A Debate on Immigration

Leave a comment

December 29, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

This is seventh in a series of debates on various issues. The debates are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s  welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Wishing everyone a happy and flourishing New Year.

Abel opened the conversation. “I thought we might talk about immigration this week.”

Cain replied, “You mean illegal immigration.”

Abel said, “Our group doesn’t like calling people illegal. The only illegal act that many of these migrants have committed is crossing the border, a Section 1325 offense. That carries civil, not criminal, penalties.”

Cain shook his head. “You make it sound like a speeding ticket. If your group doesn’t like the term ‘illegal,’ we can refer to them as ‘illegitimate asylum seekers.’ Most of them are not fleeing persecution. They are jumping the immigration line. They are cheaters, taking advantage of the huge backlog in processing asylum claims.”

Abel shrugged. “Everybody cheats. Thousands of people and businesses fraudulently applied for Paycheck Protection checks during the pandemic. The bankers cheated the system and provoked the financial crisis that caused millions of Americans to lose their homes. Then the bankers claimed asylum from their own stupidity and recklessness and the government bailed them out.”

Cain’s expression was grim. “Our group did not approve of bailouts for bankers. It cost taxpayers billions, and they kept their bonuses. None were prosecuted under Obama’s watch.”

Abel argued, “No jail time for fat cats but your group wants to jail vulnerable migrants. Why don’t we put some of the migrants in the penthouses that the bankers bought with taxpayer money? Your group imagines a world where everyone plays by the rules. Like I said, everyone cheats.”

Cain shook his head. “They can wait in the immigration line like millions before them. Think of the people waiting in line outside of the U.S. for their immigration application to be processed. Illegals jump the line and claim asylum as they’ve been told to do by the cartels and coyotes. It’s an insult to those who are playing by the rules.”

Abel said, “Many recent immigrants have been coming from Venezuela. It is a failing state, ranked 28th out of 178 states. Nicaragua, Columbia and Honduras are ranked in the sixties, putting them in the top third of vulnerable states.”

Cain nodded. “So, some of the Central American countries are stressed. Their economy is poor. Maybe there is some gang activity. When Congress passed the asylum law in 1980, the basis for a refugee claim was fear of persecution because a person belonged to some group. Their race, religion, nationality or membership in a social group made them a target. A parent might be worried that a local gang will target her son or daughter. I sympathize but that is not grounds for an asylum claim.”

Abel said, “The U.S. has been an economic leader because of our openness to immigrants. The Census Bureau recently reported that 83% of the net increase in population came from immigration. Our population is getting older. We are having fewer children. Our economic stability depends on immigrants to expand our workforce.”

Cain said, “Look, I agree that immigrants may become net contributors to our society and economy. But that takes a long time. Newly arrived immigrants at the southern border have so many immediate needs. That includes housing, health care and other social services. The kids need education. They make huge demands on a community before they make any notable contribution.”

Abel argued, “Many Americans are descended from immigrants who came from similar circumstances. It takes a lot of desire and gumption to tear up roots and start over in a new country. America became the world’s leader by welcoming people like that.”

Cain shrugged. “No doubt it takes heart, but many of our ancestors came over when governments provided far fewer social services.”

Abel said, “Your group wants to keep a balance sheet for each immigrant. How many services do they use? What taxes do they pay? The sum of a person’s contributions and withdrawals from the community cannot be summed up so easily.”

Cain agreed, “The accounting is not perfect, I’ll admit, but policymakers need some concrete measures to evaluate the policies they implement.”

Abel argued, “Let’s go back to the peak years of European immigration in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Many of those immigrants were exploited by employers and landlords. In the late 19th century, Jacob Riis published pictures of the slum conditions in New York City. Immigrants lived in cramped conditions without proper water or sanitation. They worked in sweat shops and factories where they had few safety protections. Any ‘contributions’ they made to society were skimmed off by unscrupulous employers and landlords.”

Cain was adamant. “You think that kind of exploitation has stopped? Migrants working seasonal harvests under the H-2A visa program are often housed in accommodations with minimal standards. Their status affords them little bargaining power, so they are under the control of the subcontractor who employs them or the farmer that engages the subcontractor. Employers want cheap labor.”

Abel said, “Tighter borders controls in the past few decades have made it impractical for some seasonal workers to follow the harvests in Mexico and the U.S. They have stayed behind in the U.S., supporting their families in Mexico from afar. They pay taxes but are not entitled to retirement benefits even after twenty or thirty years of working in the U.S. If they are cheating the system, they are doing a terrible job. They are funding benefits to native Americans.”

Cain continued, “Your group advocates policies that only encourage labor exploitation, whether you mean to or not. Immigrants increase the supply of labor and lower wages for native Americans. It’s Econ 101. Supply and demand.”

Abel disagreed, “Lower wages would increase the supply of goods and lower prices. That’s also Econ 101. Immigrants increase demand for the very goods they help produce. That increases employment and reduces the unemployment rate for native workers with low-skills.”  

Cain shook his head. “I disagree. At any rate, social services for illegal immigrants are costly. Sanctuary cities like Denver and New York City have discovered just how expensive and disruptive these immigrants can be. The mayors complained when Texas and Arizona sent them some of the thousands of immigrants that cross the border every day. Policymakers in those cities sure got a taste of the problems that border states are dealing with.”

Abel sighed, “It was a political stunt by Abbott, the governor of Texas.”

Cain replied, “Martin Luther leading a bunch of black people across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Birmingham was also a ‘political stunt.’ A better word is ‘protest.’ Busing illegal immigrants to other cities was a legitimate form of protest for Texas and Arizona.”

Abel argued, “Citizens protesting government abuse is a protest. When one state uses people as a political hot potato with another state, that’s a stunt.”

Cain shook his head. “Texas and Arizona have long complained about federal immigration policy. All those words fell on deaf ears in Washington. Actions do speak louder than words. Liberal states like Colorado and New York woke up to the reality of immigration policy when they had to deal with the problem in a concrete way.”

Abel insisted, “States should be working their policy disagreements out in Congress. Abbott’s stunt was sophomoric and vindictive.”

Cain replied, “Congress has been at a stalemate for years. The states have to take matters into their own hands where and when they can. The immigration system has been broken for years because Congress wants it broken. A persistent problem gives politicians an issue they can campaign on. Why is the minimum wage not indexed to inflation? Because Congress wants to fight over it.”

Abel asked, “So what does your group propose? Close all the borders?”

Cain said, “This country was founded on federalism, a compact between the states. The border states should have more autonomy in border control.”

Abel scoffed. “That won’t work. Immigrants will go to the border state with the most relaxed controls. Once they are in the country, they can move to another border state.”

Cain shook his head. “Make it illegal. If California lets in an illegal, that person has to stay in California for five years or so.”

Abel sighed. “How will the states enforce that? Each state would have to implement border controls on each highway going into their state. It’s not practical. The only practical policy solution is a unified federal response from Congress.”

Cain said, “Then the problem will plague this country forever, particularly Texas, Arizona and California. Congress doesn’t compromise on a solution until it becomes a crisis.”

Abel said, “Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. The two parties have created a political system that cannot craft coherent policies to address our problems. Americans suffer. They get cynical. Only 60% vote in a Presidential election. Only 20% may vote in a primary. Most of them tune out of politics because it’s a maze with no exit.”

Cain’s tone was resolute. “Then we need to fundamentally alter our system. The states need to call for a Constitutional Convention and bypass this dysfunctional Congress.”

Abel said, “That movement grew in popularity during the 1960s and 1970s. It seems to be gaining popularity recently. Maybe that’s the only solution. I’m afraid the two-party system that cripples our policymaking today will subvert a convention.”

Cain turned to leave. “That’s a discussion for another day. In a first ‘past the post’ election system, two parties are inevitable. The convention would have to implement a Parliamentary system, I suppose.”

Abel waved. “See you next week.”

////////////////////

Photo by Greg Bulla on Unsplash

Jacob Riis’ photos uncovered the abuses of immigrants in the Gilded Age. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jacob-Riis

The Census Bureau’s recent report on population growth. Most of the 1% increase in population came from immigration. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/population-estimates-international-migration.html

Many undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal subsidy programs. A state may allow them to participate in a particular program administered by the state. https://www.nilc.org/resources/overview-immeligfedprograms/

In a 2015 analysis of 2000-2010 data, Andri Chassamboulli and Giovanni Peri found that “increasing deportation rates and tightening border control weakens low-skilled labor markets, increasing unemployment of native low-skilled workers.” The incoming administration assumes that the opposite is true, that tougher border policy will strengthen low-skilled labor markets. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1094202515000514

The New York Times related the stories of several aging farm workers. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/us/aging-undocumented-farmworkers.html

A Colorado Public Radio report on the difficulties and cost of treating newly arrived immigrants. https://www.cpr.org/2024/03/19/colorado-new-immigrant-population-adds-strain-to-hospital-system-already-stretched-thin/

An explainer of the H-2A worker program from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2a-temporary-agricultural-workers

The Congressional Research Service investigated the mechanisms of calling a Constitutional Convention and a range of issues that the convention would debate. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42589/15

A Debate on School Vouchers

Leave a comment

December 22, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

This is sixth in a series of debates on various issues. The debates are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s  welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Wishing everyone a happy holiday this coming week.

Abel said, “Last week, we spoke about higher education but let’s look at the K-12 system. Your group advocates for school choice and a voucher program. For each school age child, the government gives families a voucher that can be applied to their school of choice.”

Cain replied, “There are a number of voucher programs in various states and studies have found an overall positive effect on student learning.”

