Political Discourse at New Ruskin College
Lecture Notes: 9-15-08
http://www.newruskincollege.com/
Upper class Warfare Part V: Political Discourse?
“We are at or near the bottom.” --- Henry Paulson, June 2007
I guess if you are Secretary of the Treasury you can say whatever you please. Soon Mr. Paulson will be retiring from office and will no longer have to concern himself with affairs of the American people.
Contrast Paulson’s words with those of the British Secretary of the Treasury: “In a candid interview in today's Guardian Weekend magazine, Darling warns that the economic times faced by Britain and the rest of the world "are arguably the worst they've been in 60 years". To deepen the sense of gloom, he adds: "And I think it's going to be more profound and long-lasting than people thought."” (Nicholas Watt, The Guardian, 8-30-08)
Why is Mr. Darling able to speak candidly and Mr. Paulson is not? Is the political culture in Britain different from that of the USA? Perhaps Mr. Paulson thought he was required by his position to put a positive spin on economic conditions. But why doesn’t Mr. Darling? Then again Mr. Paulson may have actually thought we were at the bottom in 2007. This is the problem with political discourse --- we do not know when people are saying what they really believe, nor do we know what they really believe is true or false. (Note that in the market this is not a problem. People in the market back up their words with their money. If they say they like something we expect them to prove it by putting their money where their mouth is.)
Or contrast Mr. Paulson’s words with those of a private observer: “"Definitely, it (the dollar) is not a safe place to be invested in, as real inflation is closer to 10 or 11 percent than the actual inflation numbers given by the U.S. government," Hennecke said on "Worldwide Exchange". The end result of the global economic slowdown may be the U.S. announcing national bankruptcy as the government cannot afford the bailouts that it promised and the market will not bail out the government. "We expect a depression in the United States. We expect a depression, very possibly, also in Europe."” (Martin Hennecke, senior manager of private clients at Tyche, told CNBC on Thursday.)
Notice that Mr. Hennecke says the government is lying about the real rate of inflation. (If the government used the same method of calculating inflation as was used up until 1983 inflation would be reported at 10 to 11 percent. The government changed its reporting in part to keep the cost of indexing under control. For example Social Security is indexed to inflation such that if inflation were to be reported as 10 or 11 percent the government would have to pay much more than if they lie about inflation and report it as only 4%.) If Mr. Hennecke is right then what does this imply for our political discourse? Where is the transparency? How can we have an honest discussion if the government’s own statistics are deliberately distorted?
An easy solution to this problem of public discourse is simply to say that Mr. Paulson, Mr. Darling, and Mr. Hennecke are discussing the future so therefore of course they will have different views. In this we have the same situation as in the market. People disagree. But if Mr. Paulson and Mr. Hennecke were in the private market we would not ask why they disagree. In the private market it would be enough to know they disagree. If you think we are at the bottom in 2007 you put your money with Mr. Paulson. Or if you think true inflation is 10%, that the American people have lived beyond their means for a generation, that debt has gotten beyond their ability to repay, that the government itself is on the verge of bankruptcy, and that a second great depression is the necessary result, then you take Mr. Hennecke’s advise.
But transfer this discussion into the public realm and we must ask why they are saying what they are saying. Who benefits; was the old Roman question. A question to which there could be but one reply: For the good of the people. Thus Mr. Paulson might say that even though he did not really think we were at the bottom in 2007 he said we were at the bottom for the good of the people; to help keep prices up. In like manner it might be argued that Mr. Darling even though he really believes we are facing a grim economic down turn he should have nonetheless followed Mr. Paulson’s example and put a positive spin on the facts.
What I find so compelling about the collapse of the housing bubble is how it forces itself into reality. For example Mr. Paulson is no longer talking about the bottom of the market. And when the coming depression begins to grip the economy the political discussion will only then begin to address the down turn. But until it forces itself into being the depression will be discussed by government ministers in the same way they discussed the housing bubble. Some will doubt it because they really doubt it, others will lie, some will spin, still others will say what they think they are supposed to say. This is the problem with political discourse.
It is not just that Mr. Paulson was wrong, the problem is that we do not know what he was thinking. We do not know why he said we were at the bottom in June 2007. To know why he said what he said we would need to know a great deal more about Mr. Paulson. What else does Mr. Paulson believe? For example does he approve the tax deduction on mortgage interest? Even though the wealthy receive most of the benefits? Does he think that the tax exemption for the first $500,000 in capital gains on a home, in a country where the average home is valued at $200,000, is fair and equitable? Does he approve of ethanol subsidies notwithstanding the fact that it takes more energy to make than it produces? Does he support nurse practitioners to lower the cost of medicine? Does he support vouchers in education? Etc.
