The Entitlement Culture

Recently in the news: Europeans may have to scale back their generous welfare state benefits which have included six weeks of vacation per year, retirement often at age 60 etc. France is seriously considering raising the retirement age. As a result, the Greeks are rioting and many French are preparing their standard response of major demonstrations and strikes.

That is a sad situation for the Europeans, predictable though it was. They are having to give up what they consider their entitlements. It is human nature to think that we are entitled to what we have. Nobody likes to accept a lower salary, shorter vacations, or a delay in planned retirement. However the laws of economics neither know nor care about our preferences. Those laws just apply the consequences of our actions (and often of luck) – and they apply to the U.S as well as to Europe.

The situation is simple in concept. People think they are entitled to a certain standard of living and that they are entitled not to have to work very hard to maintain that standard. However the benefits of all those entitlement programs now exceed the resources being used to provide said benefits. Though the concept is simple, people resist understanding that concept. After all, understanding why they must cut back implies that they will accept the cut-backs.

The fact is that we cannot generate entitlements without some means to provide for them, at least if we expect to deliver on those entitlements. In nearly all cases that means that someone has to work to produce what people are “entitled” to. Europe is now seeing the results of having created entitlements to goods and services while at the same time creating entitlements to leisure time and early retirement. That essentially means that they consider themselves entitled to not to have to work very hard to provide those entitlements.

We are on the same road in the U.S. though we have not traveled as far down that road. Many think they are entitled to decent living quarters, good food, medical care etc. but they fail to think of where those “entitlements” come from. Who will build the housing? Who will raise and transport the food? Who will provide the medical care? Who will pay the people who do all that? If you say “government,” you get a zero on the test. Government is not some magic creator of goods and services, though some seem to think it is. Government can dispense nothing without first taking it from the citizens.

That is the important point many Europeans and even some in the U.S. are overlooking. Government cannot magically create goods or services; it must get them from the people. When the Greeks or French riot to protest the need to cut back on benefits, they are simply ignoring fundamental laws of Nature. Goods and services must be produced, they are not created by a wave of a magic wand or by government decreeing that they shall exist.

If we want early retirement we must either work more effectively while young or accept fewer benefits in retirement.

If we want medical care, someone must work to train medical personnel and to provide them with the tools of their trade plus what they need to live.

If we want decent housing, someone must work to provide the building materials and to build that housing, then to maintain it in good condition.

Any “entitlement” requires production. The reasonable conclusion is that we are entitled only to what we earn by honest work. As I wrote earlier, we have a right to nothing. (http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/2009/08/you-have-right-to-nothing.html)

We must realize that in general entitlements are nonsense. We are not entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor, any more than a slave owner is entitled to the fruits of the labor of the slave.

A Good (Economic) Doctor?

Suppose you’re sick and have had a mild fever for a couple of days. A friend tells you about a wonderful new doctor. This physician has a great personality and wonderful bedside manner. His credentials sound good and he promises the most effective treatment. You set up an appointment. The doctor examines you and prescribes the latest medication, one reputed to solve your problem quickly. Very nice – except that your temperature goes up and you feel worse for a week. However the doctor is so nice and has such a good personality that he is able to comfort you.

Now next year you get the same sickness but that doctor is not available so you go to a different one. This guy is not nearly as personable. Worse yet, he refuses to prescribe any medication saying that your illness will clear up on its own in a few days. You argue that you need treatment but he continues to refuse so you go away angry. However within two days you are again well.

Which of those doctors is really competent? Which should you trust next time you get a similar disease? If you answered the second, go to the head of the class – and be prepared to endure criticism for that choice.

“What's that?” you say. Nobody would continue to trust a doctor who makes things worse. Are you sure about that? Some actually prefer a physician who provides emotional support to one with less personality but better medical skills.

Now change the situation a bit. This time the patient is the national economy, disrupted by business failures and unemployment. Shouldn't we prefer an economic “physician” who refuses to provide ineffective treatment? Isn’t that better than comforting words accompanied by counterproductive solutions? Yet it is nearly an article of faith today that the measures that have failed repeatedly are the only solution to our economic woes and that the “do-nothing physician” is either incompetent or uncaring, probably both.

