As pretty much everyone knows, the earthquake and tsunami in Japan has created serious problems with several of their nuclear reactors. Naturally people are wondering if this means that nuclear energy is unsafe. Of course the situation remains fluid and the answers are not yet in. However we can say some things for certain.
First, of course neither nuclear energy nor anything else is 100% safe. You could die in your back yard from a lightening strike, a heart attack, or even a meteor strike. Asking for total safety is the wrong question. The right question is if nuclear safety is safe compared to other sources. So far the answer seems to be that it is. The number of people killed by electricity producing nuclear reactors is miniscule compared to those killed by other problems. In fact the number of Japanese killed by that quake and tsunami far exceeds what the reactor problems are likely to cause.
Second, 'nuclear' is a witch word, a word that tends to end rational discussion. (cf http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/2010/04/godwin-and-witch.html) All too many people react emotionally rather than rationally to the term. If we are to decide wisely about the future of nuclear energy we will have to overcome that problem and think about not only the dangers and benefits of nuclear reactors but about the dangers and benefits of not using it. This is back to the question of alpha vs. beta risk that I've discussed previously. (http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/search?q=alpha+risk)
Third, if we continue to use nuclear reactors we must learn from the past. If news reports are correct, General Electric ignored some of the recommendations of its own engineers who thought that reactor model was unsafe. The dispute was so severe that the engineers resigned. Also, the Japanese put those reactors within reach of a tsunami knowing that they live on the Pacific Ring of Fire, and area of extreme earthquake danger. Clearly that is not the place for a nuclear reactor.
So what is the upshot of all this? My conclusions are:
1. We should re-examine the nuclear program to see where improvements can be made.
2. We probably should continue developing nuclear energy, using reactors improved by what we have learned. Not to do so would leave us a choice of more fossil fuel burning or going back to the pre-industrial age when people died from lack of food, clean water, or shelter. The dangers from that almost certainly exceed the danger from a well-run nuclear program.
3. We should continue looking at other energy sources. Wind, solar and similar new sources are not yet ready to displace fossil fuels but we should continue research.
4. If we continue a nuclear program (which I suspect we should), we must require that such facilities be located away from known faults and where tsunamis and other known hazards cannot reach them. We must also require use of the best safety measures reasonably available.
And of course we can all do our part to help the people in Japan. They will need help for a long time.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Who Really Cares, Book Review
Book Review, Who Really Cares, America's Charity Divide, Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Arthur C. Brooks, 183pp plus appendix and notes. Basic Books, 2006
Arthur C. Brooks, professor of public administration at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, has written what I regard as a very important book. This book reports his researches into charitable giving, especially in the U.S. He admits that he was surprised at the results.
Brooks' studies used voluntary giving as the primary measurement but also looked at things like blood donations, volunteering time, returning the extra when a cashier gives too much change, and even being willing to give directions to a stranger. With monetary and time donations he looked at both the fraction of each group donating and how much each group donated per person. Results were quite consistent, a group that donated more money was also more likely to donate time and blood, return too much change, etc.
Contrary to popular perceptions, “conservatives” are more generous than “liberals.” However the real key is not political belief but religion. After controlling for religion he found that conservatives were only slightly more generous than liberals. However religious people, and even those who are not now religious but were raised in religious homes, are much more generous than the non-religious. Nor does this apply only to donations to churches. The religious contribute significantly more to secular causes as well. While political conservatives are significantly more charitable than are liberals, that is mostly due to the fact that conservatives are more likely to be religious.
While religion is the biggest key to giving, there are other factors as well. Surprisingly the class that gives the highest percentage of their income to charity is the working poor. Percentage-wise they donate more than the middle class and even than the wealthy. The poor who receive welfare, on the other hand, are the least charitable.
Marriage and family also make a big difference. Married people, especially those with children, are more likely to be charitable than the unmarried or childless. Brooks speculates that the reason is that having children is itself a charitable act (except for those on welfare who get money for each child).
Charity is negatively correlated with welfare and with the belief that government should re-distribute income or care for people's needs. As the availability of government welfare increases, voluntary giving declines. Even in the absence of increased welfare, people who believe government should provide such welfare or re-distribute income are much less likely to voluntarily donate money or time, to give directions to a stranger, or return too much change. There seems to be a sense among those people that “it's not my job to do what government should do.” On the other hand, those who oppose easy welfare and income re-distribution tend to be generous, voluntarily donating to causes they support.
