Blog – Blue Ocean Light

What if They were Black?

The bios that are emerging of those who have been arrested for breaking into the Capitol are grim. Some include association with QAnon (conspiracy theory). More than one were said to be white supremacists or white nationalists. Another was disapprovingly characterized as a neo-Confederate. Sky News reported that an Anti-Defamation League representative who was on the scene “saw members of several white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups among the pro-Trump crowds.”

All monsters, crazies, deranged lunatics. Easy to dismiss. Satisfying to see them get what’s coming. Whether or not they are a collection of deplorables, if they really did what they appear to have done (forcibly enter the Capitol, vandalize, steal, possibly murder), then peace-loving Americans should indeed relish in their capture and criminal prosecution. Let’s see what happens.

Inevitably, and quite understandably, there has been comparison between the Capitol riots and the BLM “mostly peaceful protests” of last summer. But some of the conclusions being made by some people on the left are not understandable. If the rioters were black, they would have been met with severe and brutal resistance by the police, goes one such narrative. OK. Well, one person was killed by the police at the Capitol. Have not heard much about that person: Ashli Babbit. She has not become an overnight cause. She has not been canonized or praised as a martyr. Nobody is demanding that we “say her name!” Nobody is demanding that the Capitol police be defunded. The scarce biographical information we find about Ms. Babbit informs us that she was a military veteran who, according to the New York Times, “delved into far right politics.” The Washington Post and other outlets have reported that she “avidly followed the QAnon conspiracy theory.”

That is all fine and well. But compare this to the media’s treatment of George Floyd, a deeply flawed human being whose criminal history includes armed breaking and entry for which he spent five years in prison. The media chose not to focus on Mr. Floyd’s criminal past, and drug abuse. Instead they talked about his personal struggles to overcome his past, his relationship with his children, and of course the final excruciating moments of his life, captured on video. They humanized him. Ashli Babbit has not been, and will not be (at least in the MSM), humanized. Ashli Babbit is a caricature, a paranoid nutcase. George Floyd a powerful and righteous symbol of presumed racial injustice in America. One is a joke. The other is a hero. One will be reviled, or at least dismissed, for what she thought. The other, celebrated, while people ignore the terrible actions he actually took.

So…If Ashli Babbit were black, and shot by the Capitol police, would she be as anonymous and dismissible as Ashli Babbit, the white female conspiracy follower?

None of this is to excuse Ashli Babbit for attempting to break into the Capitol. Nor is it to suggest that George Floyd deserved the painful death he suffered. This is simply to point out the hypocrisy of those who advance the absurd “what if they were black?” argument.

Trumpers Storm Capitol? Hmm…

Today (1.6.21) there was a rally in Washington DC. Trump spoke. Later in the day, several people, presumably from the rally, stormed the capitol. Senators were spirited away, hidden and protected. The invaders, seemingly unarmed, were on TV. One made himself comfortable in a senator’s office. National guard forces were deployed. One, a 14-year Air Force veteran, was killed. Some of the invaders appeared to be ANTIFA people. (Just an idea, of course… you know, like Marxism, or Naziism.) Fog of war upon us. But let’s see what facts emerge. Unlike Trump people to take to violence. I wonder what percentage actually were Trumpers. It will not matter to CNN’ers and MSNBC’ers. They will fight to keep the narrative of conservative violence. (That sounds odd writing it.) Likely there were ANTIFA-idea people mixed in, putting their ideas into action. The only question is: how many? All of them? Half? Just a few, disguised in MAGA hats, stirring the hearts of highly emotional and persuadable Trump supporters? Not saying it happened this way, but a very small number of savvy insurgents could probably know exactly the right tactics to target toward exactly the right people, to create exactly the right effect within a large and emotional crowd, to manipulate that crowd into the appearance of taking action it either did not in fact take, or did not take for the reasons that others perceive. I have heard that the ANTIFA-idea people actually infiltrated BLM peaceful protests to do just this. I wonder if the idea people are so discriminating in the company they keep that they would limit their violent interventions to BLM peaceful protests. Or might they also want to do the same at a Trump rally? We may never know. Hard to predict what story leads (like a man with an ANTIFA tattoo among Trumpers) will be investigated these days. But I’ll say this: whoever did that today, ANTIFA-idea people or Trumpers, or both, someone is now dead.

Democracy – The God That Failed; by Hans Herman Hoppe (book review)

Democracy – The God that Failed is the most bare knuckles libertarian / anarcho-capitalist book I have read. The premise is that democracy is bad for liberty – worse, in fact, than monarchy. This is a shocking claim of course (one that would probably cause the author, Hans Herman Hoppe, to be shouted off both the Rachel Maddow show and the Sean Hannity show) but the underlying critical assertion is compelling: monarchy is privately owned government while democracy is publicly owned. So says Hoppe, “…by freeing up entry into government, everyone is permitted to openly express his desire for other men’s property.” Hoppe is not suggesting we return to hereditary dictatorship (neither am I). He is simply reporting his observation that historically people have been more free, or government more restricted, under monarchical rule than under democratic rule. Example after example of empirical evidence is provided to support his claim.