Abel argued, “Our group is concerned that the costs outweigh the relatively small benefits. The key feature of those programs is parental freedom, your group says, but those taxpayer dollars are taken from established public schools to fund private schools. If voucher programs are more widely adopted, existing schools will have less money for capital improvements and repairs, forcing some to close. Lower enrollment causes public school districts to consolidate their students and close some. School choice transfers resources from one publicly funded school system to another.”

Cain insisted, “Parents are taxpayers. Many are homeowners whose property taxes are the main source of funding for public schools. Parents should have some control over where their property taxes are being spent. A voucher system allows parents to direct funds to those schools which serve their children best and away from low-performing schools or schools that do not provide a safe environment.”

Abel said, “Our concern is that parents will direct funds to those schools with students from similar backgrounds, effectively segregating the schools. As I mentioned last week, parents might choose schools with a curriculum that does not challenge their child in a particular subject like math.”

Cain shook his head. “Your group has too much faith in ‘experts.’ You readily overlook the many policy mistakes that education experts have made. The ‘new math’ that de-emphasized rote learning of arithmetic is one example. Kids got out of school and couldn’t make change when working in a retail store. In the 1970s, schools tried the ‘open classroom’ concept, a model based on the one-room country schoolhouse. Imagine the noise and distraction when fifty to sixty kids of various grade levels were squeezed into one big room and learning multiple subjects.”  

Abel nodded. “I’ll grant you that there have been policy mistakes. Your group has a faith in the wisdom of crowds. That’s the idea underpinning the free market and democracy. Our group is concerned about what Garret Hardin called the ‘Tragedy of the Commons.” The sum of  individual actions can produce a result that is harmful to the group as a whole. Overgrazing and overfishing are prime examples.”

Cain interrupted, “I’ll grant that the Tragedy of the Commons can be a problem. Our group worries about the ‘Tragedy of Group Think.’ Policymakers of like assumptions, values and policy preferences are attracted to each other like magnets. They implement some policy and overdo it. Their biases and loyalty to their political group make them unable to honestly evaluate the results of their policy. They become increasingly focused on countering any political opposition to their policies.”

Abel shrugged. “Yes, our system of checks and balances can be like a tired defensive line in the fourth quarter. Our group worries that the tragedy of the commons will become more acute as the  population concentrates in urban areas. As our technology and communications become more powerful, there is a greater likelihood that people synchronize their decisions and actions. The sum of those actions creates a negative feedback loop that creates the very circumstances that people fear.”

Cain’s said, “The problem with ‘top-down’ policymaking is that an interest group can influence policy to best meet their self-interest. The teachers’ union is a prime example. They have joined forces with a deep educational bureaucracy to take over the public schools. Administration is no longer responsive to parents’ concerns. When bad teachers get paid to sit and do nothing in so called ‘rubber rooms,’ that is a waste of taxpayer dollars and an insult to hard working parents.”

Abel shrugged, “A few bad teachers make the headlines, and your group uses that as an excuse to condemn all public-school teachers. Does one bad soldier make you condemn all soldiers? No, of course not. Most teachers work hard. They care about the kids. They make personal sacrifices and financial sacrifices.”

Cain objected, “It’s the teachers and administrators spreading their liberal ideology when the schools should be teaching reading and math skills.”

Abel sighed. “Now we are getting to the heart of the debate. How do kids learn to read? By reading. Your group objects to some of the material the kids read in class. Your group wants to hover over teachers’ shoulders, approving or disapproving of each piece of reading material. In 2023, Florida passed a law that allowed anyone in a school district to challenge the appropriateness of a particular book. Schools often remove a challenged book from their shelves while the book is under review. School districts insist the books are not banned – only temporarily removed.”

Cain made a ‘stop’ motion with his hand. “Most of those objections were raised by a single advocacy group. Florida passed a law in 2024 permitting only parents to raise an objection.”

Abel protested, “An advocacy group could enlist the help of a parent and raise an objection. Call it whatever euphemism you want; the policy effectively bans books.”

Cain argued, “Look, the responsibility for rearing children resides primarily with the parents, not the state. Only if the parents are unfit can the state override that fundamental right.”

Abel nodded. “But a school acts on behalf of parents when children are in their custody and care. A school cannot satisfy the preferences and ideologies of every parent who sends their child  to a school.”

Cain answered, “Should an unelected bureaucrat decide what is appropriate material for a library shelf in a K-12 school? Under that system, a small committee of bureaucrats can promote homosexuality or transgender issues, pushing their personal agenda on the community. Our group prefers  that parents make decisions about their children, not some supposed expert.”

Abel replied, “Teachers are promoting tolerance for others who may look or act different than the majority. In a classroom with children from different family structures, cultures and faiths, tolerance is an important character trait. In the Christian tradition, Jesus taught tolerance of those ostracized by their society – the leper and prostitute, for example. The Founding Fathers enshrined tolerance in the First Amendment, protecting speech and religion against government intrusion.”

Cain said, “As public institutions, public schools might have some Constitutional obligations that private schools don’t have. That is why some parents want the option of sending their children to private school.”

Abel interjected, “At taxpayer expense.”

Cain disagreed, “Parents are the taxpayers. Naturally, they don’t want to pay property and sales tax for public schools, then pay again to send their children to a private school.”

Abel argued, “Look, a voucher program is an ‘end-run’ around the Constitutional separation of church and state. The exchange of a voucher between a parent and a school does not obscure the fact that taxpayer money is funding the school. If the school is religious, that is a violation of the First Amendment.”

Cain said, “Is it? The term ‘separation of church and state’ was coined by Thomas Jefferson and is not in the Constitution. The text of the First Amendment is that the government can not inhibit or promote a religion. In a 1971 case, Lemon v Kurtzman, the Supreme Court established the ‘Lemon test’, a three-part test as to whether a particular law violates the Establishment Clause  of the First Amendment. In our opinion, school vouchers pass that test and do not violate the Establishment Clause any more than giving property tax exemptions to religious schools. In a 2002 decision, the court ruled that an Ohio voucher program was legal.”

Abel argued, “That Lemon case was a unanimous 8-0 decision. The 2002 case was decided 5-4. by the same slim conservative majority that handed George Bush the 2000 Presidential election.”

Cain objected, “Supreme Court decisions form legal precedent no matter what the ‘score’ was. The justices on the present court are even more conservative now.”

Abel said, “This year, the South Carolina Supreme Court found that a voucher program violated their state constitution. Obviously, the legality of voucher programs is not settled. To our group, the issue seems more like judicial political preference than judicial precedence.”

Cain replied, “A voucher program may violate the text of a state’s constitution, but it doesn’t violate the federal Establishment Clause.”

Abel raised his hand. “Let’s move on from the legality of it and return to the taxpayer expense aspect. Many private schools are exempt from state and local property taxes so the loss of that tax revenue is a taxpayer expense. Lower attendance in the public school system prompts school districts to consolidate and close some of their schools. Taxpayers have an ongoing expense to maintain or dispose of those buildings. School choice robs Peter to pay Paul, as the saying goes.”

Cain said, “Adopting any new policy of modifying an existing system incurs costs. A public expense may affect some taxpayers differently than others. That is the nature of a public expense and it’s why people often disagree on funding for public improvements. For instance, a district or county allows the building of new subdivisions. Then the county has to build a larger sewage treatment plant to process the extra waste from those residences. When the county proposes a special property tax assessment to pay for the plant, homeowners in older portions of the county object. They feel like most of the cost should fall on those newer homeowners.”

Abel replied, “Your example is about an addition to an existing system. School choice involves replacing, not adding to, existing public schools.”

Cain said, “A distinction without a difference. Often the schools that are closed have served their useful life. In other words, they are fully depreciated and would require a lot of ongoing expense to maintain or upgrade to current building codes. In that sense, private schools save taxpayers the burden of that expense and allow them to sell the property to a buyer who will maximize its usefulness.”

Abel insisted, “Often those closed schools are in low-income areas. A voucher may not fully reimburse a parent who wants to send their child to a more expensive school in a nearby district. School vouchers can further separate families by socio-economic status. Even if vouchers pass the court’s Lemon test, they will not afford all families equal access to the K-12 school system.”

Cain argued, “The vouchers would all be for the same amount within that geographical area. That’s equal access.”

Abel replied, “Equal access is not equal opportunity. The equality of the voucher amounts would not violate the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, but they would violate its spirit of equality.”

Cain turned to leave. “That equality issue is a Pandora’s box of different interpretations. We’ll cover that another time.”

Abel waved. “See you next week.”

/////////////////////

Photo by Julia Morales on Unsplash

New math focused on student comprehension of math concepts rather than rote learning of arithmetic skills like multiplication tables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math. Without fundamental skills in arithmetic, however, students struggled to understand conceptual relationships between quantitative measures.

Here is a recent article on Australia’s current experiment with the open classroom concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_classroom. Montessori schools have a non-traditional design with class sizes of twenty to thirty students. https://amshq.org/Families/Why-Choose-Montessori/Montessori-FAQs

This Wikipedia article on the Tragedy of the Commons notes that Garret Hardin did not invent the concept but his 1968 article in Science brought widespread attention to the problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

This article from the Fordham Institute contains links to several studies of voucher programs in the states. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/impact-voucher-programs-deep-dive-research In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the Supreme Court held that, under the 14th Amendment, parents have a fundamental right to “oversee the care, custody and control of a child.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/. Schools have an “in loco parentis” duty to act on behalf of the parents when the child is in the school’s custody, but states cannot supersede the fundamental rights of the parents “until a parent is proven unfit.” See https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-618/162853/20201207145434898_20-616%20Amicus%20Brief%20The%20Justice%20Foundation%20cert%20stage.pdf.

