Economic ignorance

It is not possible to imagine a dumber letter than the one today by Bill Clark of Elk City. Indeed, you knew it was going to be dumb-- truly stupid-- just looking at the headline: "Let families print their own money."

Clark writes:

It occurred to me after seeing that the Federal Reserve is going to print even more money and buy more bonds that we should give every family a home printing press and some printing plates for the $100 bill. Let each family print whatever it needs instead of having a messy job of some kind. If the government can print money without harm to the economy, why not a family? Makes as much sense!

There are lots of ways to think about this letter, but let's get to its core. What Mr. Clark is talking about is something called "quantitative easing" (or QE). To understand its purpose, we first need to know what happens in times of "normal" economic downturns. When people are out of work, they don't buy things, and when they don't buy things, businesses suffer, forcing them to lay off workers. When workers are laid off, they don't buy things, and businesses suffer, etc., etc., etc.

In these cases, the Federal Reserve's strategy is to simply lower interest rates. When rates are low enough, businesses and people will be enticed to borrow to do things like make capital improvements, or buy houses. Imagine, for instance, a business that has an outdated computer system (and computers) for its inventory management. It knows it's losing money because of this, but purchasing new equipment and software will run in the tens of thousands of dollars. But then imagine that a bank officer tells the business that interest rates are so low that borrowing to buy this new inventory system becomes affordable-- that over time, the money spent on the system will be paid for by the more effective management of inventory. Boom. It buys the equipment and software. And when enough businesses and people do that, the economy is jump-started and humming again.

But what started in 2008-2009 wasn't normal. Interest rates were already at or near zero. This zero bound limit means that conventional Fed policy to jump-start the economy won't work. Hence, QE:

Since the Federal Reserve can just create dollars out of thin air, it can buy up assets like long-term Treasuries or mortgage-backed securities from commercial banks and other institutions. This pumps money into the U.S. economy and reduces long-term interest rates further. When long-term interest rates go down, investors have more incentive to spend their money now. In theory.

Critics of this policy have worried about a sudden rise in inflation. Unfortunately for them, those critics have been spectacularly wrong.

Returning to Mr. Clark's letter, it's clear that since he is informed about the economy from AM talk radio and Fox News, he is just certain that the Fed's policies are wrong, and that they will lead to disaster. If he truly thinks that QE "makes as much sense" as letting families print money, then he is not only ill-informed but stupid.

No serious newspaper should run stupid letters from stupid people when they comment so stupidly on complex matters such as monetary policy. But the Oklahoman isn't a serious newspaper. It wants to push its right wing agenda, so even stupid letters are published when they support such things.

Actual productive use...

For once, the editors get it. After the tornadoes that swept through Moore Oklahoma, the editors have decided to use its letters section to serve its proper function: to let ordinary citizens express well-reasoned opinions on important matters of the day. Thus, both Devon Smith of Oklahoma City and Steven Feisal of Yukon wrote respective letters talking about buildings in Oklahoma having tornado shelters.

The letters don't involve tired rhetorical flourishes, resort to insulting people, or go out of their way to needlessly push some theocratic or plutocratic agenda. One might disagree with the authors of these letters, but that's what they are about. Would that this paper could do the same thing about other topics.

Tax stupidity II

The other day, we noted the dumb letter from B. J. Brockett of Oklahoma City. Normally, we wouldn't see some fatuous logic presented in a state's major newspaper, but the Oklahoman is no ordinary paper, and letters that push their plutocratic agenda get published, no matter how stupid.

We see that again today with another anti-tax letter (nice propagandistic title, editors: "Taxing online sales doesn't make sense") by Don Walkup of Oklahoma City. He argues that

Taxing online sales by one state on purchases made in another state doesn't make sense. Sales taxes have always been paid by the buyer indirectly through the seller. If I travel to Texas and make a purchase, I pay sales tax to Texas (the location of seller). If I make an online purchase from the same seller in Texas, why should I have to pay sales tax to Oklahoma since the purchase wasn't made in Oklahoma?