The historical inflection point was World War I. A major result of the war was the extinguishment of the last of Europe’s great monarchies. Significantly, they were extinguished by the armies of democratically elected governments. From that point forward, “privately owned” monarchical government was de-legitimized, and displaced by the age of democracy. World War I also marked the first time that a war was fought over ideology, which henceforth legitimized the notion of fighting wars to spread democracy. (To be sure, Hoppe also places great importance on the French Revolution and the outcome of the War for Southern Independence in America.)

Public ownership of government encourages high time preference. (I want something now vs. I will wait for a better something later.) A politician who is elected to a 4-year term has high time preference. He has no incentive to preserve and protect assets for a future generation. Nor are the assets his own to begin with. So the bias is always toward plundering current assets to deliver perceived value right now.

Because the assets he plunders, by definition, belong to actual property owners, there is a strong incentive to expand the voting franchise to include non-property owners. Obviously non-property owners will be more inclined toward such plunder than the property owners themselves. Hoppe fills several pages with historical examples of expansion of the voting franchise to include non-property owners and/or younger people.

As a result, the voting franchise, which was originally interested in the singular pursuit of protecting their own property rights (which are inextricably tied to individual rights), has gradually shifted its interest toward confiscation and reallocation of wealth. Thus empowering government to behave in exact opposition to its original professed intent (to protect property rights).

The confiscated wealth comes in the familiar form of social welfare (unemployment insurance, public health insurance, schools, regulations, and so on) along with national defense. As we know, the government generates demand for these “public goods“ by also generating perceived crises – everything from climate to race to foreign threats to pandemics.

That politicians intentionally generate crises, comes as no surprise. The surprise, again, is that the situation grows worse under a democracy than under a monarchy. A king, being a property owner himself (the wealthiest among them) has no interest (or at least much less interest) in extending authority over property rights (via the vote) to non-property owners. Hoppe repeatedly points out that monarchies also tend toward abuse in the form of higher taxes, etc., but on a far smaller scale than what has happened under democracy. Indeed, according to his research, social welfare did not exist under monarchical rule and wars were fought according to strict protocol, which limited the scale and destruction compared to the all out war of the democratic age.

Hoppe advocates for 100% free trade, but not for free immigration in the way that we think of it. Free trade works. Free immigration does not. Free trade works because there are always two parties, voluntarily engaged on each side of every transaction. The seller, who lives in Germany, agrees to receive money from the buyer, who lives in the US, in exchange for shipping a product. In the case of immigration, the immigrant is a willing volunteer, but the people of the destination state are not. (They may agree or disagree with the presence of immigrants. The point is, when government controls immigration policy, citizens have no choice in the matter.) The solution would be some sort of sponsorship model, where a property owning citizen would willingly receive the immigrant and take responsibility for that immigrant’s actions. Presumably the sponsor would be incentivized to help the immigrant become a property owning citizen as quickly as possible. Which would consequently, motivate the citizen to sponsor only a certain caliber of immigrant.

Also, under a true free trade model, there would be much less incentive for immigration in the first place. Tariffs, and other trade barriers, which force citizens to economically favor domestically produced goods over imported goods reduce opportunity in other countries – and create the incentive to emigrate.

There are a few paragraphs on public health insurance. Hoppe invokes the familiar economic truth that if something is subsidized you will get more of it. In the case of public health, the services of doctors and nurses are subsidized, and therefore we will see more unhealthy behavior, leading to more sickness, and more laziness.

The simple-minded surely have attacked Hoppe as racist. He is not a racist (or, more precisely, we see no evidence that he is racist), but has no quarrel with those who racially discriminate when it comes to their own private dominion. If a man prefers no Germans to enter his home or business, then he is entitled to enforce his preference. (Hoppe, German by birth, repeatedly uses Germans in his hypothetical examples of property owner-based racial discrimination.) He never condones aggression or violence. In this regard, his stance is against thought crime. In another regard, Hoppe ridicules the idea of forced racial integration, whether in the form of busing school children or unmitigated free immigration policy. His conclusion is that people co-exist most easily with those similar to themselves, and — here is the sacrilege — they should be allowed to do so, and — more sacrilege — multiculturalism is a ridiculous notion and a destructive force.

The solution to all this, according to Hoppe, is to delegitimize democracy – essentially by choosing to ignore the government – and ultimately embrace secession. (Quick aside… In my best case scenario we all stop voting and all stop paying taxes. Can they really come after everyone?)