A Debate on Education

Leave a comment

December 15, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

This is fifth in a series of debates on various issues. The debates are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Cain said, “Last week, after our discussion on healthcare, you asked what kind of public good our group likes. Education is a proper role for government.”

Abel asked, “Our group thinks both healthcare and education are public goods. Why do you agree on one and not the other?”

Cain replied, “What’s a public good? Something that benefits an entire group of people but the market undersupplies.”

Abel interrupted, “Like healthcare.”

Cain disagreed, “Education is different than healthcare because learned skills are portable and transferable.”

Abel countered, “Our group would argue that healthy people are more productive. Good health is a transferable skill as well.”

Cain shrugged, “I’ll grant you that. But there’s a difference. Education transforms human beings. Healthcare is restorative. Education can be traced to a source that bears the expense of training. Good health has multiple sources.”

Abel interjected, “Wait. Let me get these distinctions you’re making. Transformative versus restorative. Single source versus multiple source. Ok, got it.”

Cain continued, “There’s a cost benefit paradox. Let’s say a company trains some people at their own expense. In the middle ages and Renaissance, a trade or craft guild trained their apprentices. They controlled advancement to the ranks of journeyman and master and where their guild members worked.”

Abel said, “In the 15th century, London public schools taught students basic reading and math skills so they could be admitted to a trade or craft guild. Even then, education was understood as a role of government.”

Cain replied, “Ok, but even under the guild system, the masters paid their apprentices less to recover the costs of training. Let’s imagine a more modern system where guilds do not dictate where a person can work. An employee learns that they can earn more at a competing company whose business model is hiring trained employees from other companies. The training benefits the employees and the competitor but not the company that does the training. No company wants to train their employees unless everyone does it. That’s an ideal role for government.”

Abel replied, “Ok, so your group acknowledges the role of government in providing education. How much education? Who pays for that expense? Those are policy decisions that are outside the price system.”

Cain nodded. “How much meaning how many years? Grade school, high school, college?”

Abel replied, “Yes. I would include trade schools.”

Cain said, “Our group advocates for school choice, a voucher system that allows parents to decide what school is best for their children. Our K-12 system was designed in the 19th century when many parents had little formal education and could not evaluate a school’s practices. That is no longer true.”

Abel argued, “That approach can lower standards. Schools would learn to cater to parents. For instance, a high school might offer a diploma without the need to take geometry or algebra class. A parent whose child was not good in math would be attracted to such a school.”

Cain replied, “There would have to be some standards, of course.”

Abel responded, “But setting standards requires a governing body to set those standards. How are those people appointed? Are they elected? Again, the price system cannot achieve a desired allocation of resources.”

Cain shook his head. “Sure, there will be parents who game the system, but they will be a small minority. Don’t use those few to invalidate an entire framework.”

Abel said, “It’s not just a few. During the 1980s, some online colleges became ‘diploma mills’, enabling students to acquire diplomas with little effort. In some fields like the law, a diploma is a credential that enables a person to get a license to practice the law. That diploma is a direct factor of production. In the humanities, a diploma can be more of a signaling device. In markets like that, the price system invites abuse.”

Cain nodded. “I’ll grant you there is a need for standards.”

Abel continued, “Many of the products we consume are subject to standards that were set by some governing body over a century ago. In the 19th and 20th century, groups like yours with libertarian sentiments opposed such standards.”

Cain said, “OK, I get your point. Our point is that such intervention, which is subject to political ideologies and alliances, should be kept to a minimum.”

Abel replied, “A college certification or degree is not an electrical appliance that can be easily tested. Some trade certifications are only awarded after a hands-on or clinical test. But some disciplines like sociology have no testable application. In that case, only the rigor of the curriculum can be evaluated. A school must submit its curriculum to an accrediting body.”

Cain said, “An who evaluates the accrediting body? The Department of Education. Some advocacy organizations like Veterans Education Success have questioned the legitimacy of an accrediting agency.”

Abel nodded. “Agreed. There will always be a political element in any market. Your group wants to look at the price system in isolation. It is skeptical of government institutions. Our group sees those institutions as vital to functioning markets as umpires are to the game of baseball. The price system cannot survive without strong government institutions that people respect or at least tolerate. When those institutions seem to be biased to a particular group, they lose credibility, and the price system invites abuse.”

Cain replied, “Let’s agree that a market is like a game. It needs some governing body to set the rules, and it needs umpires or referees to make sure players abide by the rules. Our group opposes government agencies setting rules to force a particular outcome. Baseball fans are used to it. The dimensions of the strike zone are changed to advantage batters and promote higher scoring games. That’s fine for an entertainment sport like baseball. It’s not fine for the private economy. Regulators might change the rules to promote a more equal distribution of income. The people who are attracted to government are attracted to power. A rule change is like pulling a big lever on the economic machine.”

Abel shook his head. “There you go again. Your group assumes that people in the market have benign self-serving intentions. You assume that people in government, on the other hand, have suspicious motives. They are villains twirling their long moustaches and plotting the end of a free republic.”

Cain laughed. “There are few adaptable constraints on their behavior. We are not saying that people in the private market are saints. Adam Smith’s point about the invisible hand was that the sum of individual self-serving action promoted an overall good. Each of us serving our own needs acts as a constraint on others.”

Abel interjected, “Adam Smith also pointed out that businessmen were constantly colluding to subvert the price system and the public good.”

Cain nodded. “Fair enough. My point is that politics is a dangerous game because there are so few players. The Constitution specifically gives the House and Senate the ability to set their own rules. State and federal legislatures regularly change those rules to promote their own party power. Gerrymandering congressional districts is an example of changing the dimensions of the strike zone. They change the rules to achieve a specific outcome.”

Abel said, “In the cause of promoting higher education for everyone, policymakers want to change the rules to give everyone a chance at a higher education. That includes funding for school and guidelines that promote more diversity on campus.”

Cain argued, “Like everything else government touches, they make the process of getting financial aid complicated. Many parents and students need help with the labyrinth of information and regulation that the financial aid form – FAFSA – requires.”

Abel replied, “The Department of Education needs to assess the financial need of each student. They want to make sure that a student from a high-income family is not tapping the pool of funds that could be helping a student from a low-income family.”

Cain said, “That’s the problem with needs-based frameworks. Some government agency has to assess a student’s need. Imagine if a restaurant owner charged different prices for a meal based on their customers’ incomes.”

Abel shook his head. “An education is not a restaurant meal. At any rate, colleges and universities usually publish the same price per semester. Based on ability and financial need, a student gets scholarships or grants. If you want to use the restaurant meal analogy, those grants are like having a discount coupon off a meal. The complicated part is figuring out who gets the coupons and how much the coupons are worth. Your group doesn’t like complications.”

Cain replied, “In our economic system, students are aspiring suppliers of skills and knowledge to the marketplace. They attend college to acquire those skills and knowledge. The schools should supply them with those skills and relevant knowledge. I emphasize the word ‘relevant’. The government’s role is not to fund teachers spreading their Marxist ideologies or to be an advocate for gay issues.”

Abel argued, “Students in a sociology class might be interested in a career as a law enforcement officer, public administration or the practice of law. The treatment of gay people in different cultural backgrounds would provide helpful background in their jobs. Remember the 80-20 rule. We use only 20% of what we learn in school to do our job. The other 80% enables us to understand that 20% we do use.”

Cain nodded. “Professors are there to present information, not their normative perspective. They take advantage of students who are at an impressionable age. Too many professors treat the classroom as their personal pulpit. The taxpayers shouldn’t be funding some professor’s personal political religion.”

Abel shook his head. “Taxpayers help fund Christian Colleges and Bible Colleges. Are you suggesting that the government should support some perspectives and censor others?”

Cain said, “Our group believes that states and local communities should have more of a say in how their taxes are spent.”

Abel replied, “Alaska and Rhode Island receive the most in federal grants on a per-capita basis. Residents of New York and California pay the most in taxes. Should taxpayers in New York City have a say in how Alaska spends its federal grants? We are a republic of fifty states. Our finances are interconnected and that creates conflicts in our common and individual interests. Governing those diverse interests makes it difficult to apply a cohesive set of principles.”

Cain argued, “Transparent principles are essential to good governance. Discretionary public policy invites abuse and corruption.”

Abel nodded, “James Madison, the primary architect of the Constitution, thought that conflicts in regional interests would cause the nation to fracture and fail. As rigid as the Constitution is, we keep patching the contracts and alliances that form our union.”

Cain threw up his hands. “We seem no closer to an agreement on education policy.”

Abel replied, “The path to compromise is paved with disagreements.”

Cain nodded. “We’ll talk next week.”

Abel said, “See you then.”

/////////////////////

Photo by The Oregon State University Collections and Archives on Unsplash

A comparison of training done in medieval guilds with the current university system. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/hequ.12305

In 15th century London, public schools taught basic reading and arithmetic skills which were necessary for admittance to the guilds. https://www.thoughtco.com/medieval-child-the-learning-years-1789122

A history of “diploma mills” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_mills_in_the_United_States. Veterans Education Success advocates for veterans in higher education. Here is a complaint they filed with the Department of Education https://vetsedsuccess.org/our-letter-to-the-department-of-education-on-hlc/

A Debate On Medicare

Leave a comment

December 8, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

This is part 4 of a weekly series of debates on various issues, including climate change, pollution, rent control and market failures in general.