Our history has several examples of economic problems, both with and without federal intervention to fix those problems. That intervention has a terrible track record, yet most people assume it is necessary. That track record began with the intervention leading up to and during the Great Depression. Prior to that time we had suffered many economic downturns, all short-lived. Then Hoover and congress reacted to the stock market crash of 1929 with punitive tariffs, wage controls, and other intervention. Roosevelt increased the government controls. Interestingly, unemployment was trending downward when the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were imposed which means that the treatment was not applied until the patient was already improving.

In fact unemployment was never higher than 10% before those government measures. However by a year after that intervention unemployment rose to nearly 30% - and remained above 20% for nearly three years thereafter. The patient was worse but the doctor claimed his treatment was working. In fact the depression did not end until World War II intervened.

Contrast this with Reagan’s action (or lack thereof) after the 1987 stock market crash. Reagan refused to intervene and as might be expected was excoriated for that. Politicians and the news media publicly called him everything from inept to uncaring. We can only imagine the unprintable words they used in private. A lesser man would have caved to the pressure but Reagan held firm. His stubbornness was followed by sustained growth and low unemployment.*

What is hard to believe is how effectively the proponents of government economic intervention have sold their bill of good. Today it is considered axiomatic that government should manage the economy although there is essentially no evidence that government has ever done so effectively. We keep insisting that the doctor should act, even after his treatment repeatedly worsens the illness.

Only when voters demand that government cease meddling will our economy recover quickly from the normal ups and downs of this natural world.

(For more information on the benefits of avoiding inappropriate action, see
http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/2009/06/dont-just-do-something-stand-there.html)

*The intervention by Hoover, Roosevelt and congress, and Reagan’s different approach are documented on pp 70-74 of Thomas Sowell’s book, Intellectuals and Society. Contrary to popular belief, Hoover did intervene and was in fact rather proud that he considered himself the first president to deal with a deteriorating economy.

Giving Orders to Nature

The Indiana legislature once nearly passed a bill that would have made the value of pi to be 3.2.* Now it would be nice if they could really change the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle to something so simple. It would be much easier to work with than the actual irrational number whose digits extend indefinitely. School work would be easier as would many endeavors in science and engineering. The problem of course is that Nature pays no attention to laws decreed by mere humans.

We might pass laws about the value of pi, about what we will allow gravity to do, about how nasty germs are not allowed to infect us. We could print those laws in books and distribute the books widely. Nature, however, would ignore those laws and we have not the slightest ability to enforce them. The effect of such laws on Nature would be exactly zero.

However any such laws would have an effect on us. Buildings constructed with the incorrect value of pi would not be reliable. Anyone trusting gravity to obey human law might take a nasty fall. Those who trust human law instead of good health practices would get sick.

Human law cannot overrule Nature. However attempts to overrule Nature can harm us.

Now all that is too obvious. Why should you worry about such things when there are no proposals to pass such laws today?

Are you sure there are no attempts to legislate Nature today? Actually there are, though the laws to be changed are laws of economics and human behavior rather than of science. The most flagrant current example is in Greece but there are attempts all over the world to legislate Nature.

The Greek problem is that many voters and public employees seem to think that their government can just give them what they want, ignoring where that comes from. Over half of the Greeks employed are on the government payroll. Their contracts call for great pay, benefits, and retirement packages. Furthermore they cannot be fired. More and more of them are becoming eligible to retire, plus the number of government employees who must be paid has grown. Those “entitlements” now exceed what the government can afford. The results are predictable.

Greece is so deeply in trouble that the European Union has to bail it out. Of course the EU doesn't want an indefinite commitment to pay for Greek ineptitude so the bail-out comes with strings attached. Greece must get its financial house in order, cutting back expenses to match resources. That is quite a reasonable demand. Without such measures the Greek expenses will just continue to grow and consume more and more EU resources.

How are those people reacting? Are they facing the fact that somebody has to produce the compensation they claim they should receive? Of course not, they are rioting and demanding a continuation of their benefits. They are demanding a change to economic law quite as impossible as the Indiana legislature's change to the value of pi.

What the Greek rioters ignore is the fact that economics is not about money, it is about goods and services. Governments may be able to create money by decree but they cannot do the same with goods and services. No human law will cause wheat to grow faster, clothing or housing to magically appear, or medical facilities and personnel to become available without cost to somebody.

The fact is that neither Greece nor any other country can long spend beyond its means. Spending on credit can be fun for a while but when the bill comes due the fun ends.

Nor is Greece the only country guilty of such profligacy. In fact the US has been borrowing and spending for years, mortgaging our future to China and the oil sheiks. Our creditors loan us money only because they see the probability of a good return on their investment. In general they do not like us and will happily sink us if it appears to be to their benefit to do so. Is this the kind of people we want to trust with our future?