Throughout the book are comparisons between the U.S. and other countries. Other countries have more welfare and believe that is the way to go. Hence their people leave it to the government and do not voluntarily donate very much. The U.S. is, by a wide margin, the home of the charitable. Our citizens lead the world in voluntary giving. Others, particularly the Europeans often accuse us of selfishness because our government does not give as much to disaster recovery as their governments do. However when we add in voluntary donations we are actually more generous than they. That does not faze the Europeans who want to count only government largesse.
The author also spends considerable ink on why charity matters. He points out that the charitable tend to be healthier, happier, and more likely to improve their own lot in life. In fact one chapter is entitled, “Charity Makes You Healthy, Happy, and Rich.” He attributes this to the fact that the charitable are likely to have more social connections and to feel better about themselves. Personally I believe there is also another factor: the charitable are taking action, being proactive. That is the sort of thing that leads to success in the workplace, and to better mental and physical health.
Not only does charity have individual benefits, but countries with more voluntary giving tend to have the advantage over those with less charity. This is partly the result of individuals being healthier, happier, and richer. It is also the result of the good works done by the charitable. However the biggest factor may be that the charitable tend to be involved not only in charity but in the community and politics.
The author includes suggestions for how to teach children to be charitable and to increase voluntary giving generally. Then the appendix covers the author's sources, how he did his calculations etc. Here he gets into some of the gory detail that would make the book less readable if included in the body.
Charity benefits the recipient, the giver and the country. As a result, I think this is a book that can make a big difference in our country if only people will read and apply it. Any book that points the way to more civic involvement, better health and happiness, and the other benefits Brooks here describes, deserves our attention.
Arthur C. Brooks, professor of public administration at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, has written what I regard as a very important book. This book reports his researches into charitable giving, especially in the U.S. He admits that he was surprised at the results.
Brooks' studies used voluntary giving as the primary measurement but also looked at things like blood donations, volunteering time, returning the extra when a cashier gives too much change, and even being willing to give directions to a stranger. With monetary and time donations he looked at both the fraction of each group donating and how much each group donated per person. Results were quite consistent, a group that donated more money was also more likely to donate time and blood, return too much change, etc.
Contrary to popular perceptions, “conservatives” are more generous than “liberals.” However the real key is not political belief but religion. After controlling for religion he found that conservatives were only slightly more generous than liberals. However religious people, and even those who are not now religious but were raised in religious homes, are much more generous than the non-religious. Nor does this apply only to donations to churches. The religious contribute significantly more to secular causes as well. While political conservatives are significantly more charitable than are liberals, that is mostly due to the fact that conservatives are more likely to be religious.
While religion is the biggest key to giving, there are other factors as well. Surprisingly the class that gives the highest percentage of their income to charity is the working poor. Percentage-wise they donate more than the middle class and even than the wealthy. The poor who receive welfare, on the other hand, are the least charitable.
Marriage and family also make a big difference. Married people, especially those with children, are more likely to be charitable than the unmarried or childless. Brooks speculates that the reason is that having children is itself a charitable act (except for those on welfare who get money for each child).
Charity is negatively correlated with welfare and with the belief that government should re-distribute income or care for people's needs. As the availability of government welfare increases, voluntary giving declines. Even in the absence of increased welfare, people who believe government should provide such welfare or re-distribute income are much less likely to voluntarily donate money or time, to give directions to a stranger, or return too much change. There seems to be a sense among those people that “it's not my job to do what government should do.” On the other hand, those who oppose easy welfare and income re-distribution tend to be generous, voluntarily donating to causes they support.
Throughout the book are comparisons between the U.S. and other countries. Other countries have more welfare and believe that is the way to go. Hence their people leave it to the government and do not voluntarily donate very much. The U.S. is, by a wide margin, the home of the charitable. Our citizens lead the world in voluntary giving. Others, particularly the Europeans often accuse us of selfishness because our government does not give as much to disaster recovery as their governments do. However when we add in voluntary donations we are actually more generous than they. That does not faze the Europeans who want to count only government largesse.
The author also spends considerable ink on why charity matters. He points out that the charitable tend to be healthier, happier, and more likely to improve their own lot in life. In fact one chapter is entitled, “Charity Makes You Healthy, Happy, and Rich.” He attributes this to the fact that the charitable are likely to have more social connections and to feel better about themselves. Personally I believe there is also another factor: the charitable are taking action, being proactive. That is the sort of thing that leads to success in the workplace, and to better mental and physical health.
Not only does charity have individual benefits, but countries with more voluntary giving tend to have the advantage over those with less charity. This is partly the result of individuals being healthier, happier, and richer. It is also the result of the good works done by the charitable. However the biggest factor may be that the charitable tend to be involved not only in charity but in the community and politics.