Abel said, “I’d like to pick up where we left off last week, talking about monopolies.”

Cain added, “And monopsonies, you said, where there is only one buyer in a specific market.”

Abel nodded. “There is no better example of both monopoly and monopsony than the health care industry. Your group wants to keep government interference in the market to a minimum. In the health care market, it’s just not possible.”

Cain said, “Private companies offer health insurance. Why do we need government?”

Abel replied, “A product might be labeled health insurance, but insurance companies stay in business by selling risk mitigation. Consumers buy an insurance policy to protect them from a large expense. A for-profit insurance company has an obligation to their shareholders first and they use every legal ruse to reduce the amount they pay on medical claims from their customers.”

Cain argued, “We agree that insurers sometimes deny or delay legitimate claims for care. Congress passed Medicare in 1965 to provide low-cost health care to seniors. The government uses less discretion in paying claims but pays below market rates. That system welcomes fraud and abuse. Health and Human Services estimated that the Medicare and Medicaid programs paid out $100 billion in improper payments in 2023.”

Abel nodded. “The price system doesn’t account for dishonesty by private providers. All the more reason why there has to be greater supervision by government agencies to ensure compliance. A frequent police presence incentivizes people to police themselves.”

Cain disagreed, “No, the government has become a monopsony in the healthcare market. Providers are attracted to Medicare because there is such a large pool of buying power. Providers and suppliers are eager – too – eager – to diagnose and treat older people. Those are resources that cannot be spent on younger people.”

Abel countered, “Younger adults in their prime working years use far less health care services than older people. Without government subsidies, an insurance company would need to charge a prohibitively high rate to insure 70-year-olds.”

Cain asserted, “When people or things get old, they require more service. Imagine if the government funded low-cost auto repairs on cars that were more than ten years old. Car makers would be reluctant to develop improvements in newer car models. Why bother? There is more profit in fixing up the old cars.”

Abel protested, “That’s a stupid analogy. People are not cars.”

Cain nodded. “Exactly. My point is that our society is currently spending a lot of money on old people and the diseases that affect old people. That money is not available to help young people, the newer models of people.”

Abel argued, “Your group sees every problem in dollars and cents. Health care is about human dignity and flourishing as well as the alleviation of suffering, especially for older people who have spent a lifetime working and contributing to their community. What is the price of human dignity? The price system is incapable of measuring the value of intangibles that are precious to us. Government’s role is to protect those qualities we hold dear and that takes regular intervention. Government can’t just step in, assign property rights and let the private market and the price system manage the problem.”

Cain shook his head. “As a share of GDP, healthcare spending in this country continues to grow larger. Per capita spending on healthcare has more than doubled since 2001. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that the share was 17.3% in 2022. Out of every $6 of economic activity in this country, more than $1 is spent on healthcare.”

Abel explained, “But that’s because the Boomer generation is so large, and many are seniors. Naturally, healthcare spending will rise because older people use more healthcare services.”

Cain replied, “Yeah, but Medicare spending as a share of total healthcare costs was rising before any of the Boomers became eligible for Medicare. In 2001, Medicare spending was just $1 out of every $5 spent on healthcare. By 2011, that share was more than $1 out of every $4 and the first Boomers had just turned 65 and become eligible for Medicare. In 2021, Medicare spending accounted for almost $1 out of every $3 spent on healthcare (FRED chart and data here). Out of $20 spent in the entire economy, the government now spends $1 taking care of old people. And that doesn’t include Medicaid spending on low- income seniors. That is a burden on younger generations.”

Abel said, “Those costs went up in the 2000s after Republicans revised the Medicare Advantage, Part C, program and added a drug benefit, Part D. Obamacare expanded the program even further. The latest annual report to Congress from the  Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found that Medicare Advantage plans paid providers 122% of the amount paid for similar services to Fee-For-Service plans under traditional Medicare.”

Cain replied, “That illustrates my point. When politicians and government agencies try to improve any program, they don’t make the program more efficient. They spend more money. The people who work in government want to codify their principles, their ideals, their sense of fairness into law. Despite their rhetoric, they do not serve the cause of efficiency. They only make things more expensive and more complicated for the people they are supposed to serve.”

Abel countered, “I’ll repeat, your group looks only at the dollars and cents. In 1965, a 65-year-old male could expect to live another 13 years. In 2021, that same male could expect to live another 17 years. Women have had a similar increase of almost four years in life expectancy. The government is spending more on seniors because they are living longer and living better, thanks to the Medicare program. A 70-year-old Boomer today is far healthier and more active than a 70-year-old was in 1965. The price system can not value improvements in the quality or quantity of life.”

Cain argued, “When the government buys almost a third of the entire healthcare market, that’s effectively a monopsony, which distorts the price system. With a functioning market, seniors would pay more for those healthcare services which improved their quality of life. Instead, the government writes the checks, so seniors overconsume healthcare services. Why not? It’s effectively free. That distorts any measure of value that the price system can determine.”

Abel shook his head. “Seniors on fixed incomes have reduced options. There is too much danger that they will forego needed medical care simply because they can’t afford it. For most of their lifetime, they got over respiratory diseases like colds. After an initial visit, injuries like broken bones healed. It may be difficult for seniors to understand that the diseases of old age will not just go away on their own. High blood pressure and heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, arthritis and chronic respiratory problems need active management. Putting off care for a lack of funds only makes those conditions less manageable.”

Cain said, “Educating seniors is the key. Instead, the government treats old people like children. The Medicare program lacks the discipline that private insurance companies bring to the market.”

Abel objected, “A doctor specializing in breast cancer shouldn’t have to justify his recommended course of treatment to some clerk at an insurance company. That’s not a disciplined approach. That’s abuse by an insurance company and people die from that abuse.”

Cain said, “Some unfortunate cases get all the headlines. The government pays out $100 billion in improper payments. That is taxpayer abuse but there is no identifiable victim so that news story runs on page 6. Everyone is so accustomed to government inefficiency and abuse that another example of it causes little outcry. Politicians depend on a voting public that has become numb to the ineptness and unfairness of the political process. Congress has an approval rating of less than 20% but every two years, over 90% of House members are re-elected.  Voters act like they are wind up toys.

Abel sighed. “Your group has a deep skepticism of government. Is that likely to change? Probably not. What’s the point of debating these issues if you have a fundamental distrust of government?”

Cain replied, “Hope. Hope that together we can struggle toward some compromise that can curb the excesses of elected and unelected officials.”

Abel nodded. “Ok, we’ll try again next week. Try to think of a public goods program you like. I can see that Medicare is not one of them.”

Cain replied, “See you then.”

///////////////

Photo by Dominik Lange on Unsplash

Medicare Spending charted by Federal Reserve https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W824RC1

Per capita healthcare spending, FRED Series https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HLTHSCPCHCS

Medicare spending as a share of total health expenditures https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1BYRn

Period Life Expectancy 2004 – 2021 from the Social Security Administration https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Period Life Expectancy 1940 – 2001 from the Social Security Administration https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR02/lr5A3-h.html

Series of Gallup surveys rating Congress https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

Re-election rates for House members https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates

A Kaiser Family Foundation brief on the annual report from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-advantage-in-2024-enrollment-update-and-key-trends/

A report on improper Medicare and Medicaid payments https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-976-health-care-fraud-generally

//////////////////

A Debate on Market Failures

Leave a comment

December 1, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

This is part of a continuing series of debates on economic and political issues. Substack users can find the past two debates here and here. WordPress and other  users can visit my web site innocentinvestor.com here. Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving.

This week’s letter focuses on market failures, continuing an ongoing series of debates on economic and political issues. Investopedia describes market failure as “the inefficient allocation of resources that occurs when individuals acting in rational self-interest produce a sub-optimal outcome.” In an idealized market, prices act as signals to consumers and producers, who alter their behavior in response. Those actions affect prices, producing a feedback loop that moves supply and demand toward an equilibrium that maximizes the benefits or minimizes the costs to both consumers and producers (Pindyck & Rubinfeld, 2017, p. 312).

Market failures occur when that equilibrium-seeking process is prevented. Failures occur in markets where:
1) a company has monopoly power,
2) buyers or sellers have incomplete information,
3) there are externalities where the effects of consumption do not fall entirely on the buyer of the product or service. Pollution is a common example,
4) public goods where a good or service benefits the group as a whole but the dynamics of the market result in an undersupply.

Abel began the conversation, “Last week we left off with the housing market in New York City being a prime example of a market failure.”

Cain replied, “That’s right. I said that behind every market failure is a policy failure. The idealized ‘free market’ conveniently excludes political alliances and policy. In that idealized framework, prices coordinate supply and demand. The reality is that policymakers nudge both the supply and demand curves, adopting laws that favor suppliers or consumers.”

Abel said, “So you admit that the unregulated free market model misrepresents reality. Why is your group such a champion of markets with as little regulation as possible?”

Cain responded, “In a representative democracy, policymakers try to maximize their power and influence within the political system. They want to get reelected so the choices they make benefit their constituents.”

Abel interjected, “Yes, but not all of their constituents. Just the most influential, the most powerful.”

Cain nodded. “True enough. Naturally, that interferes with the price system. The political ‘market’ is entirely different than the market for goods and services. The political system has an entirely different cost and benefit structure. Policymakers are rewarded when they conform to the strategies of party leaders, or they bear the cost of being marginalized in committees where policymaking happens.”