Back to Hoppe. He does not advocate a return to monarchy. Ultimately, he advocates for what he calls, “the natural order.” In a natural order society, there would be no such thing as public ownership. Everything of value would be somebody’s property. Hoppe describes, in detail, what this would look like, including a full chapter slaying the sacred cow of state-monopolized security. Security, he asserts, would be the natural province of insurance companies. Under today’s model, apprehended criminals are made to pay their debt to the government rather than to the victim. Under a model of competing private insurance carriers, the victim would be compensated – either by way of extracting payment from the apprehended criminal, or through payout on a claim. Because they would obviously prefer not to pay on a claim, insurance companies would be incentivized to catch the criminals who damaged their clients’ property, and would therefore employ a security force. Furthermore, they would prefer their clients need not file a claim in the first place; and would, therefore encourage their clients to bear arms and take other measures to self-protect.

Could Hoppe be accused of presenting an An-Cap paradise that has no chance of ever becoming reality? Perhaps. But so what? At minimum, I believe he is theoretically sound. And keep in mind, unlike other visions of paradise, he is not attempting to architect a new societal structure. He is simply saying that if left alone, people would naturally organize into the structure he sees. He is a predictor, not a prescriber.

Democracy – The God that Failed is very thoroughly foot-noted and includes ample references to the work of other well-known libertarian thinkers, most notably and most frequently Mises and Rothbard. Unsurprisingly, this is not a breezy weekly magazine-type read. It is rigorous and admittedly, sometimes a little dry and repetitive. (Though the book builds toward a single, contiguous narrative, each chapter is meant to serve as a standalone essay.) But don’t let that stop you. This is a highly rewarding read. Hoppe is uncompromising and unrelenting in defending the principles he lays out in the beginning. He makes no exceptions.

Not even for the US Constitution. Thus, I leave you with this. Hoppe: “The American Constitution must be recognized for what it is – an error. As the declaration of independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is absurd to believe that an agency which may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order. Rather it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American revolution.”

Climatechangists are Deniers

Climate Change is a state-sponsored religion, which denies alternative thought and denies ideas for creative solutions.

My news feed said that the weather across the Eastern United States is going to be cold this week. I took the bait and clicked on the link. Sure enough, the first two words of the story were Climate Change. Because I like pain, I entered those two words in a Google search. The top 10 headlines were about negative, apocalyptic consequences. No positive, optimistic interpretations. Not even a challenge to the incumbent thinking about this topic. Climate Change is a religion – and not one in which we may freely participate or freely criticize. It is a state-sponsored religion, and we are expected to follow its commandments unquestioningly.

Heretics, like me, do not necessarily disagree that the climate is changing. Without reading a single word of any UN report or open letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists, my natural instinct, my assumption, would be that the climate is changing. There is a much greater chance that the climate is changing than that it is staying exactly the same. The question is whether governments, or NGOs, should, or can, do anything about it. I think not. But this view is not tolerated. It is shouted down. The consensus is that the Earth is warming, and collective action must be taken, and those who don’t agree must be ignored and insulted.

My daughter asked why we even believe that global warming would necessarily be bad. Good question. If she ever asks her classmates, or any group of typically informed people, I just hope she is ready for the religious-style assault that will come her way. Her question is worth considering. The forecast is for flooded coastal areas, caused by rising oceans, caused by melting polar icecaps. Sounds bad. Let’s assume that will actually happen if the icecaps don’t stop melting. And let’s assume that on balance the world’s ice is indeed melting – meaning that every year, more water turns into ice than ice into water. Again – not hard to believe. What would be hard to believe is that the frozen to non-frozen water ratio is deadlocked and unchanging. So premise accepted. The earth is warming. No deniers here.

Back to my daughter’s question. Why would it be bad? Or, maybe a slight variation on her question. Would anything good come of it? Yes, probably. Can’t know for sure, but if I had to predict one way or another, I would predict that good would come of a warming planet – along with the bad. We might produce more food based on longer growing seasons. Maybe there would be more local sourcing, and less fossil fuel spent on planes and ships, because bananas and pineapples could be grown in Iowa. We might find that warmer weather makes for easier living than colder weather – less snow to shovel. Maybe something good even comes of the flooded coastal cities. Great new cities might be born to replace the old. This has happened before. What a tragedy it would be if future generations were denied the opportunity to build great cities. And maybe the architects of the future would design buildings that can withstand flooding, catastrophic storms, rising temperatures, and any other consequence of climate change. Maybe there would be floating cities. Imagine! Almost sounds exciting.