The author includes suggestions for how to teach children to be charitable and to increase voluntary giving generally. Then the appendix covers the author's sources, how he did his calculations etc. Here he gets into some of the gory detail that would make the book less readable if included in the body.
Charity benefits the recipient, the giver and the country. As a result, I think this is a book that can make a big difference in our country if only people will read and apply it. Any book that points the way to more civic involvement, better health and happiness, and the other benefits Brooks here describes, deserves our attention.
Friday, February 4, 2011
A Sound Bite Society
Some years ago I had been in a discussion about the rather abysmal state of science education in the U.S. today. We decided that we should do something about it and that the best approach would be to try to make ourselves available to the news people. That way we could intercept bad information before it got into the news and provide some real science. I called a news organization and talked about what we could offer. The very nice gentleman who answered said, “We want somebody who can talk in sound bites.”
As you might guess, our project went nowhere. Precious little science can be boiled down to the few words in a sound bite. How can you explain quantum mechanics in a sentence or two? Yet our society today depends heavily on technology based on that part of physics. Likewise you can't explain DNA testing, the spread of disease, and a host of other concepts without going into more depth than a sound bite allows.
No, science cannot be reasonably described in sound bites, that just does not work. Sound bites, like the proverbs and maxims of old, may help us remember things but they do not help understand them. Nearly every concept of importance requires more information to be understood. It is a major loss to the country that a field of study that affects our daily lives to the extent science and technology do should be so poorly understood.
Nor is science the only problem area. Economics, politics, even sports are usually described in sound bites. In fact sometimes it seems that the only real in-depth information available in the media is gossip about celebrities. If we want real information about anything important we have to dig it out for ourselves.
Is help on the way? Yes and no. On the down side we have things like Twitter that limit messages to 140 characters, effectively a sound bite you send to your friends and family. Now there are a few messages that can be adequately covered in 140 characters, even some important ideas like parents or spouses expressing love. However the real danger is that people get used to such short messages to the point that they lose patience with anything that can't be expressed in a sound bite. Constant exposure to sound bites leads to the expectation that everything should be expressible in a sound bite.
However for those who want depth and are willing to make the effort, the internet provides a vast and accessible library. We have to be careful about it, some of the “information” there is just plain wrong. However there are also a lot of excellent web sites. We can get medical information from the top hospitals, science information from scientific organizations etc.
Are we going to convince the masses to seek in-depth information before making important decisions? Not unless our education system improves and starts doing a better job of teaching critical thinking. However we can, as individuals, improve our own habits and begin to seek good and complete information before deciding.
If you like my blog please tell others
If you don't like it please tell me.
As you might guess, our project went nowhere. Precious little science can be boiled down to the few words in a sound bite. How can you explain quantum mechanics in a sentence or two? Yet our society today depends heavily on technology based on that part of physics. Likewise you can't explain DNA testing, the spread of disease, and a host of other concepts without going into more depth than a sound bite allows.
No, science cannot be reasonably described in sound bites, that just does not work. Sound bites, like the proverbs and maxims of old, may help us remember things but they do not help understand them. Nearly every concept of importance requires more information to be understood. It is a major loss to the country that a field of study that affects our daily lives to the extent science and technology do should be so poorly understood.
Nor is science the only problem area. Economics, politics, even sports are usually described in sound bites. In fact sometimes it seems that the only real in-depth information available in the media is gossip about celebrities. If we want real information about anything important we have to dig it out for ourselves.
Is help on the way? Yes and no. On the down side we have things like Twitter that limit messages to 140 characters, effectively a sound bite you send to your friends and family. Now there are a few messages that can be adequately covered in 140 characters, even some important ideas like parents or spouses expressing love. However the real danger is that people get used to such short messages to the point that they lose patience with anything that can't be expressed in a sound bite. Constant exposure to sound bites leads to the expectation that everything should be expressible in a sound bite.
However for those who want depth and are willing to make the effort, the internet provides a vast and accessible library. We have to be careful about it, some of the “information” there is just plain wrong. However there are also a lot of excellent web sites. We can get medical information from the top hospitals, science information from scientific organizations etc.
Are we going to convince the masses to seek in-depth information before making important decisions? Not unless our education system improves and starts doing a better job of teaching critical thinking. However we can, as individuals, improve our own habits and begin to seek good and complete information before deciding.
If you like my blog please tell others
If you don't like it please tell me.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Arizona Heroes
Not much good comes out of any murder but at least the shooting of a congresswoman in Arizona produced four genuine heroes. Three of those people worked together to prevent more shooting and a forth administered first aid, possibly saving the life of Congresswoman Giffords.