We would have to have the answers to these and a great many more questions in order to understand why he said we were at or near the bottom in June 2007. This is one reason single issue politics is so abysmal. On any given issue it is practically impossible to know the motivation of any particular political actor. This is why I, when I was involved in politics, first with the Math Project, and then later with the New Ruskin College Project, (see Math Project and New Ruskin College Project archives at the Moynihan Memorial Library), I always dealt with all the issues which were before my target audience: the Senate. If they were dealing with the issue then I had to make it my business to also deal with the issue. More than just being topical I tried to enter into a dialogue.
For example, I had to discuss vouchers, and what a market oriented education might look like, and explain that if market forces were allowed to work in education, technology would have been better utilized. And all of this had to be covered while discussing whether we should invade Iraq to liberate Kuwait. What I did not foresee was that if you are involved in a great many issues one becomes the target of people with political views contrary to one’s own.
So Yvonne was persuaded to betray me to her friends at KQED. And when I protested the people at KQED other of her friends contacted my employers and had me laid off. Michael Krasny at KQED contacted Rose Guilbault at AAA and had me laid off there. Ron Owens at KGO used his influence at Access to get me laid off there. Melanie Morgan at KSFO used her influence at Cen Cal to have me laid off there. (see CEN CAL Letters at the Moynihan Memorial Library) Owens or Weiner (aka Savage) used their influence at Farmers to harass me there. Don Imus harassed me at GAB. Weiner broke into my rooms at the Colonial Motel and photo copied the note book and harassed me for several days before giving the note book to others at KGO and KSFO. (see The Stolen Notebook at the Moynihan)
It suffices to say that this sort of harassment and intentional interference with contractual relations severely limits political discourse. How much of what is said, or not said, is because of the real fear of being targeted by the likes of Krasny, Owens and Weiner?
As we peer into the future we see Iran, a nation hijacked by radicals, developing the bomb, we see the emergence of the second great depression, the emergence of bio-weapons, and all of this must be discussed within a political discourse of such narrow breadth that the truth can barely slip in.
http://www.newruskincollege.com/
Upper class Warfare Part V: Political Discourse?
“We are at or near the bottom.” --- Henry Paulson, June 2007
I guess if you are Secretary of the Treasury you can say whatever you please. Soon Mr. Paulson will be retiring from office and will no longer have to concern himself with affairs of the American people.
Contrast Paulson’s words with those of the British Secretary of the Treasury: “In a candid interview in today's Guardian Weekend magazine, Darling warns that the economic times faced by Britain and the rest of the world "are arguably the worst they've been in 60 years". To deepen the sense of gloom, he adds: "And I think it's going to be more profound and long-lasting than people thought."” (Nicholas Watt, The Guardian, 8-30-08)
Why is Mr. Darling able to speak candidly and Mr. Paulson is not? Is the political culture in Britain different from that of the USA? Perhaps Mr. Paulson thought he was required by his position to put a positive spin on economic conditions. But why doesn’t Mr. Darling? Then again Mr. Paulson may have actually thought we were at the bottom in 2007. This is the problem with political discourse --- we do not know when people are saying what they really believe, nor do we know what they really believe is true or false. (Note that in the market this is not a problem. People in the market back up their words with their money. If they say they like something we expect them to prove it by putting their money where their mouth is.)
Or contrast Mr. Paulson’s words with those of a private observer: “"Definitely, it (the dollar) is not a safe place to be invested in, as real inflation is closer to 10 or 11 percent than the actual inflation numbers given by the U.S. government," Hennecke said on "Worldwide Exchange". The end result of the global economic slowdown may be the U.S. announcing national bankruptcy as the government cannot afford the bailouts that it promised and the market will not bail out the government. "We expect a depression in the United States. We expect a depression, very possibly, also in Europe."” (Martin Hennecke, senior manager of private clients at Tyche, told CNBC on Thursday.)
Notice that Mr. Hennecke says the government is lying about the real rate of inflation. (If the government used the same method of calculating inflation as was used up until 1983 inflation would be reported at 10 to 11 percent. The government changed its reporting in part to keep the cost of indexing under control. For example Social Security is indexed to inflation such that if inflation were to be reported as 10 or 11 percent the government would have to pay much more than if they lie about inflation and report it as only 4%.) If Mr. Hennecke is right then what does this imply for our political discourse? Where is the transparency? How can we have an honest discussion if the government’s own statistics are deliberately distorted?