But, my girl, we are not encouraged to imagine when it comes to climate change. (At least not freely. Climate-changism devotees have imagined that climate change is responsible for racism and other social concerns.) We are expected only to self-indoctrinate, evangelize, and join the crusade to prevent end times. The crusade’s objective has been defined. The solutions are all derivatives of the Green New Deal, proposed legislation in the U.S. that would essentially eliminate the use of fossil fuels within 12 years. If we listen carefully, we can discern voices in the wilderness (like that of former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore), who advise us that such a course would lead to mass starvation and death. Maybe that small group of contrarians are the ones who are wrong. But we will never truly have the debate. The momentum is strongly in favor of government and inter-government led solutions which all propose to save the planet by reversing the warming trend through controlling how and what people consume. So not only do they assume that climate change is a problem with no upside, but that there is only one way to prepare against it – and this one way, of course, is via coercion – on a scale never before seen on this planet. The religion of Climatechangism truly is the path to a one world government.

Here is another thought. If Climatechangism is not a religion, but just a well-intentioned movement that encourages people to prepare for an inevitable disaster, then we just each need to do what is best for ourselves, our families, our customers (if we have them). For example, if my home were along the waterfront, or in a place which is at, or below, sea-level, then I should sell my house and move to higher ground. If I am a real estate investor who owns buildings in Manhattan, San Francisco, Chicago, or any other city on the water, then I should consider divesting myself of those assets to lower my risk. If I run a business that depends on shipping, I should think about how earth’s increased water coverage will impact the way I do business. If I run a charity that is concerned about feeding impoverished people in areas where increased droughts will wipe out crops, then I should scratch my head, pull together a team of the most creative problem solvers I can find and say, “With all this extra water we are going to have, there must be a way to solve this drought problem.”

Even if the Climatechangists are genuine (meaning, their goal is truly to save the planet – not to rule it), a local, volunteer-based approach is much easier, and much more likely to achieve goals, than the coercive, global-scale approach which has been preferred so far. (They want every person in the world to believe only that climate change is bad, and believe there is only a single solution. Everybody. In the world. Then they want every person to change their behavior to enact the solution. Every person. All 8 billion people. Think about that.)

Meantime, believing that Climatechangism is something other than an organized movement, with a goal no more noble than power, control, and subjugation, is difficult when those who lead it continually deny the opportunity for debate and deny the power of imagination.

For my part, I am glad not to be a Climatechangist. I feel free. I feel able to think, even a little excited about what the world could look like when our best and brightest develop new ways to live in an inevitably changing world. I just hope that our best and brightest are not denied their chance.

Useful Idiot Crony Capitalist

Well, that was quick. Here comes the crony capitalist again! Or, is he a useful idiot? A mere two weeks after Amazon’s self-imposed $15/hour minimum wage took effect, Bernie Sanders co-sponsored a bill which, along with new rules on executive pay and stock buybacks, would force the same $15/hour standard on all companies with over 500 employees. The marquee target is in fact Walmart, on which the bill’s torturous acronym is based: Stop Welfare for Any Large Monopoly Amassing Revenue from Taxpayers (Stop WALMART).

As reported by The Washington Post, the cost impact to Walmart would be $3.8 billion, according to Ken Jacobs, chair of the University of California at Berkeley Labor Center. Mr. Jacobs characterized $3.8 billion as “a tiny, tiny fraction of their revenues.” He is mathematically correct. Walmart’s 2017 revenue was about $500 billion. But he is highlighting the wrong metric. The $3.8 billion cost increase comes with no associated revenue increase, and so every nickel of that would cut into profits. Walmart’s margins are quite thin – with only four cents of profit squeezed from every dollar of revenue. In 2017, this came to $20 billion, meaning that a $3.8 billion cost increase would wipe out nearly one-fifth of Walmart’s profits.

This probably still sounds like dismissible stakes to someone like Ken Jacobs. But that is $3.8 billion, which Walmart cannot invest in hiring more people, improving existing store conditions, building new stores, lowering merchandise prices for consumers, or any other tactic which would further enable them to best serve customers and…more effectively compete against other retailers.

Which brings us back to the October 28 BOL post. Any across-the-board increase in wages will be more costly to Walmart than to Amazon. Amazon’s decision to raise minimum-wage voluntarily to $15 an hour looks very shrewd exactly because it appears to have emboldened Sanders to propose this bill. With a Republican Senate, Stop WALMART is unlikely to become law in the short term, and the 77 year old Sanders knows this. But introducing the bill now is a short term maneuver in a longer term game. It keeps the minimum wage conversation alive even if nothing can happen in Washington for the moment.

Walmart must now be distracted with defending against the legislation or preparing for the eventual 3.8 billion cost increase. And that is just Walmart. Dozens of other Amazon competitors face the same dilemma. It’s good to be Amazon. They can keep focusing on their core business while this power-to-the-people, 1930s style Vermont socialist threatens to inflict more damage on their competitors than any Prime Day sale ever could.