Our heroes acted courageously and appropriately, even risking their own lives. There may have been other heroes I don't know about but we should applaud at least the following:
First Daniel Hernandez, and an intern for the congresswoman. Mr. Hernandez started administering first aid, applying pressure to stop her bleeding. He took that action not knowing if the shooter was still active and likely to go after him. I disagree with Hernandez on one point however. He denies being a hero. In that he is wrong.
Second Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zimudie who tackled the shooter in spite of the gunfire. Since the criminal was apparently shooting anyone in sight that action almost certainly saved lives. Those two men had the courage to charge the criminal instead of running. It was a struggle and the shooter still had his gun and was reaching for another magazine so he could continue shooting, even after they tackled him.
Finally Patricia Maisch heard someone yell “Get the magazine.” She grabbed the magazine, depriving the shooter of ammunition and the ability to reload and continue shooting. To do so she also had to be close and not running away.
The county sheriff estimates that 31 more people might have been shot without those heroic actions. My hat is off to all of that “fighting four.” Furthermore I think we can learn from them.
One of the most important lessons those heroes can teach us is that in urgent situations we need to take action ourselves. If they had waited for the police SWAT team, many more people would have been dead, probably including Congresswoman Giffords. Police can respond after crimes are committed but they are seldom able to intervene during the commission of a violent act.*
Second, it takes courage to act appropriately. It would have been easier for those four heroes to run and attempt to save their own skins. Instead they went toward the danger.
Third, there is danger in either fleeing or taking action but in many cases it is better to take action. Had those people fled they might have been shot but of course when they charged into the fray they could have been shot doing that. In that situation there was no safe way to flee.
Forth, age is less important than just doing what needs to be done. Hernandez is 20, Maisch 61. They were neither too young nor too old to become heroes.
Finally those heroic actions were a manifestation of self-reliance, something this country needs. It is easy to say “why doesn't somebody do something.” The more difficult task, but the important, one is to realize that I am “somebody.” In fact I am the somebody who can act in this situation. My own religion teaches that there are things to act and things to be acted upon and that humans are in the category of things that should act. When we wait for others to do what we can and should do, we move ourselves into the category of things to be acted upon. By so doing we lose our humanity.
Police and other officials are important but it is more important that citizens take action on their own when appropriate. After the crime is committed we should call the police. During the commission of a crime we should often take action on our own.
*For more on when it is and is not appropriate to take action see
http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/search?q=brooke
Our heroes acted courageously and appropriately, even risking their own lives. There may have been other heroes I don't know about but we should applaud at least the following:
First Daniel Hernandez, and an intern for the congresswoman. Mr. Hernandez started administering first aid, applying pressure to stop her bleeding. He took that action not knowing if the shooter was still active and likely to go after him. I disagree with Hernandez on one point however. He denies being a hero. In that he is wrong.
Second Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zimudie who tackled the shooter in spite of the gunfire. Since the criminal was apparently shooting anyone in sight that action almost certainly saved lives. Those two men had the courage to charge the criminal instead of running. It was a struggle and the shooter still had his gun and was reaching for another magazine so he could continue shooting, even after they tackled him.
Finally Patricia Maisch heard someone yell “Get the magazine.” She grabbed the magazine, depriving the shooter of ammunition and the ability to reload and continue shooting. To do so she also had to be close and not running away.
The county sheriff estimates that 31 more people might have been shot without those heroic actions. My hat is off to all of that “fighting four.” Furthermore I think we can learn from them.
One of the most important lessons those heroes can teach us is that in urgent situations we need to take action ourselves. If they had waited for the police SWAT team, many more people would have been dead, probably including Congresswoman Giffords. Police can respond after crimes are committed but they are seldom able to intervene during the commission of a violent act.*
Second, it takes courage to act appropriately. It would have been easier for those four heroes to run and attempt to save their own skins. Instead they went toward the danger.
Third, there is danger in either fleeing or taking action but in many cases it is better to take action. Had those people fled they might have been shot but of course when they charged into the fray they could have been shot doing that. In that situation there was no safe way to flee.
Forth, age is less important than just doing what needs to be done. Hernandez is 20, Maisch 61. They were neither too young nor too old to become heroes.
Finally those heroic actions were a manifestation of self-reliance, something this country needs. It is easy to say “why doesn't somebody do something.” The more difficult task, but the important, one is to realize that I am “somebody.” In fact I am the somebody who can act in this situation. My own religion teaches that there are things to act and things to be acted upon and that humans are in the category of things that should act. When we wait for others to do what we can and should do, we move ourselves into the category of things to be acted upon. By so doing we lose our humanity.
Police and other officials are important but it is more important that citizens take action on their own when appropriate. After the crime is committed we should call the police. During the commission of a crime we should often take action on our own.