An easy solution to this problem of public discourse is simply to say that Mr. Paulson, Mr. Darling, and Mr. Hennecke are discussing the future so therefore of course they will have different views. In this we have the same situation as in the market. People disagree. But if Mr. Paulson and Mr. Hennecke were in the private market we would not ask why they disagree. In the private market it would be enough to know they disagree. If you think we are at the bottom in 2007 you put your money with Mr. Paulson. Or if you think true inflation is 10%, that the American people have lived beyond their means for a generation, that debt has gotten beyond their ability to repay, that the government itself is on the verge of bankruptcy, and that a second great depression is the necessary result, then you take Mr. Hennecke’s advise.
But transfer this discussion into the public realm and we must ask why they are saying what they are saying. Who benefits; was the old Roman question. A question to which there could be but one reply: For the good of the people. Thus Mr. Paulson might say that even though he did not really think we were at the bottom in 2007 he said we were at the bottom for the good of the people; to help keep prices up. In like manner it might be argued that Mr. Darling even though he really believes we are facing a grim economic down turn he should have nonetheless followed Mr. Paulson’s example and put a positive spin on the facts.
What I find so compelling about the collapse of the housing bubble is how it forces itself into reality. For example Mr. Paulson is no longer talking about the bottom of the market. And when the coming depression begins to grip the economy the political discussion will only then begin to address the down turn. But until it forces itself into being the depression will be discussed by government ministers in the same way they discussed the housing bubble. Some will doubt it because they really doubt it, others will lie, some will spin, still others will say what they think they are supposed to say. This is the problem with political discourse.
It is not just that Mr. Paulson was wrong, the problem is that we do not know what he was thinking. We do not know why he said we were at the bottom in June 2007. To know why he said what he said we would need to know a great deal more about Mr. Paulson. What else does Mr. Paulson believe? For example does he approve the tax deduction on mortgage interest? Even though the wealthy receive most of the benefits? Does he think that the tax exemption for the first $500,000 in capital gains on a home, in a country where the average home is valued at $200,000, is fair and equitable? Does he approve of ethanol subsidies notwithstanding the fact that it takes more energy to make than it produces? Does he support nurse practitioners to lower the cost of medicine? Does he support vouchers in education? Etc.
We would have to have the answers to these and a great many more questions in order to understand why he said we were at or near the bottom in June 2007. This is one reason single issue politics is so abysmal. On any given issue it is practically impossible to know the motivation of any particular political actor. This is why I, when I was involved in politics, first with the Math Project, and then later with the New Ruskin College Project, (see Math Project and New Ruskin College Project archives at the Moynihan Memorial Library), I always dealt with all the issues which were before my target audience: the Senate. If they were dealing with the issue then I had to make it my business to also deal with the issue. More than just being topical I tried to enter into a dialogue.
For example, I had to discuss vouchers, and what a market oriented education might look like, and explain that if market forces were allowed to work in education, technology would have been better utilized. And all of this had to be covered while discussing whether we should invade Iraq to liberate Kuwait. What I did not foresee was that if you are involved in a great many issues one becomes the target of people with political views contrary to one’s own.
So Yvonne was persuaded to betray me to her friends at KQED. And when I protested the people at KQED other of her friends contacted my employers and had me laid off. Michael Krasny at KQED contacted Rose Guilbault at AAA and had me laid off there. Ron Owens at KGO used his influence at Access to get me laid off there. Melanie Morgan at KSFO used her influence at Cen Cal to have me laid off there. (see CEN CAL Letters at the Moynihan Memorial Library) Owens or Weiner (aka Savage) used their influence at Farmers to harass me there. Don Imus harassed me at GAB. Weiner broke into my rooms at the Colonial Motel and photo copied the note book and harassed me for several days before giving the note book to others at KGO and KSFO. (see The Stolen Notebook at the Moynihan)
It suffices to say that this sort of harassment and intentional interference with contractual relations severely limits political discourse. How much of what is said, or not said, is because of the real fear of being targeted by the likes of Krasny, Owens and Weiner?
As we peer into the future we see Iran, a nation hijacked by radicals, developing the bomb, we see the emergence of the second great depression, the emergence of bio-weapons, and all of this must be discussed within a political discourse of such narrow breadth that the truth can barely slip in.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home