Minimum Wage Gamesmanship and a Useful Idiot

On November 1st, Amazon’s voluntary $15 an hour minimum wage takes effect. A $15/hour minimum wage actually can help them. They can more easily afford it than their competition. By voluntarily adopting a $15/hour minimum wage, Amazon CEO, Jeff Bezos increases pressure on competitors to do the same, and further emboldens the likes of Senator Bernie Sanders to mandate the higher minimum wage through legislation – potentially forcing other retailers to take on extra costs before they are ready.

So who is Amazon’s competition? Walmart. Like Amazon, Walmart has the financial strength to absorb an increase in labor costs, better than most. (In fact they just increased their own self-imposed minimum wage to $11/hour in January.) But not better than Amazon. Hourly wage labor is a bigger expense for Walmart than for Amazon. Walmart as of 2018, has almost 4 times the number of employees as Amazon (2.1 million to .56 million, although, of course, not all are hourly.)

Amazon’s comparative advantage in hourly wage labor cost is likely to grow stronger despite the voluntary wage increase. As they continue to automate processes, from robotic fulfillment and sorting to driverless delivery trucks to drones, their reliance on low skilled hourly labor, as a percentage of overall costs will fall. Walmart meanwhile will also certainly leverage technology to reduce reliance on such labor, but they will not beat Amazon at this game.

It is possible, but seems unlikely, that Amazon’s self inflicted wage increase is not, at least in part, a swipe at Walmart. Why not do it? Even if the move does not ultimately force Walmart to raise wages, or if it does, and Walmart handles it, the tactic is worth a try. There is virtually no downside. And there is upside – in the form of good press, and political favoritism – no matter what. And Walmart, at the very minimum, now must deal with this to some degree, in some manner – whether paying lobbyists to fight back against the useful idiot, Bernie Sanders, or paying more money to their employees. Maybe this is just a distraction, maybe it’s a significant, unplanned cost. Either way, it’s an obvious, easy play by Amazon.

Meantime, whether Bernie Sanders is a co-conspirator or a indeed useful idiot, he is carrying water for exactly the type of behemoth corporation he says is the problem.

Trump: Russia Narrative Buster

On July 16, during his summit with Vladimir Putin, President Trump said he does not believe that the Russian government meddled in the 2016 U.S. election. The implication (apparently) is that he is siding with a foreign government over the American government.

Universal outrage – as in coming from left, right, conservative, liberal – toward President Trump has been the reaction. This is a sign that something is not right. Information is missing. We are not seeing the whole picture. Or perhaps, the whole picture is yet to be revealed. No matter how rare and unusual Trump’s comments in Helsinki might have seemed to some people, the truly weird story here is that everybody from Chuck Schumer to Newt Gingrich to FOXNews to MSNBC is singing in unison. So, what is really going on?

The absence of analysis jumps out. Dramatic comparisons to past historical lows are filling the air, but nobody is offering any rationale for why the President would do something to cause (to pick one such comparison) the U.S.’s worst moment since 9/11. The popular sentiment, of course, is that Trump is an anti-cerebral publicity hound, with no strategic direction or plan. And perhaps there is some truth to that. On the other hand we have seen him look smarter than his critics once or twice as well: as with tariffs, which everyone said was bad (including me). But then China cut tariffs on American automobile imports and the European Union expressed openness better trade deals with the U.S.

So what might he be calculating with this latest comment? Maybe nothing. Sure, it’s possible. The point is nobody is even asking the question. Nobody is even considering that this could be part of a larger game, or whether his response was simply the best he could do in a bad situation.

One Chicago radio commentator offered reasons. Joe Walsh (WIND) suggested that Trump may be insecure about his own victory over Hillary Clinton, and doesn’t want to give his opponents any ammunition – to the point that he would disingenuously take Putin’s side in an international “scandal.” To be sure, Mr. Walsh was highly critical of Trump. But at least he offered some sort of analysis.

Mr. Walsh offered his perspective skeptically. Sure it’s a reason, but not a good one, not an excuse. But, maybe Mr. Walsh stumbled onto something, and too quickly discounted his own discovery. Consider the dilemma Trump faced. If he said the Russians meddled, he is indeed opening the door to the perception of self-incrimination. If, on the other hand, he says there was no meddling, well…

So what was Trump’s better option? This comes down to controlling the (oft under-valued and overlooked) narrative.

The President’s comment about election meddling was in response to a reporter’s question. What result was the reporter hoping for? Most certainly, he wanted Trump to say there was meddling. Could there have been a more perfect next chapter in the prevailing narrative? The villain Trump, sharing a world stage with the Russian dictator whom everybody knew, but could not prove, was Trump’s co-conspirator. The lights, the pressure, the weight of a thousand past denials finally crushing his moral conscience! The narrative-oriented reporter surely had in mind Jack Nicholson, as Colonel Nathan Jessup, during the climax scene of a few good men. He wanted, and probably expected, Trump to blurt out, “You’re goddamned right the Russians meddled in this election! And I colluded with them every step of the way!” The character, Trump, they have created is so egotistical that (like any stock criminal character in any throwaway Hollywood plot) being properly credited for his sinister deeds is more important than any personal consequence he would have to endure.