*For more on when it is and is not appropriate to take action see
http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/search?q=brooke
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Different Mindsets
Most of us know about Benjamin Franklin's kite. He showed that lightning is an electrical phenomenon. Based on that theory Franklin invented the lightening rod to protect people's homes. He had the curiosity of a scientist combined with the practical mind of an inventor. In fact had he not been so famous as a statesman he would be famous for his scientific and creative endeavors.
Over a hundred and thirty years later the great German scientist Heinrich Hertz showed that radio waves are electromagnetic. He produced a scientific paper. It was left to Marconi in Italy to turn that knowledge into a practical radio – and Marconi had to go to England to get financial support for his invention. Though Hertz's paper was valuable in terms of scientific knowledge, he had no apparent interest in putting it to practical use.
I believe those two events illustrate a difference between what we might call the European and American mindsets. I suspect the difference comes from our respective histories. Europeans have a tradition of class structure with the aristocracy not stooping to manual labor or to such mundane things as engineering or invention. Why should they? They had servants to take care of everything. Because of that it was easy for the Europeans to think of practical labor as the province of the lower classes, people who were not as good as the dukes, princes and other aristocrats. In some cases anyone there who engages in practical work will suffer a lower status.
The U.S., on the other hand, explicitly rejected any form of aristocracy. The belief that “all men are created equal” allows for no inherited class structure. Our constitution allows any citizen to aspire to any office. (It is said that any baby born in the U.S. could become president and that is just one of the risks he takes.) A people who had to survive in an untamed land tended to have more respect for practical skills than for noble birth. In fact our first president was a farmer and by all accounts a very good one. George Washington continually sought ways to improve production on his farms.
This mindset is undoubtedly behind many of the differences between the U.S. and Europe described in Hannan's book The New Road to Serfdom which I reviewed earlier. It is easier for the Europeans to accept elite that will rule without direction from the masses. With a history of regarding the king as God's anointed, it is easier for them to adopt the statist attitude that government is the source of wisdom.
However if we believe that we are all created equal we usually accept the corollary that we should all have an equal voice in how we are governed. We are more likely to reject the quangos Hannan describes and to form movements such as the Tea Party.
Of course this is not a 100% separation. There have been European inventors and there are Americans who consider the intellectual life a higher form of existence than working for a living. However in general Europeans are less likely than Americans to ascribe high status to the practical inventor and Americans are more likely to demand that their government listen to them. With this difference in mindset is it any wonder that Europeans often regard the U.S. as having a “cowboy” attitude while we often regard them as cowards?
This is something we should keep in mind as President Obama and others seek to have us emulate Europe. Do we really want to hand our thinking and government over to quangos or even to elected officials with unlimited power? I know my answer to that question.
Over a hundred and thirty years later the great German scientist Heinrich Hertz showed that radio waves are electromagnetic. He produced a scientific paper. It was left to Marconi in Italy to turn that knowledge into a practical radio – and Marconi had to go to England to get financial support for his invention. Though Hertz's paper was valuable in terms of scientific knowledge, he had no apparent interest in putting it to practical use.
I believe those two events illustrate a difference between what we might call the European and American mindsets. I suspect the difference comes from our respective histories. Europeans have a tradition of class structure with the aristocracy not stooping to manual labor or to such mundane things as engineering or invention. Why should they? They had servants to take care of everything. Because of that it was easy for the Europeans to think of practical labor as the province of the lower classes, people who were not as good as the dukes, princes and other aristocrats. In some cases anyone there who engages in practical work will suffer a lower status.
The U.S., on the other hand, explicitly rejected any form of aristocracy. The belief that “all men are created equal” allows for no inherited class structure. Our constitution allows any citizen to aspire to any office. (It is said that any baby born in the U.S. could become president and that is just one of the risks he takes.) A people who had to survive in an untamed land tended to have more respect for practical skills than for noble birth. In fact our first president was a farmer and by all accounts a very good one. George Washington continually sought ways to improve production on his farms.
This mindset is undoubtedly behind many of the differences between the U.S. and Europe described in Hannan's book The New Road to Serfdom which I reviewed earlier. It is easier for the Europeans to accept elite that will rule without direction from the masses. With a history of regarding the king as God's anointed, it is easier for them to adopt the statist attitude that government is the source of wisdom.
However if we believe that we are all created equal we usually accept the corollary that we should all have an equal voice in how we are governed. We are more likely to reject the quangos Hannan describes and to form movements such as the Tea Party.
