely, but not exclusively, to the Iraq War, Christianity is on the run in its birthplace.  The revolting massacre of Coptic Christians by IS on Palm Sunday is just the last illustration of the tenuousness of the condition of Christians in the region.  Can the US realistically do anything to help?

Probably not.  The problem is that many Christians in the Middle East have been forced to rely on the assistance of America’s enemies in order to survive.  Thus, a large faction of Lebanese Christians are effectively allies of Hezbollah, most Christians reluctantly support Assad in Syria, and Palestinian Christians have conflicting interests with our allies in Israel.  We’re not going to change our alliances just to accommodate them.

Ross Douthat can’t stand Donald Trump, but he continues to hold out hope that Trump’s erratic nationalism can evolve into an ideology that is a better fit for the times than the warmed-over Reaganism of the GOP mainstream.  As a result, he wrote a column last week calling for Republican intellectuals affiliated with the counter-establishment to help define “Trumpism.”

The problem with “Trumpism” is that it is already defined as blind faith in the vast powers of one Donald J. Trump to “win” for America.  That’s it.  Everything else is transient and negotiable.