Sadly the U.S. is following the same path as did Greece, they are just a bit farther down that path than we are. We've funded everything that seems like a good idea, without regard to ability to pay the entire bill. What will happen when the chickens of our excessive spending come home to roost? Will we continue to demand that the government ignore the laws of economics?

Or is there a better way? What if we started now to recognize the laws of Nature? To realize that economic laws are just as immutable as the laws of physics? To live within our means, even when we cannot fund everything we want to do?

The choice is ours. So are the consequences.

*The actual bill is somewhat more complicated and in fact intended for a different end. However even the simplified version here described is adequate for my purpose.

Godwin and the Witch

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%." That was the humorous way Mike Godwin described what happens in many discussions. It may be humorous but there is a lot of truth in his statement. People of all political persuasions have a tendency to accuse their opponents of Nazism or being like Hitler. What a wonderful way it is of casting aspersions without having to provide any actual facts or reasoning!

My only disagreement with Godwin is that he failed to make his law inclusive enough. Yes, lots of computer discussions end up with someone being called a Nazi, but today the phenomenon is much more widespread. It is not limited to on-line discussions. Both the president and the Tea Party group have been called Nazis, along with lots of people in between. Not only that but “Nazi” is not the only word used in such name-calling. People call their opponents “racist,” “simplistic,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” etc. The effect is similar, it tends to end rational discussion and leave the impression that the person is actually what the label says.

The problem with this type of name calling-is that almost never does the name caller provide, or his audience request, evidence that the name fits. Too often the mere accusation is regarded as proof of guilt. This places the accused in the same position as women accused of being witches back before the 18th century. The accused witch had no right to presumption of innocence. Instead she was considered guilty until proven innocent. She could prove her innocence by sinking and drowning when bound, right thumb to left toe, and thrown into a convenient body of water.

Today we have many accusatory words with effects similar to “witch” in the early second millennium. I call them “witch-words.” Call somebody “racist,” “simplistic,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” or “Nazi” and the burden of proof seems to be on the accused to prove innocence. That is wrong and it interferes with reasonable public discussion of the issues.

How can we stop this? The first step is awareness. When we hear someone accused of being a Nazi, racist etc. we should stop and think. Is there evidence to support the charge? Then we should ask the accuser to support his accusation with something beyond name-calling. If the accuser cannot do so, ignore the accusation.

I would go one step farther if the accuser cannot support his accusation. That is evidence that he has no evidence so let's do a bit of name calling of our own. Our name calling will be backed up by that evidence. If someone thoughtlessly uses witch-words, call him a witchworder.

A Hornets' Nest

The reaction to Arizona's recent laws to regarding illegal aliens reminds me of when I was a kid and stepped in a ground hornets' nest. That was a memorable experience to say the least. The hornets were as angry as opponents of that legislation are today. I suppose any comment I make here will risk a similar reaction no matter which side I support. However I shall attempt to inject some reasoning into what is now a very emotional topic.

First, we should agree on two things:

(a) Border control should be a federal responsibility, and

(b) The federal government has shirked that responsibility. A sieve holds water about as well as our southern border stops illegal entry.

Some those who enter the country illegally are hard workers and are the type of people we should want as immigrants if we could only provide them a good way to come here legally. However others are a danger to our country and our way of life. They import methamphetamine and other drugs, and many are criminals. The MS 13 gang, imported from Central America, is one of the most violent gangs in the country today. We don't need imported criminals, we have too many of our own already.

This situation cries for solution. Unfortunately neither party has the guts to take the necessary action, and that has been the case since the Reagan Administration. That administration presented a plan of getting control of the border while providing a path to citizenship. The government promised that the borders would be controlled and that illegals who entered the country after that time would not be granted legal status. The plan was reasonable and became law. However just planning does not get things done. Only the path to citizenship was ever put into action. Illegal aliens continued to ignore both the border and U.S. law. Congress again tried to legalize the illegals, a proposal stopped only by massive citizen opposition. The federal government broke its promise to the citizens.

Justifiably we as citizens feel betrayed. Why should we trust the government to do it any better now?