Whether Trump were to deliver such an admission with the same histrionics as Nicholson does not matter. All that was needed was the public admission. The reporters, pundits, and politicians would take care of the rest. Think of the headlines. Trump concedes Russia election meddling; Impeachment rhetoric heats up!

But Trump spoiled the narrative. Again. He probably asked himself what is the worst they could throw at him if he (as his critics regard it) took the Russian side on meddling. And he probably figured the worst they could do is to call him Hitler again, or accuse him of being treasonous again, or say this is the worst moment since 911, or whatever. So, rather than saying he spoiled the narrative, it is more accurate to say he took control of the narrative.

The narrative is precious. It has commercial value to reporters and bloggers, and political value to politicians. The narrative is really a product. A company may invest millions on developing products, most of which never grow profitable. When one finally finds traction in the market, the company does all it can to defend the product against competition, changes in consumer taste, and so on. Maintaining and enhancing an existing, proven product is always easier and less costly than inventing a new one.

The over the top outrage has nothing to do with defending American honor or some sacrosanct rules of diplomatic behavior for American presidents. This is about marketshare. It is about defending profitability of an incumbent product. It’s about the dividends of high cable TV ratings, and low presidential approval ratings.

In the end Trump’s choice was simple and logical and very likely calculated. And nobody’s going to impeach him for this and future students of history will not read about Trump’s latest unconventional moment in the same chapter as 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, or Watergate, or slavery.

Wizard of Oz in Real Life

Reading through an article about Congress’s Facebook inquisition, marveling over their audacity to erect yet another facade of omniscience that few will bother – or be safely permitted – to look behind, I was drawn to my growing conviction that Wizard of Oz is the most brilliant metaphor of the fallacy of government power ever imagined.

Through the eyes of a child, the Wizard, amidst all his noise and fire and green-ness, is scary at first, and then – admittedly, even to a child – somewhat disappointing when he tums out to be just a man. But children are forgiving, and in the end the man is erudite and eloquent and publicly contrite. He is perhaps a little bumbling, but lovingly so. If not able to grant each character what they think they lack, he at least helped them – the Lion, the Tin Man, the Scarecrow – to recognize what each always had all along. And if he could not actually bring Dorothy home, he seemed utterly sincere in his intention to do just that: “an old Kansas man myself!” And of course Dorothy finds herself, in the end, home and surrounded by everyone who loves her. A warmer ending to a story, a child will not find.

And throughout this very wam ending, there was the Wizard, ever in view, ever a strong and convincing image as the world was made right.

The Wizard, of course, did nothing at all for any of the story’s protagonists, and nothing for any permanent resident of Oz, neither munchkin nor man. And yet everyone was convinced that only he, the great and powerful, could solve their hardest problems.

To some degree he even convinced them that they had problems to begin with. Take this witch. What did she want? Well shoes of course! She was just a girl who was temporarily insane over fashion. And yet, the Wizard made her out to be some terrible force who needed to be vanquished if ever Dorothy was to go home again. More repugnantly, he actually sent this girl on a mission which required her to trespass on the Witch’s property and steal one of her prized assets. The result was that the broom was good for nothing, the witch – scary, but innocent – was unfairly dead, and the wizard was no more able to grant wishes than he ever was (if ever a wizard he was).

Consider the momentos he granted in place of fulfilling the wishes. A diploma and a medal and a government issued heart-shaped clock. The very act of dispensing these momentos carries the implication that the Lion now is courageous, Scarecrow smart, and Tin Man feeling because the authoritarian government has acknowledged it so, through public ceremony.

The Wizard has an anthem. “He is the wonderful Wizard of Oz, if ever a Wiz there was, he is, the Wizard of Oz, because because … because, because of the wonderful things he does.” What wonderful things? There are none. More to the point: that this conjurer of cheap tricks is praised in song in the first place is outrageous.

The anthem, the public ceremony, the imposing theatrics, the imagined threat of the witch, the Emerald City all combine to create the mythology of the Wizard and the state apparatus he represents. The final critical ingredient for this mythology to transform the state into something truly powerful and potentially oppressive is belief. The people must believe that the Wizard is their master, and that he really is wise, and that his will must be obeyed. And in fact, that has occurred. In some distant past, before Dorothy and her dog dropped in from Kansas, the residents of this land bought into all of it.

But Dorothy is new here. She has not bought into any of the Wizard’s mythology. She is not intimidated by his fire and noise. She is much more interested in people’s actions than their appearances – no matter how scary looking. Consequently, she eventually confronts this Wizard in a way nobody else ever had: she holds him accountable for his actions. This Wizard has said he could help her go home if she brings him the witch’s broom. She does her part and she believes he will now uphold his end… until Toto tugs at the green curtain.