Of course this is not a 100% separation. There have been European inventors and there are Americans who consider the intellectual life a higher form of existence than working for a living. However in general Europeans are less likely than Americans to ascribe high status to the practical inventor and Americans are more likely to demand that their government listen to them. With this difference in mindset is it any wonder that Europeans often regard the U.S. as having a “cowboy” attitude while we often regard them as cowards?
This is something we should keep in mind as President Obama and others seek to have us emulate Europe. Do we really want to hand our thinking and government over to quangos or even to elected officials with unlimited power? I know my answer to that question.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The New Road to Serfdom, Book Review
OK, I hope readers don't mind anther book review
The New Road to Serfdom, A Letter of Warning to America by Daniel Hannan, 187pp plus index, Harper (imprint of HarperCollins), 2010
Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament, writes this book to warn the United States not to follow the route Europe has taken. In it he contrasts the historical freedoms in the U.S. with the European situation. He regards the U.S. as the best hope for the world, not only as an example but as the only country likely to stand between freedom and the undemocratic destination toward which Europe wants to lead the world. The real power in the EU is not the elected representatives but appointed bodies essentially accountable to nobody. In fact the British have coined the word “quangos” for those Quasi-Autonomous Non-Government Organizations. These are what Hayek warned about over 60 years ago in the book from which this one takes its name.
The ruling body of the European Union is officially something that can be called a quango. A group of appointed officials is the only body allowed to initiate legislation. Europeans have no way to vote those people out. In addition, European judges often believe that they have power to do what they think right, regardless of the law and international borders. They have issued writs against Ariel Sharon, Donald Rumsfeld and others on the political right (but not of course against Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, or Robert Mugabe).
Mr. Hannan describes how the U.S. has historically been different in demanding government by representatives of the people while Europe has moved toward rule by quangos and judges, neither of which is constrained by any representative law-makers. In fact while then first words of the U.S. Constitution are “We the people.” The EU Constitution begins, “His Majesty the King of the Belgians...”
Indeed the EU document was to be approved by voters but when the first two countries (France and the Netherlands) voted they defeated it soundly. After that a team of lawyers went through the document line by line and without changing the meaning made it deliberately unreadable. Then the national governments announced that their previous promise of a referendum no longer applied. Government officials approved the union in flagrant disregard of the wishes of the people.
On a related subject, while the U.S. at least pays lip service to the idea of power dispersed to local and state governments, the EU deliberately takes the opposite track, concentrating power in Brussels. This is combined with constitutional mandates for many aspects of daily life. People are supposed to have a right to a job, to respect, vacation, food, medical care etc. However as in the old Soviet Union those rights exist on paper more than in reality. The author describes many conversations he has had with EU officials in which he points out a problem only to be told in effect, “that isn't a problem, we've listed it as one of our priorities.” Sadly the remedy seems to stop with the paper claim that the problem should be solved.
Mr. Hannan describes why it is a bad idea to copy Europe in economics, health care, welfare, society in general, and immigration and why we should not abandon federalism. He makes a good case for a return to the constitutional principles that the U.S. seems to be moving away from.
The one weakness in this book is the lack of references. While much of the material comes from the author's personal observations, there is much that should have been documented. However in spite of that weakness it is an important book, one deserving of wide attention. As Barack Obama and others try to move us toward a European model we really should look at where we are going if we follow that route.
The New Road to Serfdom, A Letter of Warning to America by Daniel Hannan, 187pp plus index, Harper (imprint of HarperCollins), 2010
Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament, writes this book to warn the United States not to follow the route Europe has taken. In it he contrasts the historical freedoms in the U.S. with the European situation. He regards the U.S. as the best hope for the world, not only as an example but as the only country likely to stand between freedom and the undemocratic destination toward which Europe wants to lead the world. The real power in the EU is not the elected representatives but appointed bodies essentially accountable to nobody. In fact the British have coined the word “quangos” for those Quasi-Autonomous Non-Government Organizations. These are what Hayek warned about over 60 years ago in the book from which this one takes its name.
The ruling body of the European Union is officially something that can be called a quango. A group of appointed officials is the only body allowed to initiate legislation. Europeans have no way to vote those people out. In addition, European judges often believe that they have power to do what they think right, regardless of the law and international borders. They have issued writs against Ariel Sharon, Donald Rumsfeld and others on the political right (but not of course against Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, or Robert Mugabe).
Mr. Hannan describes how the U.S. has historically been different in demanding government by representatives of the people while Europe has moved toward rule by quangos and judges, neither of which is constrained by any representative law-makers. In fact while then first words of the U.S. Constitution are “We the people.” The EU Constitution begins, “His Majesty the King of the Belgians...”