First off, let's agree that neither Mr. Walkup nor I are experts in tax law or in how the law has interpreted things regarding the Internet. But let's also agree that Mr. Walkup is an idiot. Note that he ignores the logical leap here. For him:

1) If I go to Texas, I pay Texas sales tax
2) Why should I pay Oklahoma sales tax if I buy something from Texas on-line?
3) Therefore, if I buy something from Texas on-line, but I'm actually in Oklahoma, I shouldn't pay any sales taxes.

Uh, no. Clearly, by his own logic, what he should be advocating is that if he buys something from Texas on-line, he should pay Texas sales tax!! But he doesn't want that. He just doesn't want to pay taxes at all, whining that "Every time the consumer gets a break, somebody (usually in government) wants to take that away."

Despite this letter being utterly stupid, the Oklahoman loves its anti-tax, anti-government sentiment, so it gets published.

Tax stupidity

It's hard to imagine that people think like B. J. Brockett, Oklahoma City, but they do. In his letter, he says:

“U.S. Senate passes bill to let states tax online sales” (Business, May 7) quotes the Oklahoma Tax Commission in saying the state loses $185 million to $225 million in tax revenue from Internet sales each year. If the state loses that much, then some citizens gained an equal amount in savings. And where would these citizens most likely spend that savings? Right here at home! The state would get its pound of flesh when those savings were spent.

Holy hell. Think about this for a minute: the state is saying that due to the lack of a sales tax on internet sales, the state-- meaning, obviously, the state government-- is losing ca. $200 million a year. Mr. Brockett turns around and suggests that this is just fine, because people would spend that money they saved right in Oklahoma.

Uh, OK. But we're talking about revenue for the government. You know, that thing that builds your roads and bridges and schools? That provides police and fire protection? You know? That?!? So unless Mr. Brockett is imagining that people will take their $200 million in savings and just... I don't know... send it to the government, then no, the state wouldn't "get its pound of flesh." Not unless you imagine that somehow, 4.5%-- the state's sales tax rate-- of of $200 million somehow makes up for, uh, 100% of $200 million.

So even though Mr. Brockett thinks that this missing revenue is perfectly fine, he concludes by saying

So does the state really lose on Internet sales? Time and effort would be better spent in figuring ways to cut government spending to reduce taxes, including eliminating the sales tax on food and clothing.

Uh, wait. Did he actually just ask "does the state really lose on Internet sales"?!?!? Like, YES! The tax commission just said that, and his response was that people will just spend it in the state... where the state will get about 5% of that money. This guy is fucking stupid.

And then, uh, what's this "time and effort" thing about? News flash to Mr. Brockett: The bill to let states tax online sales was passed by the UNITED STATES SENATE. That means that virtually NO Oklahoma "time and effort" went to passing this bill. But even if it did, did Mr. Brockett miss the whole part where the Oklahoma tax commission was talking about how it's losing out on tax revenue? Because what he says is that "time and effort" would be better spent cutting spending so that... uh, the state could then lose out on more revenue by slashing more sales taxes??

This guy is truly stupid. Letters liket his-- devoid of logic or a coherent argument-- shouldn't appear in a real newspaper. It's one thing to advocate tax cuts. (Even though it seems silly right now.) But letters like Mr. Brockett's are bafflingly stupid. Nevertheless, if they push the paper's plutocratic agenda, the Oklahoman will run them.

Hillary hit job

Back in 2008, the Oklahoman engaged in a huge smear job against potential Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and letter after letter were incredibly critical of her. It's not surprising that Oklahomans-- being as conservative as they are-- would hate Clinton, but it seems like a wasted opportunity for a paper to devote space to opinions about someone that stands no chance of getting the state's electoral votes, instead of to discussing potential GOP candidates? But then again, the Oklahoman has never been about serving the public interest. Instead, it is about propaganda.

ANYHOW...