Is the Arizona law an act of desperation? Probably. Many residents of that state are desperate. The drug cartels control many of the “coyotes” who smuggle illegals through that state. This is no longer a few men crossing the border to find work picking fruit or milking cows. Yes, some of the illegals will do that but much of the traffic involves drugs and gang members. The coyotes are now often armed and willing to use force. U.S. citizens living in that area fear for their property and their lives. This amounts to an armed invasion.

What is to be done? First we have to face the fact that it won't be easy. Both parties fear a backlash from Hispanic voters if they take effective action. Only a massive citizen movement has a chance of forcing congress and the president to act. That action should start on two fronts:

1. We must get control of our borders. That must include something beyond the “catch and release” program too often used today. And we must deal effectively with the coyotes, the people smugglers who help with illegal entry. Even their customers regard them as the scum of the earth. They enrich themselves with human traffic and often regard women customers as fair game for rape.* People smuggling should be treated as a serious offense with appropriate punishment. In fact it is likely that the Mexican government would cooperate with us in attempting to put the coyotes out of business since those smugglers cause plenty of problems in Mexico as well.
2. We must provide a reasonable immigration path for the type of people we want to admit. Today, someone in Mexico or Central America can wait ten years for approval to immigrate here legally. Meanwhile his less scrupulous neighbors hire coyotes and enter illegally. That keeps out the best while allowing the worst to come here.

If the federal government will move effectively to control the border and to provide a reasonable path for the immigrants we want, Arizona will have no need to institute its own program. Then after a couple of years of watching that effective program, we might be able to trust the government to do something with the illegals already in the country.

We must insist that our representatives deal effectively with this problem.

*I speak fluent Spanish and have talked with many in the Hispanic culture. I find that they mistrust the coyotes and call them “mala gente,” bad people. It was from them that I learned of the propensity of the coyotes to rape their female customers.

Words

“But he is so sincere, he must really mean it.” Those words are applied to politicians, lovers, abusive boy friends, people asking for loans, and many others who want us to believe them. Sometimes he really does mean it and sometimes he can even do what he says he will do. Sometimes the slower horse wins the race but that's not the way to bet.

The fact is that words are cheap. No matter how persuasive someone is, no matter how much we want to believe him, no matter how much he himself believes them, the words are meaningless if actions say something else. How many abused women take the guy back because he promises faithfully to change his ways? He almost never does. (Men can fall for that as well but women are the more common victims.) How often do politicians promise they will get spending under control, then turn right around and increase spending and the deficit?

We need only look at President Obama for an example. One day he emphasized the need to control deficit spending. Then the very next day he announced that he intended to subsidize building high-speed rail lines. Yes, those rail lines were already planned but you don't cut spending without, well, cutting spending.

More recently, yesterday in fact, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has claimed that Obama administration is paying more attention to deficit and spending concerns than the Bush administration did. Such a claim would not be very difficult to live up to since the Bush administration spent like crazy. Should we believe Geithner's words? Anybody who does will probably be interested in a good deal on this tower I know about in Paris.

The fact is that while administration officials are talking about deficit reduction, projections are that deficits will top a trillion dollars per year under Obama, compared to a $458.6 billion deficit in Bush's last year.

Believe the actions, not the words.

In other areas we should also believe actions, not words. The battered woman should ignore the sweet words and promises intended to lure her back to an abusive situation. His violent actions tell the truth while his words are misleading. Yes, those words sound good. Yes, he may even believe them himself. That will last until the next time he gets upset. Then the actions will be right back, telling the truth.

How about the young woman (and some older women) hearing the sweet vows of love? What are the actions that back up those vows? Sadly, there are many men who tell women what they want to hear in order to have sex or get something else. Young women are often lured to bed while older women may lose money if they listen to such a line. If he really wants to spend his life with you and raise a family he should treat you right and make the legal commitment called marriage. Only the actions are believable.

The deadbeat friend or relative asking for a loan is another case. Helping people is good but helping them remain deadbeats only keeps them down while harming everyone they cheat. Remember the saying: If a dog bites me once, shame on the dog. If he bites me twice, shame on me.

I could go on. Salespeople who lie once will lie again. Advertisers who mislead will continue to do so. The car company that failed to report dangerous acceleration should not be trusted, regardless of what the ads promise. That company needs years of living up to its promises before we can consider it trustworthy again.

While there are many trustworthy people in the world today, there are many who are quite otherwise. Our personal and public lives will be greatly improved if we fire the lying politicians and sales people and if we ignore the words of anyone whose actions contradict those words.

Beware the silver tongue.