Indeed the EU document was to be approved by voters but when the first two countries (France and the Netherlands) voted they defeated it soundly. After that a team of lawyers went through the document line by line and without changing the meaning made it deliberately unreadable. Then the national governments announced that their previous promise of a referendum no longer applied. Government officials approved the union in flagrant disregard of the wishes of the people.
On a related subject, while the U.S. at least pays lip service to the idea of power dispersed to local and state governments, the EU deliberately takes the opposite track, concentrating power in Brussels. This is combined with constitutional mandates for many aspects of daily life. People are supposed to have a right to a job, to respect, vacation, food, medical care etc. However as in the old Soviet Union those rights exist on paper more than in reality. The author describes many conversations he has had with EU officials in which he points out a problem only to be told in effect, “that isn't a problem, we've listed it as one of our priorities.” Sadly the remedy seems to stop with the paper claim that the problem should be solved.
Mr. Hannan describes why it is a bad idea to copy Europe in economics, health care, welfare, society in general, and immigration and why we should not abandon federalism. He makes a good case for a return to the constitutional principles that the U.S. seems to be moving away from.
The one weakness in this book is the lack of references. While much of the material comes from the author's personal observations, there is much that should have been documented. However in spite of that weakness it is an important book, one deserving of wide attention. As Barack Obama and others try to move us toward a European model we really should look at where we are going if we follow that route.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
New Deal or Raw Deal (Book Review)
Book Review, New Deal or Raw Deal by Burton Folsom, Jr., 2008 Threshold Editions (Davison of Simon & Schuster). 270pp plus notes and index
Conventional wisdom among many historians and educators is that Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal brought an end to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Those who look at the data realize that is not the case. However many have fallen back on less conventional but still popular “wisdom,” namely that World War II ended that depression. This book disputes both conclusions and in my opinion should be required reading in our schools. As many of our current politicians attempt to duplicate the New Deal we should inform ourselves about what really happened during FDR's administration.
Briefly Folsom shows, with copious notes and data, that the New Deal actually worsened and extended the depression. Furthermore though the war did reduce unemployment, major effects of the depression persisted until Harry Truman dismantled much of the anti-business climate FDR had created.
The book describes FDR's background which may have been the cause of his lack of understanding of business and economics, as well as his dishonest ways. His family on both sides demonstrated a lack of business sense. His father James inherited a fortune but barely maintained it, making a series of poor investments. On his mother's side his grandfather made money selling opium illegally to the Chinese. When he tried honest business he did so poorly that he returned to that illegal business. FDR was raised without being taught basic budgeting or anything else that would have prepared him to deal with financial problems.
FDR was a mediocre student, having a C to C+ average at Harvard. He concentrated on the social-political world of clubs, debates and journalism and ignored subjects like economics that might have prepared him better for his future career. At the same time he regularly misled his parents with out and out lies, claiming to have performed better than he actually did in sports and other events. For example after doing poorly in a race he told his parents he came in forth. He knew his parents would see the school newspaper which listed only the top three finishers. That disregard for truth was also manifest later when he would categorically deny having made certain statements he had in fact made.
The result of all that seems to be a future president who did not like business and did not understand economics. He was, however, very charismatic and persistent. Those characteristics governed his presidency.
The next section of the book discusses the causes of the Great Depression, why what might have been a short-lived economic downturn became the epitome of an economy in trouble. While those causes are complex the three major causes were the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill which caused retaliation from trading partners, very poor decisions by the federal reserve which cut back on the money supply at the worst possible time to do so, and refusal of other countries to repay debts incurred during World War I. (Smoot-Hawley contributed to refusal to pay those debts since debtor countries used that also as retaliation.) Though those causes happened before he took over, Roosevelt did not understand the causes so it is no wonder that his corrective measures missed the mark.
Roosevelt's response to the depression was to crack down on the very businesses that needed to do well in order to increase employment. One of his first measures was the National Industrial Recovery Act, NIRA, later shortened to NRA. That encouraged price fixing and even allowed major players to set prices with the force of law. Some smaller competitors went to jail for undercutting prices so determined. That drove many companies out of business, worsening unemployment.
Other measures such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act had similar effects. By law farm prices were set high with the resulting loss of business to farmers. Particularly bad was the undistributed profits tax which discouraged business investment.
While damaging the economy, FDR managed to gain power and get re-elected. That was due not only to his charm and charisma but also to the way he used the federal budget to influence (many would say buy) votes. States firmly in his favor or firmly against him got little federal money. Swing states were saturated with federal relief money and FDR's people made sure they knew where it came from. They also hired 300,000 WPA workers just before the 1936 election, then dismissed 300,000 soon after that election. Only someone with FDR's charm and charisma could have pulled that one off.