Since rumors have been stirring about Clinton running again in 2016, it seems that the paper has taken to revving up its hit campaign-- while at the same time delivering couched jabs at President Obama. Thus, we get another letter from Tom Miller of Oklahoma City. I say "another" because we've seen him before. Indeed, Miller is one of the paper's part-time columnists, and has been bashing Clinton for years (along with Obama, Clinton and Obama, the Democratic Party, and so on-- you get the point).

In any case, it's hard to imagine the Oklahoman running a more worthless letter than Miller's. He writes:

U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., recently said she's praying that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the next Democratic presidential candidate... If Clinton is the nominee, she'll be 69 years old when running. If elected, she'd be the second-oldest president to ever take office, following closely behind Ronald Reagan. Reagan was 69 years and 349 days old when inaugurated and Clinton would be 69 years and 86 days old at her inauguration.

I'm not suggesting that old age should eliminate a person from serving as president. However, voters should certainly know the candidates' age, place of birth, educational records, occupational accomplishments and health records before they vote. If Clinton does become the next Democrat candidate for president, I hope the media do a better job of making her background known than they did with Barack Obama.

Jesus. Maybe Miller isn't aware, but Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye since 1992. There have been about a hundred books written about her. I mean, he's whining that the press might not "do a better job of making her background known" and yet he can tell you how old to the day Clinton would be if she were sworn into office!

So clearly, it's not even really about Clinton. Instead, it's just a bunch of dog whistles to right wing thralls (Birth certificate! College transcripts!) to keep them salivating. And to top it off, Miller offers a parting shot: "America deserves better than another divider." Unfortunately, Obama has governed largely from the center-right (Romney-inspired healthcare reform, maintaining Bush-era tax cuts, weak financial reform, etc.). Nevertheless, the far right-- represented by theocrats and plutocrats-- have refused to accept any concessions but still succeed in pegging Obama as a "divider." This is thanks on not small part to the power of right-wing media, of which the Oklahoman is a part.

The hits keep on being lame

The Oklahoman has kept up its end of the bargin in going after climate change science, doing everything it can to discredit research all in the name of making sure the plutocrats keep their pockets lined with lazily-earned money from oil and coal. Their letters section was true to form in having a recent point/counter-point involving the topic, but it looks like they wanted to add a few more counter-points to the discussion.

Sadly, Larry Bartels of Norman wrote exactly the sort of lazy letter that the Oklahoman loves to run when it comes to pushing its own agenda. In discussing a previous letter, Bartels writes:

Just because the temperature has increased in the United States for a year doesn't mean that the same is happening on a global scale. Temperatures below freezing in late April and early May could reverse last year's trend. Picking one country out of an entire planet, or picking one year out of the last 10, is ridiculous.

The only positive one can say about this letter is that at least it's short and to the point. Other than that...

First off, re the "global scale" argument-- he has a point. Unfortunately:

Oh. So... basically, Mr. Bartels is a willfully uninformed fool. Because, actually, temperatures have been rising on a global scale for a few decades now. Oh well-- at least carbondioxide levels haven't reached all-time highs. Oh, wait.

In any event, what's particularly amusing in all of this is that Mr. Bartels parrots the exact same point the Oklahoman makes in a recent editorial:

This is news that a climate change zealot won't want to hear, but it comes from a climatologist, not a global warming denier: Statewide average temperatures in Oklahoma rank the month as the seventh coolest April since record keeping began in 1895. Temperatures were 4.1 degrees below normal.

April was cooler than average, so there can't be global warming, right?!? Fortunately, this tactic has been addressed already:

Climate change denial is a major industry, lavishly financed by Exxon, the Koch brothers and others with a financial stake in the continued burning of fossil fuels. And exploiting variability is one of the key tricks of that industry’s trade. Applications range from the Fox News perennial — “It’s cold outside! Al Gore was wrong!” — to the constant claims that we’re experiencing global cooling, not warming, because it’s not as hot right now as it was a few years back.