Abel countered, “Yes, but its not realistic to analyze the economic system without the influence of the political system. Policymakers grant patents and copyrights, enact bankruptcy laws and thousands of measures that affect property rights. Those rights are the foundation of the economic system.”

Cain argued, “I’ll grant you that. But any assignment of property rights should be done to minimize further political involvement. Let private agents working within the price system make adjustments to circumstances.”

Abel said, “In a 2012 interview Ronald Coase (1910 – 2013) pointed out the price system is expensive because buyers and sellers need to know a lot to reach a bargain. Your group says that policymakers should step in once, make a rule and let buyers and sellers take that rule into account as they negotiate transactions. Those ongoing transaction costs are more expensive than the ongoing cost of regulating the market.”

Cain shook his head. “Our group disagrees. Remember, people don’t obey the letter of the regulations. They are always trying to minimize their costs or maximize their gain within that regulatory framework. Our group favors a system with minimal ongoing political regulation. Let the individuals within the market police themselves.”

Abel asked, “How are people living next to a dry cleaners supposed to police the owners of the dry cleaners? The solvent they use is perchloroethylene, commonly called ‘perc,’ and it’s a toxic air pollutant. The neighbors don’t have the expertise to monitor the equipment at the dry cleaners, to make sure that there are no leaks, and that filtration is installed and adequately maintained.”

Cain responded, “Policymakers can assign responsibility. In a 2013 podcast, economist Don Boudreaux noted that lawmakers usually decide that the person responsible for a harm is the party that has the lowest cost in avoiding or preventing that harm. In this case, the owners of the dry cleaners have a much lower cost than the surrounding neighbors.”

Abel argued, “That establishes the dry cleaners as the responsible party. Some regulatory agency must regularly inspect the establishment to make sure they are in compliance with the law. The price system cannot reach some idealistic equilibrium of perc because the equilibrium point is zero. The supply and demand model is an appropriate tool to analyze a market for goods and services where there is some distribution of benefits and costs. In the case of the dry cleaners, the benefit of using perc is concentrated in the owners of the business. It is a critical component of the service they offer. The costs are widely distributed to the surrounding neighborhood.”

Cain countered, “The use of dry-cleaning chemicals benefits the customers who get their clothes dry-cleaned. The owners of the business are just a distribution point of those benefits. If the benefits were entirely concentrated in the business, there would be no dry-cleaning businesses. There would be no political support for those businesses and lawmakers would ban them. This only proves the point that market failures are a result of policy decisions. In this case it is zoning regulations. Dry cleaners serve a public demand and operate in the vicinity of their customers because the public wants the convenience.”

Abel interjected, “That convenience impacts the health of the people surrounding the dry cleaners whether they get their clothes dry-cleaned or not. Those health consequences are a negative externality that the customers don’t pay for. The price system can’t handle a situation like that.”

Cain objected, “There could be a ‘perc’ charge for every piece of clothing dry-cleaned. That would reduce the volume of business.”

Abel argued, “But there is no way for the business owners to recompense the neighbors for the extra risk of living close to a dry cleaners.”

Cain responded, “In a free market system, residents would pay lower rents and house prices as long as the risks were made public. That would be an indirect benefit.”

Abel replied, “Why must poorer people pay the price of pollution? Who gets the ‘perc’ charge that is added on? The city or state? Certainly not the people affected by it. The price system only accounts for the benefits and costs of the parties to a transaction. The price system simply doesn’t respond to externalities like pollution. What about monopolists? Unlike suppliers in a competitive market monopolists maximize their profits by selling fewer goods at a higher price.”

Cain’s voice was resolute. “That only proves the point that behind every market failure is a policy failure. Companies become monopolists through some set of policies that grants them some exclusive property right. If an industry is profitable, it will attract competitors.”

Abel scoffed. “That’s textbook economics – not the real world. A business may become a leader in an industry because it builds a better widget. Then it buys up its competitors and uses economies of scale to rule an industry. Google and Facebook are good examples.”

Cain argued, “They became monopolists because they bought political influence to systematically eliminate any threats to their dominance. Section 230 gave Google and Facebook immunity from liability for user posts. Lawmakers had good intentions. The internet was new,  and lawmakers wanted to encourage growth. By removing legal constraints, they inadvertently created the ideal environment for monopolists. It’s a recurrent pattern. I’ll adapt Milton Friedman’s remark on inflation and say, ‘Market failures are always and everywhere policy failures.’ Monopolists lobby for laws that enable then protect their market power. Unlike prices, laws are rigid and don’t respond to the changing circumstances of supply and demand.”

Abel said, “Let’s explore more of monopoly power next week. I’m thinking of Joan Robinson’s innovative thinking about monopsony, where there is one buyer and a lot of sellers.”

Cain responded, “And public goods. Let’s not forget those. See you next week.”

///////////////////

Photo by Elena Mozhvilo on Unsplash

Birch, S. (2018). Demand-based models and market failure in health care: Projecting shortages and surpluses in doctors and nurses. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 14(2), 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744133118000336

Pindyck, R. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2017). Microeconomics. New York, NY: Pearson Education Limited.

Stern, N., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2021). The social cost of carbon, risk, distribution, market failures: An alternative approach. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3785806

Friedman’s more repeated quote is “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” Less well-known is his remark that “Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation.” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

A Debate On Rent Control

Leave a comment

November 24, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

This is part of a continuing series of debates on economic and political issues. Substack users can find last week’s debate on climate change here. WordPress and other  users can visit my web site innocentinvestor.com here. Wishing everyone a good Thanksgiving this next week.

This week’s letter is about the price system, continuing an imagined conversation that began with last week’s letter. What is a price? Is it a measure? If so, it is not a good one because prices keep changing from year to year. Let’s imagine a haircut from the same stylist that costs 5% more in 2024 than in 2023. Did the quality of the haircut change? No. the service delivered is the same but not the price. So, what is price? It must be a good in and of itself – a commodity like wheat. A good that “evaporates” like water in the sun. The CPI calculator at the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that a $1 in 2024 buys what $0.50 did in 1995. Any interest earned on savings has barely compensated for the loss of buying power (see notes).

And now the conversation between Abel and Cain continues:

After the usual pleasantries, Abel said, “Last week I pointed out market failures where the price system in a free market does not control a negative externality like pollution. Another flaw in the pricing system is its inability to cope with social justice issues. Your group favors policies that emphasize growth. You claim that more growth will benefit everyone, including minorities. What about rent control? Land can’t grow. In densely populated cities like New York, the only way to grow the housing market is to build up. Zoning policies restrict the height of many residential areas, and the current residents prefer it that way.”

Cain replied, “Rent control is a price control and our group does not favor price controls in any form. They distort the supply and demand dynamics of a market. Rent control encourages landlords to make only those repairs which will avoid regulatory fines from housing authorities. The quality of the housing stock declines and that only contributes to the problem. Housing authorities must devote more resources to inspect properties, handle tenant complaints and regulate landlords.”

Abel interrupted, “So what’s your suggestion? In crowded markets like New York, the housing supply is too rigid, so it doesn’t shift to meet demand like in a supply demand model. If prices were allowed to find an equilibrium on their own, many working people would be priced out of the market. They would have to move further away from the city and drive long distances to get to work. This would choke an already overtaxed traffic and transit system. What’s your group’s answer? Let people move to another state? The tri-state area has already become a giant metropolis because families have tried that solution. The problem persists.”

Cain nodded. “Yes, there are choke points where circumstances or political interests constrict supply. The first question politicians should ask is ‘How can we adapt the price system to help manage this particular market?’ If we look at improperly maintained housing as a pollutant, perhaps policymakers could use a permit system or tradeable credits, the same system that has been successful with some pollutants.”

Abel asked, “How would that work? Make available a number of permits to not maintain housing units to safe health and safety standards? Housing can’t be turned into a lab experiment.”

Cain responded, “Each city may devise different pricing solutions. Some may work better than others, allowing competing policy frameworks to be tested in different circumstances. The point is that regulations and rent control should not be the first tool that policymakers reach for.”

Abel asked, “Has anyone used an incentive-based strategy using the price system to tackle the problem of affordable housing in a dense urban area?”

Cain replied, “Not that I am aware of.”

Abel argued, “Proves my point. Some issues cannot be resolved through the price system. People tolerate many inconveniences in a big city because there are many factors that induce them to stay.” Abel ticked them off on each finger, “Jobs, family, public transportation and infrastructure, civic associations with people having similar interests, schools for the kids, sports teams, the availability of internet, public institutions like libraries, internet, parks, museums.”

When Abel paused to take a breath, Cain interjected, “I get your point. A home of some sort in a city gives people access to amenities that are not available in a rural district with 2,000 residents. People want availability to all that stuff and pay as little as possible.”

Abel interrupted, “Are you saying that working people who spend half of their income on a place to live in New York City are freeloaders? It’s the upper income people that employ them who are freeloading. The rich are getting labor at an affordable rate. If working people could charge enough to cover their living expenses, they would get paid a lot more than they do.”

Cain argued, “It’s the rich people who are paying most of the state and local taxes that pays for all those amenities. The rich are subsidizing these institutions that the working class take advantage of.”

Abel said, “The median rent in the Bronx is 60% higher than the national average, according to an analysis by Zumper. The average monthly rent for a 2-BR apartment is almost $3500 and the  Bronx is one of the more affordable of the five counties in New York City. The national median annual wage for warehouse workers is $38,000, according to the BLS. That’s almost $3200 a month. A couple working two blue collar jobs would be spending more than half their gross income on rent. A prudent percentage is 30%, or less than a third of gross income. If New York City policymakers were to require employers to pay 60% above the national average, those warehouse workers would make almost $61,000 a year, or $5100 a month. Two incomes at that wage would total over $10,000 and that $3500 median rent in the Bronx would be about 34% of income.”