The result was that the depression continued at least until the start of World War II. Unemployment remained high and business was terrible. The war reduced unemployment by putting over 12 million men in the armed forces and many more to work building war materiel. However stock prices remained low and other economic indicators also failed to recover. That changed only when Truman became president and allowed the business climate to improve.
The last two chapters describe why historians have missed the mark on the New Deal, and how it continues to affect us today. Basically historians have mostly favored statism and have indulged in groupthink. Any historian deviating from the conventional wisdom will be dismissed as irrelevant. Meanwhile, the New Deal legacy of big government, high taxes, and distrust of business continues to harm us today.
I strongly recommend this book. There are eerie parallels between what FDR did and what many Democrats want to do today. We should study the effect of the New Deal before trying to repeat it.
Conventional wisdom among many historians and educators is that Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal brought an end to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Those who look at the data realize that is not the case. However many have fallen back on less conventional but still popular “wisdom,” namely that World War II ended that depression. This book disputes both conclusions and in my opinion should be required reading in our schools. As many of our current politicians attempt to duplicate the New Deal we should inform ourselves about what really happened during FDR's administration.
Briefly Folsom shows, with copious notes and data, that the New Deal actually worsened and extended the depression. Furthermore though the war did reduce unemployment, major effects of the depression persisted until Harry Truman dismantled much of the anti-business climate FDR had created.
The book describes FDR's background which may have been the cause of his lack of understanding of business and economics, as well as his dishonest ways. His family on both sides demonstrated a lack of business sense. His father James inherited a fortune but barely maintained it, making a series of poor investments. On his mother's side his grandfather made money selling opium illegally to the Chinese. When he tried honest business he did so poorly that he returned to that illegal business. FDR was raised without being taught basic budgeting or anything else that would have prepared him to deal with financial problems.
FDR was a mediocre student, having a C to C+ average at Harvard. He concentrated on the social-political world of clubs, debates and journalism and ignored subjects like economics that might have prepared him better for his future career. At the same time he regularly misled his parents with out and out lies, claiming to have performed better than he actually did in sports and other events. For example after doing poorly in a race he told his parents he came in forth. He knew his parents would see the school newspaper which listed only the top three finishers. That disregard for truth was also manifest later when he would categorically deny having made certain statements he had in fact made.
The result of all that seems to be a future president who did not like business and did not understand economics. He was, however, very charismatic and persistent. Those characteristics governed his presidency.
The next section of the book discusses the causes of the Great Depression, why what might have been a short-lived economic downturn became the epitome of an economy in trouble. While those causes are complex the three major causes were the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill which caused retaliation from trading partners, very poor decisions by the federal reserve which cut back on the money supply at the worst possible time to do so, and refusal of other countries to repay debts incurred during World War I. (Smoot-Hawley contributed to refusal to pay those debts since debtor countries used that also as retaliation.) Though those causes happened before he took over, Roosevelt did not understand the causes so it is no wonder that his corrective measures missed the mark.
Roosevelt's response to the depression was to crack down on the very businesses that needed to do well in order to increase employment. One of his first measures was the National Industrial Recovery Act, NIRA, later shortened to NRA. That encouraged price fixing and even allowed major players to set prices with the force of law. Some smaller competitors went to jail for undercutting prices so determined. That drove many companies out of business, worsening unemployment.
Other measures such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act had similar effects. By law farm prices were set high with the resulting loss of business to farmers. Particularly bad was the undistributed profits tax which discouraged business investment.
While damaging the economy, FDR managed to gain power and get re-elected. That was due not only to his charm and charisma but also to the way he used the federal budget to influence (many would say buy) votes. States firmly in his favor or firmly against him got little federal money. Swing states were saturated with federal relief money and FDR's people made sure they knew where it came from. They also hired 300,000 WPA workers just before the 1936 election, then dismissed 300,000 soon after that election. Only someone with FDR's charm and charisma could have pulled that one off.
The result was that the depression continued at least until the start of World War II. Unemployment remained high and business was terrible. The war reduced unemployment by putting over 12 million men in the armed forces and many more to work building war materiel. However stock prices remained low and other economic indicators also failed to recover. That changed only when Truman became president and allowed the business climate to improve.
The last two chapters describe why historians have missed the mark on the New Deal, and how it continues to affect us today. Basically historians have mostly favored statism and have indulged in groupthink. Any historian deviating from the conventional wisdom will be dismissed as irrelevant. Meanwhile, the New Deal legacy of big government, high taxes, and distrust of business continues to harm us today.
I strongly recommend this book. There are eerie parallels between what FDR did and what many Democrats want to do today. We should study the effect of the New Deal before trying to repeat it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