And there it is. The more the Oklahoman spouts off such ignorance, the more likely it is that its plutocratic agenda will succeed-- sadly, at the expense of places like Oklahoma. As Krugman notes, places like Oklahoma are in dire need of water and they haven't had enough in awhile. He goes on, saying,

Now, maybe this drought will break in time to avoid the worst. But there will be more events like this. Joseph Romm, the influential climate blogger, has coined the term “Dust-Bowlification” for the prospect of extended periods of extreme drought in formerly productive agricultural areas. He has been arguing for some time that this phenomenon, with its disastrous effects on food security, is likely to be the leading edge of damage from climate change, taking place over the next few decades

Unfortunately, the Oklahoman doesn't actually care about the farmers and ranchers who read their paper. They just want their votes, and they are willing to lie to such people time and again to get those votes. Worse, they use the letters of uninformed patsies to help further their propaganda machine.

More "science"

We saw this coming from a mile away. After running letters supporting the notion that humans are causing climate change, the Oklahoman runs a letter by Gary Proctor of Houston (?!?! Are they out of Oklahomans?), who argues that "throughout history are found copious examples of scientific consensus being wrong." And of course, he's right. That is how science works. Mr. Proctor cites the excellent example of researchers Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who challenged conventional theory regarding the causes of stomach ulcers. (His example of Einstein is actually less compelling; at only the largest scales does Newtonian gravity break down; it hardly "eviscerated the previous consensus.")

But in their discussion of Marshall and Warren, Nature makes a good point: Achieving science's highest accolade shows how the attitude of the scientific community can switch from ridicule to reward if a idea that bucks current wisdom can be backed up by hard evidence. This is where the climate science denialists-- and the creationist crowd-- lose. If there is hard evidence for your contrarian ideas, you will eventually win out. Indeed, the example of Marshall and Warren demonstrates that! There is no grand conspiracy to keep out alternative ideas. However, the ideas have to have merit.

The editors of the Oklahoman don't want to talk about that, though. Instead, they just want to plant that seed in the minds of their clueless thralls that anti-climate science is perfectly valid even if no one in mainstream science seems to agree. In fact, if you spin it right, as Mr. Proctor tries to do, the anti-climate change crowd is like Einstein.

It's dishonest, but that's OK for the Oklahoman, as long as it pushes their plutocrat/theocrat agenda. 

Invasion of the editor-snatchers

Holy hell! Where are the editors of the Oklahoman?!? After running a typical uninformed layman's nonsensical critique of climate change scientists, I figured that would be it. But amazingly, the paper just ran not one but two letters defending climate change! It's incredible!! And what's great is that both destroyed the Mr. McInnis' truly cringe-worthy reference to Galileo. Originally, he wrote,

Consensus in science is what put Galileo under house arrest for suggesting that the sun didn't revolve around Earth.

This is stupefyingly dumb. But as Joseph Maness of Weatherford replied, "it wasn't scientific consensus that placed Galileo under house arrest. It was religious belief." Similarly, Paul Franson of Oklahoma City noted that,

Actually, Galileo was persecuted by religious leaders, not scientists, precisely because he backed Copernicus' use of scientific evidence to postulate something that didn't fit in with keeping those leaders in power. It's not just a consensus of opinion that global climate change is real; it's the conclusion to the application of the scientific method in 13,950 peer-reviewed published scientific articles versus 23 peer-reviewed published scientific articles that rejected climate change (1991-2012).

Boom.

But amazingly, after a mind-bogglingly (even for the Oklahoman) fact-free editorial throwing out lies about climate change, the editors (or, the editors' alien abductors?) ran a letter challenging their lies! As James Stovall of Oklahoma City rightly notes,

According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded for the continental United States. More than 24,000 record highs were set in the United States alone. Unprecedented and disastrous weather events like Hurricane Sandy are on the increase and are costing the U.S. economy trillions of dollars and hundreds of lives. Of the nine hottest years on record, eight have occurred since 2000.