Cain dismissed Abel’s argument. “Those New York City employers wouldn’t be able to compete with other companies in surrounding regions with lower costs. They would leave or go out of business. There would be fewer warehouse jobs. That couple would have to compete with others for blue collar jobs. The increased supply of labor competing for jobs would further lower the market wage and make the couple dependent on social welfare programs. The city would have less tax revenue because those warehouse employers have left the city. Less property tax, less income tax, less tax on business income. The city could not afford to pay more benefits and might declare bankruptcy like it did in the mid 1970’s. A complex negative feedback loop. Policymakers who tinker with natural market forces only make the problem worse.”

Abel objected, “If that couple followed the signal of those market forces, they would move to a lower cost area in a nearby state. There would be fewer workers in New York City, driving up wages. As the couple tried to find work, they would drive wages down further in that nearby state. Those lower costs would enable employers to reduce their prices and put the New York City companies out of business.”

Cain responded, “In order to survive, those New York companies would also leave the city. Anyway, capital relocates faster than people. As soon as policymakers announced a law mandating that employers pay premium wages, a lot of blue-collar companies would relocate out of the city. Our blue-collar couple would be out of a job. Just as with a previous scenario, the couple would be dependent on the government for aid. The price system promotes independence.”

Abel protested, “Paying higher rents than the national average does not promote worker independence. A dense housing market is a seller’s market, a landlord’s market. Without some laws in place to protect renters, they would be entirely at the mercy of landlords. Market prices in a dense housing market like New York only promote independence for those with capital and access to capital like landlords.”

Cain shook his head. “Once again, your group and mine can’t agree. Your group blames capitalists for everything.”

Abel replied, “That’s overstating our objections. Capitalists promote a dynamic economy that responds to changing circumstances. But capitalists can’t operate only in the framework of the pricing system. In some markets, price dynamics often make the problem worse. As Keynes and other economists have shown, an unguided free market system can settle at equilibrium points that are below the productive capacity of a nation’s people and businesses. There is no automatic mechanism to move an economy to an optimal equilibrium of productivity.”

Cain turned to go. “Well, our group disagrees. The free-market system promotes growth, and it is growth that generates a productive equilibrium.”

Abel replied, “I know your group believes that, but belief doesn’t make it so. The housing market in New York City is just one example of market failure, the inability of prices to allocate resources. It is one of many.”

Cain replied, “Maybe we should talk about market failures next time we meet. Behind every market failure is a policy failure, believe me.”

Abel responded, “See you next time.”

///////////////////

Photo by Shehan Rodrigo on Unsplash

Buying power note: Inflation has averaged 2.76% annually since 1995. The interest on a 1-year Treasury note (FRED Series DGS1) is similar to a 36-month CD rate and has averaged 2.6%.

The Maze of Our Arguments

Leave a comment

November 17, 2024

By Stephen Stofka

This is a bit longer than usual but in a conversational format. I will also leave copies of the in-text links in the notes at the end. The sources do not require a subscription.

This week’s letter is about our arguments. Some policies are implemented but the disagreements on the underlying issues are not resolved. The debate often detours through a maze of assumptions and perspectives, identities and loyalties before it can reach the main issue. Resistance and resentment simmer like the underground coal-seam fire in Centralia, PA that has been burning for six decades.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates could not resolve the issue of slavery, and the southern states threatened to walk. The financial condition of the confederacy of thirteen colonies was desperate, making the new nation vulnerable to attack and encroachment by France and Spain. In a compromise, the delegates agreed to make the importation of slaves illegal after twenty years, but booted the issue down the road. For seventy years after the Constitution was ratified, the southern states periodically threatened to secede, and various compromises averted a crisis without resolving the issue. The 1820 Missouri Compromise was a key piece of legislation that kept the nation together. In 1857, the Supreme Court issued its Dred Scott decision which overturned the Missouri Compromise and public sentiment accepted the inevitability of civil war.

Climate change is not as emotional a topic as slavery or abortion, which I wrote about here. I will imagine a discussion between two groups of people who set policy for all the people in the country. Speaking for the first group is a person named Abel who claims that certain types of human activity are having a pronounced and growing effect on the climate. To counter these damaging effects, Abel’s group proposes regulating some activities and adopting different methods that will lower the impact of human activity on the climate. Cain, a spokesperson for the second group, is averse to most regulation of economic activity and argues that Abel’s claims and theories are a hoax. Any changes in climate are probably temporary and driven by natural physical variations that people can not influence.  

Abel offered to present the evidence for his claim, but Cain dismissed the offer. Cain turned to page 156 of Nassim Taleb’s Fooled by Randomness and handed the book to Abel, who read the highlighted passage, “I can use data to disprove a proposition, never to prove one. I can use history to refute a conjecture, never to affirm it.”

Abel responded, “In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, the 18th century philosopher David Hume wrote that we could not state with absolute certainty that the sun would rise tomorrow or that it would not rise. Knowledge gained from experience can only move to greater certainty or uncertainty. Each year’s climate data moves us closer to certainty that  human activity is a significant contributor to climate change.”

Cain argued, “Our group requires incontrovertible proof, not just an increased certainty. Scientists were certain the climate was cooling in the late 1970s.”

Abel responded, “That is a myth that climate change deniers have used for decades to refute climate change. Peterson et al (2008) unraveled the making of that myth. J. M. Mitchell published his cooling hypothesis in 1963. When others checked his data, they found that his conclusions were based on weather station data in the northern hemisphere only. When researchers included data from the southern hemisphere, the conclusion was the opposite. The planet was warming.”

Cain interjected, “Scientists also claimed that world oil production had reached its peak in the 1960s, a theory known as Peak Oil.”

Abel responded, “Let me finish the rest of the story. In the 1970s, popular magazines like Newsweek promoted both theories as “news peg” headlines to attract readers’ interest. Controversy sells. There was already a broad consensus in the scientific community that the warming effect of man-made greenhouse gases were dominating any cooling effect from aerosols and natural factors. Prominent scientists like Carl Sagan presented that conclusion to Congress in 1985. In 1990, when the IPCC issued it’s first assessment of the global climate changes, it had already found a measurable increase in temperatures.”  

Cain argued, “Look, technologies change and new data causes scientists to revise their opinions. The same could happen with climate change. There’s no sense in imposing regulations that disrupt economic activity as long as there is a chance that scientists could be wrong.”

Abel responded, “Your group casually dismisses sixty years of scientific data and increasingly accurate predictions. Hume pointed out that there is always a chance that any claim is wrong. We have to act on probabilities, not absolute certainty. Your group adopts the reasoning of jurors in a criminal trial who reach a conviction only if there is no reasonable doubt. Our claim is more like a civil trial where jurors reach a conclusion based on a preponderance of the evidence. Each year provides more evidence that human activity is having a significant effect on the global climate.”

Cain replied, “Well, some of your group’s proposals seem criminal to me so yes, we require evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Our group is suspicious of policy proposals that affect our economic lives. We believe that the price system provides the best environment for voluntary cooperation. Prices emerge from the decisions and preferences of everyone.”

Abel nodded. “Science works like the price system, only slower. There’s a supply of research and data, and a demand for solutions and understanding. Scholars publish their research. They put their data and conclusions on the market, so to speak. The research community digests that data and methodology, points out flaws and presents alternative conclusions. Theories improve just like the products we buy.”

Cain objected, “Unlike the price system, there is no equilibrium point.”

Abel responded, “Yes, there is. Some consumers and suppliers of fossil fuels want research that concludes that there is little evidence for anthropogenic climate change. These groups fund organizations that hire researchers to publish position papers to that effect. Demand and supply meet, but the quality of the supply of research is lowered.”

Cain objected again. “These are reputable scientists presenting their conclusions. Look, even if there was some credible evidence that the use of fossil fuels was having an effect on the climate, our group favors price incentives, not regulations. Carrots, not whips.”

Abel countered, “The free market and price system doesn’t cope with negative externalities like pollution. Do you acknowledge that?”

Cain nodded. “Yes, but we think those externalities can be priced as well. The polluters can compensate others for the nuisance or trade among themselves for permits to pollute.”

Abel replied, “But that requires some government agency to set the prices or the allotment of permits.”

Cain nodded. “It’s not a perfect world. More regulations that affect economic outcomes only incentivize people and companies to find loopholes to avoid the regulations. Government agencies must not only regulate an economic activity like pollution from manufacturing, but they have to play watchdog to catch the actors trying to avoid the regulations. Regulatory agencies are not an efficient way to accomplish a goal.”

Abel asked, “What about social and economic justice issues? How can the price system cope with them? Let’s say some business owner thinks that all black people are inferior workers, so he offers black applicants half the wage he offers white workers. How does the price system handle discrimination?”

Cain shook his head. “Our group does not endorse discrimination of any type. We question whether it is the job of a government agency, particularly a federal agency, to try to correct those attitudes and behaviors. We support policies that encourage economic growth. More growth will promote employment which will create more bargaining power for workers. Employers will have to compete to hire workers. Black workers will have a greater choice of jobs and can refuse to work at a lower wage. Employers will end their discriminatory practices because it hurts their businesses.”

Able argued, “Using Taleb’s reasoning, any  instance where the price system does not end discrimination would be cause enough to invalidate your conjecture. If the price system coordinates human activity and resources so well, why are there subsidies for suppliers and price controls for consumers?”