And then, she knows he is a fraud, and whatever power he thought he had simply vaporizes.

After the Wizard is exposed for what he is: just a man, we realize how tenuous and fragile this man’s power, and by extension that of the state (Oz), actually is or was. His power depended on a false alter ego inflated to stupefying proportions, large and loud and terrible enough to scare anyone from ever questioning his authority and omniscience. In the end, however, it really just was inflation. He was undone by a Cairn Terrier, a young girl, and her three misfit friends. All they did was hold him accountable and then recognize the truth when they saw it.

The modern state, as illustrated by the case of Facebook, is no different. And it is just one of countless examples. Facebook is not a problem because people are not required to use it. And for those who do, there is no requirement to post embarrassing, risky, or otherwise compromising personal information. The only required fields are name and email address and those can be faked. Just like the witch in Wizard of Oz, Facebook is not a threat to people in any way. But Congress says it is and they say that only they can protect us. Their credibility rests on their own mythology of omniscience, which was tested when the great and powerful congress people of Washington forcefully compelled Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to come before them and confess his “sins.” The green curtain was pulled back. These guys were idiots asking dumb questions about something over which they have no knowledge. Just like the wizard who was unexpectedly confronted with the broom he said he needed, these Washingtonian fakers had no idea how to maintain their fragile persona of all-knowingness once they had to talk authoritatively about this topic in public with someone who actually is an authority. Their intent was to create imagery of a young man, presumed guilty, hanging his head in shame before their great and powerful and righteous assembled selves. Just like the wizard, they wanted to scare him away with fire and noise, without any challenges to their false authority. And I guess, that unlike the Wizard, Congress succeeded.

That Zuckerberg apparently folded is too bad but not surprising. We can’t all be Dorothy. He did not concede because he recognized that the government actually stood on the moral high ground. I assume he was just being pragmatic. Like thousands of companies before him, he agreed to surrender terms rather than engage in a battle that would potentially drag on for years and cost millions. It’s disappointing, because a guy like Zuckerberg could actually have had a shadow of a chance in a prolonged fight. And maybe others would have joined: like a me too movement against regulatory predators.

Probably not, but we can dream.

For now, just enjoy the film, which is brilliant foremost because it is a marvelous story – above and beyond any political metaphor we may find.

And when not watching the film, seek the Wizard of Oz, all of his smiling, blustering, slyly endearing self, in every publicly funded action you see. Ye shall find.

If you like tax cuts for the rich, you are not the crazy one

Another Republican is in the White House and another tax cut has been passed. Predictably, all the usual opposition to the tax cuts is being heard from all the usual suspects. This is a tax cut for the rich. This will only serve to widen the income gap. The federal debt will grow. The rich will get richer on the backs of the working poor. Arguing against this stuff is exhausting. No amount of factual evidence shuts down the true believers, nor does a fact-based argument even compel them to argue back in kind – that is with their own set of facts. Their arguments are not arguments at all, but emotional pandering. It’s fear mongering and anger stoking. They should forget their contempt for Trump for just a moment, and consider just how ridiculous their premise is: today, I take 20% of your money and that is good (although 25% would be better). Tomorrow, I will take only 15%, and this will be dangerous and destructive for you.

But somehow they are winning in the popular opinion polls. I believe this is because they make simple, uncomplicated statements, which (if not the complete story) are actually true. Meantime we who favor tax cuts respond with complicated lessons in economics, going hoarse trying to explain how corporate tax breaks actually benefit Joe Sixpack because on a macro level, a majority of that tax savings will be invested in ways that will lower prices, raise salaries, and increase choices. Eventually. On average. Over time. I’m exhausted already. And simultaneously I’m fighting the urge to dive into the economic arguments – like a Jedi Knight resisting the urge to give into his anger. Explaining all that complicated economic stuff is falling right into their trap. We are attempting to combat five word headlines with 5000 word essays.

High taxers, when shouting down a proposed tax cut, focus solely on one fact, which is that the immediate effect of a tax cut is for higher earners to benefit more (in dollars) than lower earners. They are not lying. Tax cuts indeed go disproportionately to the rich. The income gap indeed does widen for an instant after a tax cut. Notice, most of these politicians, like Chuck Schumer, who make these statements, make the statement and then shut up. They don’t explain why tax cuts for the rich are bad, they just let those words float across the airwaves and then peoples’ imaginations do the rest. They are like old-school horror film directors who can scare us without ever actually showing us the monster. Except for that in the case of income tax reductions, there really is no monster, on screen or off.