How the editors could write that "temperatures [have] stopped rising, defying the projections of supposed environmental experts," in the face of actual facts is incredible enough. But that they would then run a letter correcting them is almost unheard of!!

One suspects that this is all just a set-up for the classic point/counter-point letter situation that the paper loves to do. Indeed, it's likely that by Sunday, we will see a flurry of letters-- all written by uneducated laypeople-- noting how climate change is a hoax. That, or the editors really have been abducted, in which case we welcome our new more rationally-minded overlords.

More economic "facts"

The Oklahoman has run a number of incredible letters of late and many of them deserve attention. But for now, let's focus on the one from Mike Jones of Oklahoma City. Titled "Basic facts about our economy" by the editors, it is a litany of things that can hardly be described as "facts" in any real sense. He starts off:

The 40th president inherited an economy worse than the economy inherited by President Barack Obama. Fortunately, No. 40 majored in economics and knew what to do to turn the economy around. Ronald Reagan didn't need graphs, charts or formulas.

OK. So... while I was alive in 1980, I wasn't paying much attention to the economy back then. Still, it's safe to say that by any reasonable measure, the global economic crisis that we saw in 2008 was far worse than what was seen in 1980.

And also, seriously? Yes, Reagan majored in Economics and Sociology. At Eureka College. He GRADUATED IN 1932. That's at the start of the Great Depression. After that, he went into acting. It's hard to imagine that he was keen on economics given that he last studied it 50 years before becoming President.

WHAT THE HELL?!?

And I love the "didn't need graphs, charts or formulas" bit.

Wait. What's that? Oh, never mind.

Anyhow, he goes on:

He understood the most basic and most important fact regarding any nation's economy: Every dollar that passes from a private citizen to a government agency weakens the economy. It doesn't matter if the dollar goes for income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, tariffs, traffic tickets, permits, licenses, fines or whatever. It doesn't matter if the government agency is local, county, state or federal.

That dollar is one less dollar each citizen will spend with our nation's companies. Then, the companies will make fewer sales, will need fewer employees and will pay less income tax. The revenue to the companies and the government will decrease. The citizens and the government will have less money to pay their debts; private and government debt will increase. Sound familiar?

Where do we start here? His simplistic argument is that when the government takes money from people, it's money that people can't spend. But what does he imagine the government is doing with its money? Just sitting on it? Or does the government spend money on salaries for employees, and on things that "our nation's companies" provide, like infrastructure and defense?

More interesting than his misunderstanding of what the government does with its money is the chain of events he constructs:

1) When people spend less, companies make less;
2) Companies that make less need fewer employees;
3) There will be fewer taxes paid to the government and debt will increase;

He asks if it sound familiar-- and IT DOES! But this isn't because of higher taxes!! It's because the economy cam crashing down due to the housing crisis! Our government debt isn't because of some huge tax increase, it's because people are out of work and thus not paying taxes!!

Also, let's be clear: Reagan did cut taxes-- mostly on the the highest income brackets. But he raised taxes, too. As one historian noted, these actions "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime." Thus, it is sort of comical when Mr. Jones writes,

Does this mean that no money should pass from a citizen to his government? Of course not. Governments need money for defense and for the minimum constitutional functions of operating a government. Reagan finally got taxes reduced and the country entered the longest period of peacetime prosperity it's ever known. The quickest way to wreck this prosperity is to increase government spending while simultaneously extracting more money from the private sector to fund the increased government spending. Sound familiar?

Jesus. Defense and the "minimum constitutional functions"? Does that sound odd to anyone else? Like, is defense outside of the constitutional functions of an operating government? Or does it just not need to be "minimum"? He doesn't make that clear, but that's because Mr. Jones is a typical right-wing economic hypocrite. As the Oklahoman has advocated plenty of times, spending money on defense is always good-- it helps the country. But spending on anything else is bad, as it robs citizens of their ability to spend. It's no wonder they ran Jones' letter-- it parrots their own points perfectly. Unfortunately, their own points are as wrong as Mr. Jones'.