Cain shrugged. “Politics corrupts the price system. In a perfect republic, there would be no subsidies or price controls.”

Abel said, “You speak of the price system as though it were a natural force like gravity.”

Cain nodded. “It is a natural force of human interaction. Einstein said that gravity was the curvature of spacetime. The phrase ‘matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move’ captures an important element of his theory of relativity. Without political interference, suppliers and consumers tell prices how to curve and that curvature affects the decisions and behavior of both suppliers and consumers.”

Abel replied, “The price system provides incentives for a limited number of transactions or exchanges between people. There are economic activities where one party inflicts damage on another party and may not be aware of it. Pollution can affect people far from the source of the pollution as happened with acid rain. Decades ago, the amount of sulfur emissions from smokestacks near New York City were affecting farmers and wildlife in upstate New York. Climate change contributes to a global problem, making it more difficult to regulate with any price system. Human industrial activity contributes to the carbon dioxide blanket surrounding the planet. That blanket inhibits the release of solar energy from the earth’s lower atmosphere, causing ocean and air temperatures to rise. Heat seeks an equilibrium so that warming affects the convection of energy around the planet.”

Cain scoffed. “Your group is saying that a family driving a car powered with gasoline is affecting some people living in remote Kamchatka. Come on, there are limits to responsibility.”

Abel replied, “The family driving the car is affecting their own climate as well. The power plant in Kamchatka is affecting U.S. families. Climate change surpasses national borders. It’s the butterfly effect, an idea that mathematician and meteorologist Ed Lorenz proposed. How the beating of a butterfly wing could contribute to an initial state that eventually produced a tornado.”     

Cain objected, “Butterfly effect or not, we can’t be regulating every little action that people do because it might contribute to some problem. In the Fable of the Bees, Bernard Mandeville imagined a society that collapsed after it prohibited all vices. We just have to accept that living bears some risks and unpleasant things. We can’t craft a perfect society. The price system promotes a natural system of checks and balances. Is it perfect? No, but it is better than a bunch of bureaucrats micromanaging our economic activities.”

Abel sighed. “Your group’s solution is to do nothing. If the world goes to hell, so be it?”

Cain replied, “We struggle to solve our own problems. Coordinating human behavior is difficult. The price system is a coordinating mechanism. Sure, it has flaws, but it is more democratic than any autocratic system of regulation. Even if human activity were causing the planet to warm up, how would we get other countries to comply? We can’t force everyone to think like we do.”

Abel asked, “There doesn’t seem to be any area of compromise on this, is there?”

Cain smiled. “A solution will emerge. Don’t worry. For two centuries at least, technological prowess has raised living standards and our life expectancy.”

Abel objected, “The cumulative effect of our technological prowess is causing the problem. How can it solve a problem that it is contributing to?”

Cain turned to leave. “You have no faith in human ingenuity and motivation. That is the real problem.”

Abel replied, “You put too much faith in the price system. That is an even bigger problem. Let’s discuss that next time.”

The debate may begin on climate change but often shifts towards each group’s assumptions and perspectives on an issue. Each group pays more attention to others in their group than arguments from the other side. The signers to the Declaration of Independence argued over the list of British offenses or usurpations included in the Declaration. They had only minor changes to the noble sentiments expressed in the opening paragraphs that we cherish today. The arguments against rebellion? Loyalist sentiments, as they were called, were stamped out. In the northern colonies, some of the Loyalists were driven out and their property confiscated. Force is the final arbiter of failed attempts to compromise.

/////////////////////

Photo by Susan Q Yin on Unsplash

A 16-minute excerpt of Carl Sagan’s presentation before a Republican led Senate committee in 1985.

Anti-Loyalist sentiment

Fable of the Bees

The butterfly effect

acid rain

curvature of spacetime

Peak Oil

natural physical variations that contribute to climate change.

The Dred Scott decision and the inevitability of civil war. Roger Taney, the Chief Justice and author of the court’s majority opinion, was initially nominated by President Andrew Jackson to be Secretary of the Treasury. Taney was the first cabinet nominee to be rejected by the Senate. Jackson then nominated Taney for the position of associate justice of the Supreme Court and met rejection again. Later, Jackson nominated Taney for Chief Justice, and the Senate confirmed him after much debate.

An underground coal-seam fire in Centralia, Pennsylvania burning since at least 1962.

Peterson, T. C., Connolley, W. M., & Fleck, J. (2008). The myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), 1325–1338. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008bams2370.1

Fortunate Son

Leave a comment

November 10, 2024

By Stephen Stofka

The country has elected a fortunate son for the second time. Throughout his life, Donald has enjoyed the protection of a phalanx of lawyers who have kept him out of jail. A recent decision by the country’s highest court will give him immunity for another four years. His physical condition and cognitive health are declining so rapidly that he likely will not serve out his full term. His much younger Vice-President J.D. Vance will become President and possibly the leader of the MAGA movement for another eight years.

Another take. Former President Donald J. Trump has made the greatest political comeback in the history of this country. Millions of supporters donated money to his legal efforts to defend the integrity of the vote and challenge voter fraud by the Democratic Party. Despite persistent persecution by Democratic prosecutors, Mr. Trump has emerged victorious. In the days leading up to the election, the former President  held many rallies, demonstrating the vitality of a candidate twenty years younger.

Yet another take – a just the facts, ma’am perspective. Presidents with low approval ratings, including Trump in 2020, do not win reelection. This election’s results repeated that trend. James Carville, Clinton’s campaign manager in the 1992 race, coined the famous phrase “It’s the economy, stupid.” Voters showed more concern about inflation and immigration than Trump’s character and demeanor. Voters are especially sensitive to inflation because they feel helpless, and people do not like feeling helpless.

The misery index is the sum of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate. A comfortable reading is about 7%. In 1980, the index was 20% and Jimmy Carter lost his bid for re-election. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush won re-election with misery readings of 8%, and Obama won the 2012 election when the misery index was near 10%. In the fall of this year, the index was below 7%. Perhaps the misery index is not a consistent predictor.

Which is your take on the election results? Each second of our day we download terabytes of information into our brains. We filter out much of that data, then arrange what remains into a version of the world that is uniquely ours. Then we interpret that stimuli, integrating it into our memories along well-worn neural pathways. In that integration process, we reconstruct the world again, discarding the information that conflicts with our previous experience, beliefs and values. We shape what we experience, and our experience shapes us. We may be traveling with others on a train through time, but we have a unique vantage point as we look out the window.

In her book Lost in Math, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder writes, “If a thousand people read a book, they read a thousand different books.” Each voter creates a unique election story. Media analysts focus on different elements of an election, creating their own version of the contest, weaving a narrative of cause and effect. In the telling of the election, we should remember Nassim Taleb’s caution, in Fooled by Randomness, that “past events will always look less random than they were.” Since we are rational creatures, we are both frightened and fooled by randomness. In an evenly divided electorate where a few thousand votes in several key counties can make a difference,  random events can decide the outcome. A snowstorm in a key state in the days before an election, the path of a bullet at an election rally, a decision by a federal judge.

The percentages of the Presidential election votes were no different than 140 million voters flipping a fair coin.. Heads equals a vote from Trump. Tails was a vote for Harris. Did any individual voter flip a coin? Possibly, but unlikely. As a collective, our individual actions can simulate random behavior. Randomness can make us feel helpless, so we act as though our actions have purpose. We act aggressively or assume a false bravado in the face of random mortal danger. Watch the clip from the Deer Hunter where the prisoners are made to play Russian Roulette.

Those who struggle through life may vote for the calm bravado of someone privileged. Ronald Reagan was known as the Teflon President. The public did not hold him responsible for several controversies and scandals that occurred during his eight years in the White House. In 1981 to 1982, the country suffered the worst recession since the Great Depression fifty years earlier. During the 1983 Lebanese civil war, Reagan ignored warnings that the U.S. Marines barrack in Beirut would be vulnerable to attack. The October 23rd bombing resulted in the loss of 241 lives, most of them Marines. . In his 1984 bid for re-election, Reagan won all but one state, a resounding vote of public approval. In 1986, the Iran-Contra scandal, a secretive trade of arms for hostages with Iran, occupied public attention but Reagan escaped any responsibility or public indignation.

Forty years later Donald Trump can wear that moniker, the Teflon President. A slim majority of voters overlooked his many scandals, his felony conviction, and his chaotic management style during the pandemic and most of his first term. Although the Republican Party’s name remains the same, Trump and his followers have erased the legacy of Reagan. The party’s former symbol, an elephant, has been replaced by a red MAGA hat. It has become a party dedicated not to any consistent set of principles but to one person, a fortunate son.

//////////////////

Photo by Danilo Batista on Unsplash

Keywords: misery index, election, recession, inflation

The Soul of a Debate

Leave a comment

November 3, 2024

By Stephen Stofka

This week’s letter is about the principles and history of the debate on abortion, an issue that could be pivotal for Democrats in this week’s election results. Like many contentious policies, many of us have strong opinions on the subject. We have identified the central principle of the issue and brook no compromise on that principle. Such issues generate persistent conflict because we identify different principles and construct incompatible resolutions. The aim of this essay is not to change anyone’s mind on the topic because I don’t think that is possible.

Many laws banning abortion were passed at a time when women had no autonomy – not the right to own property or vote. They were subjects of men. Their chief function was to support and aid men, to bear and rear the offspring of men. To be subject to this demeaning legacy once again deeply offends many women.