So what do we do? Well… this might be hard, but we need to remember that we are not the crazy ones. We are not saying that letting me keep my money, or you keep yours, is dangerous to our own well being. They are! Don’t ever forget that. Keep this simple. Remember that all taxation is confiscation. But for heaven’s sake don’t say that out loud. People need to figure out for themselves that taxes are ultimately taken at the point of a gun. They need to go through their own transformation. We cannot transform people but we can attempt to make them face the choice to transform. We can do this by giving them a small taste of their own medicine – meaning put them on the defensive with a simple question and never stop asking it. When we hear a tax cut is bad, ask them to prove it. Why should we always have to be the ones wrapping ourselves around the axle? Let them do it. What high theatre that would be! Tax cut for the poor is bad because it is a smaller cut than that for the rich. Prove it. Tax cut for the rich is bad. Prove it. Tax cut for corporations is bad. Prove it. Tax cut for high earners is bad. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Show the evidence. Play out your theory without leaps of logic. Let’s see if you really got game!

We won’t persuade all of them. Some will refuse to be persuaded. But as we persist, as we stay on message, as we let them take a shot at explaining something that cannot be explained, we will start to persuade more than we do today. Eventually. On average. Over time.

Net Neutrality

This morning, on the radio, during the 5:30 news update, the anchor stated that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai mocked supporters of (so-called) net neutrality by saying, don’t worry, the world is not going to end. Interesting word choice: mock. The negative reaction to the FCC’s decision has been monolithic incredulity and feigned outrage. It all seems like melodrama to me. I don’t know that Mr. Pai was mocking anyone, but suppose he was. He can hardly be blamed. The self-important people criticizing him are embarrassing themselves. It’s a blow to free speech? Consumers will have to pay more? They are just avoiding reality. They sound outside of reality. In a net neutrality world, say they, all data is treated equally. As if data have natural rights that are being oppressed.

There was no net neutrality rule until 2015 but a visitor from another planet, or apparently significant masses of the people who already live here, would never know that. Somehow, from 1995 to 2015, internet speeds did nothing but increase and prices for access fell. Hey you people over 30 — remember the early dial-up days? Remember losing your 256K connection when someone called your landline phone? And you had to pay for that! Somehow, without net neutrality rules to protect us, that scenario evolved into anyone older than 10 watching high-def video on a palm-sized smart phone, while flying in an airplane.

Pay attention to who is really advocating for net neutrality. Netflix, Google, Amazon, Facebook. Know why? Because net neutrality shifts their costs to others who are forced to pick up the tab. Here is what happens. Netflix is in the video entertainment business. They stream video over the internet (mass volumes of high definition data). Comcast Cable is one of the major networks over which Netflix videos stream. Comcast also happens to be in the video entertainment business. There is a good chance that Comcast would not want another company using their network to offer an alternative to their own video entertainment service — unless…maybe…the direct competitor paid Comcast for the use of the Comcast network. But this is precisely what net neutrality forbids. Net neutrality struts around saying all data shall be treated equally. That Sounds fair, welcoming, American, and we consumers feel good about this because we think that means our e-mails, tweets, and photo uploads will not be bullied around by YouTube video traffic and Amazon transactions. But what it really means is that Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are not allowed to charge premium dollars to Netflix, Google, and Amazon when the latter three companies want to soak up bandwidth from the former three without paying anything extra. From 2015 to now, the FCC said, Mr. Internet Service Provider, you must allow these other companies — your competitors in some cases — use your assets without being fully compensated. Net neutrality is billion dollar companies fighting with other billion dollar companies, and Uncle Sam picking sides.

Ironically, the result of net neutrality can only be the exact opposite of what it ostensibly promises (protecting consumers from high prices and bad service). When a company has an asset from which they cannot maximize profits, their investment in that asset will slow or cease. In this case, the network companies were not allowed to maximize profits on traffic they were forced to carry. Check this, but I’m willing to bet that investment in their networks has been down since 2015. And going forward, my bet is network investment will increase. The primary sponsors for network investment should have been (and maybe will be) these video streaming tech giants. If Comcast or AT&T could have said no, or it’s going to cost you, then Netflix, et al. would quite possibly have dumped millions or billions into somebody’s network, creating more capacity, to ensure their customers – consumers – would have easy access to their products. Yes, consumers. The most likely outcome of the net neutrality repeal is more network capacity meaning higher speeds and even cheaper network access for… drum roll please… Consumers!

Finally, a quick word on the process by which net neutrality was enacted. There was no legislative process. There was no bill written up and voted on by the House and the Senate. There was no discussion and debate. There was no constitutional process. It was the voting result of 5 FCC bureaucrats. Three people just decided one day. This alone justifies repeal.

The failure of the pro net neutrality argument (as with so many interventionist arguments) is that it assumes one variable, internet capacity in this case, will remain static, while others, like consumer demand and internet-delivered services, will grow. There is no basis for this type of purely arbitrary conclusion. It is the output of children’s minds. (Sorry – don’t mean to mock.)