Hiring a Supreme Court Justice - Reprise

With the impending retirement of Justice Stevens from the Supreme Court, I’m going to post a re-working of something I posted here before. The selection of his replacement is so important to our freedom and way of life that I believe it justifies some repetition.

I ask all readers to contact their senators and urge them to commit to oppose any court nominee who fails to meet the criteria set forth below.

Hiring decisions can be difficult or relatively simple, depending on the nature of the job. It can be easy to hire someone to pick up litter in a park; almost anyone can do that. Even if the person hired does a poor job no long-term damage is done and it’s easy to replace him. However as the job gets more complex, the difficulty of finding the right person increases, as does the potential damage he can do. A corporate chief executive officer can ruin a company in a hurry. Furthermore there are not many people available who can and will do the job right. For that reason companies looking to hire a CEO usually take a long time and carefully evaluate potential candidates.

The hiring of a justice of the Supreme Court is more important than hiring a corporate CEO, maybe even more important than hiring a president of these United States. Justices receive lifetime appointments and are essentially accountable to nobody. A vote of five justices decides a case, making it the law of the land. There is no appeal. That makes each justice effectively one fifth of a dictatorship. It is a position of extreme trust and with the ability to do a lot of damage. This is not a position for which we can take a chance and replace the person in a few years if we don’t like the outcome. Selection of justices has to be done right, and done right the first time.

That means we should not just make sure there is no evidence against a potential justice. We must make certain that the person is qualified. This is not a criminal trial in which the appointee is innocent until proven guilty. Instead all candidates should be considered unqualified until shown beyond reasonable doubt to be qualified. The burden of proof is on the candidate and his or her supporters. I repeat here the five requirements I regard as mandatory for such justices:

1. Absolute integrity.
2. Commitment to the constitution and constitutional law.
3. Ability to subordinate personal belief and preference to the constitution and the law.
4. Intellectual ability to weigh issues and to decide wisely based on evidence, fact, and logic.
5. Sound knowledge of the law and the constitution.
Those should be requirements of any judge but especially of those on the high court since there is no appeal from their decisions. These criteria are critical to a good judiciary and I believe their importance is in the order listed.

Integrity: We must have integrity in any government official but especially in judges. Without integrity, other ability becomes a means to abuse the powers of office. A corrupt judge with great ability will use that ability for his own benefit and against the good of the country. We’ve had one justice (Abe Fortas) who resigned in a bribery scandal, we do not need another.

Commitment to Constitution and Law: Justices must be committed to our constitutional form of government, and to constitutional law. We have a representative republic with carefully crafted protections against abuse of power and the court must uphold that form of government. Substitution of its own wisdom for the constitutional law of the land would put the court the position of a dictator. Legislation should be left to senators and representatives who are accountable to the voters; the court is not a super-legislature.

Subordination of Personal Belief to Law and Constitution: Justices must subordinate their own beliefs and desires to law and constitution. One mark of a good judge is to set aside personal preference and judge according to the law. To do otherwise would again be putting himself in the position of dictator, imposing his own will on the electorate. We need justices who can say, "I dislike this law. I think it is dumb. However it is the law and it is constitutional so I must let it stand." Justices must recognize that they are "hired hands," employed to serve the people according to the "contract" set forth in the constitution. They may think that a law is stupid, and in this they may be right. However they must recognize that voters and their representatives have a right to make laws, even stupid laws.

Intellectual Ability: Justices must have the intellectual wherewithal to deal with the issues they will face. This seems obvious. Not only are the issues themselves often complex, but there are smart lawyers arguing each side. A justice must be able to consider all aspects of a case, cut through the intellectual fog, and decide on the basis of fact, logic, law and constitution.

Knowledge of Law and Constitution: Judicial nominees must have a sound knowledge of the law and the constitution. They must know and understand the basis on which they are to decide.

The president must reject the temptation to appoint justices who will advance a political agenda, instead seeking those who meet the above requirements. Justices should be judges, not politicians.

You will notice some characteristics missing in the above requirements. I have said nothing about having a balance between races, sexes or any other such thing. We don't need female judges and we don't need male judges. We don't need black judges, white judges, yellow judges, or brown judges. We just need judges who can and will do the job as it should be done, be they male or female; black, white, brown or yellow.

We should all contact our senators and urge them to carefully evaluate the beliefs and judicial qualifications of any nominee. If the nominee fails to meet, beyond reasonable doubt, any of those criteria, he or she should be rejected.

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.