The laws and religious doctrines on abortion were all created by men who showed more concern for their offspring than the women who bore that offspring. Greek philosophers and early Church fathers formulated their speculations and doctrines without any knowledge of genetics or embryology. Central to their debate on the matter was the question: when does a fetus become a human and acquire some guarantee of life in a society? The Greek philosopher Aristotle reasoned that all living things had a soul. “The soul is the cause and source of the living body,” he wrote, so that what distinguishes the living from the non-living was ensoulment, acquiring the presence of a soul. What distinguished human beings from other living things was the development of a rational soul within a woman’s womb, but Aristotle was unclear on the timing of that transition.

For early Church fathers, the bible did not resolve the question. Many people think that the Bible specifies the quickening when the fetus first stirs in the womb. However, the word quickening in the Bible is an animating event, not a specific time in gestation. The Bible gives no direct timeline when the soul enters the body. If the Bible is the word of God, as some believe, then God is concerned with many issues but not ensoulment or abortion.

Jerome of Stridon (c. 344 – 420) was an early Christian priest and historian who first translated the Bible into Latin. He professed a belief or doctrine called creationism. At conception, God created a new soul for each person. In Summa Theologica, the influential Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) reiterated that doctrine. Aquinas also reacquainted Christian readers in Europe with the recently “rediscovered” works of Aristotle. In de Potentia, he wrote about Aristotle’s distinction between a primitive vegetal soul and a rational soul. During the Renaissance these philosophical speculations provoked controversy in the Church which Pope Pius IX resolved in 1869 with an encyclical declaring that ensoulment happened at conception.

Many 19th century state laws that ban abortion are based on the belief contained in that encyclical. The resulting policies treated an embryo’s life as though the embryo were human. Texas is one of 13 states that ban abortion outright. All of the former Confederate states effectively ban abortion, either outright or by imposing severe gestational limits when many women may not know they are pregnant. Before Jane Roe won her suit against Texas in the Supreme Court in 1973, the Texas penal code governing abortion was based on Texas laws passed beginning in 1854, when blacks and women were excluded from voting. Blacks were regarded as chattel to be bought and sold like farm animals. Few women could own property, and none could vote.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a balancing of state interests between “protecting the health of pregnant women and the ‘potentiality of human life’” (Oyez link here). That balance changes during the progression of a pregnancy. Jane Roe claimed a right to privacy inherent in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments but the court’s decision founded its decision on a woman’s right to privacy implied in the 14th Amendment. The Roe opinion placed bounds on a state’s interest that were loosened during the term of pregnancy:

“In the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may not regulate the abortion decision; only the pregnant woman and her attending physician can make that decision. In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations on abortion that are reasonably related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of “viability,” a state may regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.”

At that time, a fetus was not viable until the 26th week, the end of the second trimester. Medical knowledge and technical development have lowered the threshold of fetal viability to 23 or 24 weeks in developed countries.

In the 2022 Dobbs v Jackson opinion, the court’s majority overturned the precedent established in Roe and a subsequent case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  In Dobbs, the majority found that the only implicit rights – not those expressly stated in the Constitution – that any American has are those “rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition”  and necessary to the “concept of ordered liberty” (text of majority opinion here and see notes below on ordered liberty). The phrase is copied from a 1997 Supreme Court decision asserting that the 14th Amendment did not imply a right to assisted suicide. The circumstances and principles of a person nearing death and living outside a womb bear little resemblance to those of an embryo totally dependent on its mother for its life functions. The balancing test in the court’s Roe decision recognized a state interest in preserving life but imposed bounds on that state interest. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “Today, the Court discards that balance.” In doing so, the Dobbs opinion discarded the bounds on the power of the state established in Roe.

In the 165 years since the Civil War, the Constitution was reconstructed by the 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments, expanding the democratic franchise from a select few males to most adults. Are women to be governed by laws specific to them in which they had no voice or representation?

////////////////////////

Photo by Alexander Grey on Unsplash

Keywords: abortion, ensoulment, soul, viability, quickening

Ordered liberty is a theme of the conservative 18th century British politician Edmund Burke. In an age when only a small portion of the population could read, a select elite did the ordering of the liberties of the rest of the citizens.

How We Choose

Leave a comment

October 27, 2024

By Stephen Stofka

This week’s letter is about our vote, our political perceptions and institutions. This past week, an NPR reporter asked an undecided voter in Pennsylvania which candidate they were leaning to. The voter responded that he did not like the way the Biden administration had handled inflation. Since Harris was part of that administration, he was leaning toward Trump. The NPR reporter did not present the voter with the information that it was Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, appointed by Trump, who had been chiefly responsible for the government’s response to inflation. Would this new information have an effect on the voter’s thinking? Would the voter hold Trump partly responsible for the surge of inflation during the pandemic recovery? That dialog was never developed. I have noticed that reporters from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) develop a more proactive dialog with those they interview. The resulting interviews are more lively and informative than those conducted by reporters in U.S. news media.

Candidates in presidential elections frame issues to elevate them from the temporary to the eternal. In The Commanding Heights, Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw (1998) tell the story of Samuel Insull, a tycoon in the electricity industry during the 1920s, who wanted to build a sprawling infrastructure that would supply electricity to every home and business in America. His empire collapsed during the Depression and investors lost 99% of their capital. Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) ran on a campaign that included a promise “’to get’ the Insulls” (p. 47). FDR had elevated a case of speculation and overreach into an eternal battle where the rich preyed on the poor. His administration pursued the tycoon as he sought refuge in various European countries. Finally, Greece extradited the man back to the U.S. where he stood trial for fraud. Prosecutors could not convince a jury that Insull was guilty of anything more than ambition. His investors were mostly professionals, people who hoped to capitalize on that ambition. The jury speedily exonerated Insull.

One voter in Pennsylvania explained to the same NPR reporter that he needed to sit down and study the issues. Political campaigns must craft an issue complicated by dense details and conflicting principles into a clear and simple tale that appeals to the emotions and morals of voters. There are four aspects of most issues: the practical, the moral, the intellectual and the emotional. Repeated studies of patients whose right and left brains have been separated by accident or surgery indicate that each of these aspects is processed by different parts of our brain. To reduce our “brain load” we use shortcuts in our reasoning process to guide us through a jungle of complexity. I will note that Nelson et al. (2013) found little biological evidence for the idea that the processing of various tasks are localized to either half of the brain.

Steckler et al. (2017) found that many of us determine an action’s morality based on intention rather than outcome. Their research indicated that we process those types of moral judgments with our right brain. Many researchers have concluded that emotional responses are mainly generated in the right brain (Gainotti, 2019). Sorting through the practical details and isolating the principles involved in an issue involve the left side of the brain. We don’t carry a handy little tool in our pocket to consider these various aspects to get to the heart of the matter. After a long day at work, it is tiring just to think about the more complex issues. To keep it simple, political campaigns play to just one aspect, but not to the practical details where the momentum of a campaign narrative can get lost.

Political campaigns are sales campaigns. Central to sales practice is the KISS principle – Keep it simple, Stupid. The lessons of history are too nuanced and contradictory for a sales campaign. Candidates try to hypnotize voters with one or two shiny issues. They target the right brain which has a prominent role in emotional and moral judgments. They make up details to support their emotional or moral argument. Anything to stoke outrage, anger and moral condemnation. Simple and short lies with little or no evidence work the best. Scapegoat a minority group. Immigrants eating pets. Jews sacrificing Christian children. Catholic voters wanting to make Catholicism the national religion. In southern states, many black men were lynched after a hasty accusation of  raping a white woman.

Voters are beset with distortions from opposing campaigns. Most of the evidence for or against a candidate overwhelms many voters so they concentrate on a few key details. They rely on their own party affiliation, a few key media sources, a family member or a friend. Campaign rules do not prohibit lying and candidates have little to gain from nuance or truth. A Congressional Research Service analysis found that 36% of current House members and 51% of Senate members are lawyers. They have learned how to shape facts and issues into a convincing argument.

America was founded by the wealthy to be a plutocratic republic with the trappings of a democracy. To preserve a plutocratic Constitution, the founders made it difficult to amend the rules. The Electoral College was designed to check the popular will. The rules of the Senate and House concentrate power in a small elite of party leaders and committee chairs. In a plutocracy, the wealthy find it easier to influence a small number of legislators holding the reins of public policy. Election campaigns in America are longer and more expensive than in any other democracy. An Open Secrets analysis found that total spending in the 2020 election surpassed $14 billion, doubling the money spent in the 2016 election. Much of that money comes from wealthy patrons who wish to align public policy to their priorities and principles. Candidates are the messengers of the rich, conveying a message from the upper echelon of our society to the rest of us. That hypnotic message is your vote matters.

///////////////////

Photo by Victoriano Izquierdo on Unsplash

Keywords: Electoral College, Constitution, vote

Gainotti, G. (2019). The role of the right hemisphere in emotional and behavioral disorders of patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration: An updated review. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2019.00055

Nielsen, J. A., Zielinski, B. A., Ferguson, M. A., Lainhart, J. E., & Anderson, J. S. (2013). An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS ONE, 8(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071275

Steckler, C. M., Hamlin, J. K., Miller, M. B., King, D., & Kingstone, A. (2017). Moral judgement by the disconnected left and right cerebral hemispheres: A Split-Brain Investigation. Royal Society Open Science, 4(7), 170172. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170172. Available

Yergin, D., & Stanislaw, J. (1998). The commanding heights: The battle between government and the marketplace that is remaking the modern world. Simon & Schuster.