The World in 2019

The Economist is a premier magazine which has been published continuously for 175 years now. Each year in December it publishes an issue about the coming year. (Interestingly, their very first issue was released in 1843 just three months before Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, which was also published in London.) This article uses the same title as the new year issue of The Economist.

Happy New Year of the Wild Boar!

As in past years, I begin with reference to the Japanese (and Chinese) zodiac. Following the ancient 12-year cycle, this is the year of the inoshishi in Japan. In English this New Year in East Asia is often called the Year of the Pig, but there is a difference between a buta (a domestic pig) and an inoshishi (wild boar) so I prefer to call it the Year of the Wild Boar.  

In spite of largely negative connotations of “pig” in this country, those born in the Year of the Wild Boar, such as my grandson Carl who turns 12 in 2019, are said to be happy, easygoing, honest, trusting, and brave.

Politics in 2019

The biggest political question in 2019 is the fate of the U.S. President. There seems to be a strong possibility that he will be impeached. However, unless there are irrefutable “crimes and misdemeanors” documented by the Mueller report, he probably will not be removed from office by the Republican-majority Senate.

For quite some time I have thought it quite likely that DJT would resign sometime in 2019. But the credible comment has been made by several that his being in the White House is quite likely the only thing that will keep him from being sent to “the big house” (prison).

Regardless, 2019 promises to be another year of political turmoil. The Economist predicts that the year ahead “is going to be a destructive one in American politics.” That may well be their prediction for the new year most likely to come true.

The Economy in 2019

One of the repeated “predictions” The Economist mentions for 2019 is a financial recession, especially in the U.S.—but a U.S. recession would, of course, have a negative effect on most of the world’s countries.

The editor’s first point in his lead article titled “The World in 2019” is that the economic wind in America is changing and “by the end of the year it could be heading into a recession.” And his second point ends with him saying that “the good times for USA Inc won’t last.”

Sadly, I’m afraid that prediction may also come true.

And in Japan . . .

A new “era” will begin with the enthronement of a new emperor in 2019. I remember well January 8, 1989, when the current era (named Heisei, meaning “achieving peace”) began on the day after the death of Emperor Hirohito.

The year of 2019 by the “Western calendar” will be Heisei 31—and the last year of the current era. Emperor Akihito has announced his abdication of the Chrysanthemum Throne on April 30, and a new era, the name of which is not yet known publicly, will begin on May 1.

Personally . . .

I don’t have any plans for 2019 that involve being away from home, where I am content to be—sleeping in my own bed every night and taking 10-minute naps through the day as needed.

But among other things, I do plan to keep on reading at least a book a week, learning (a day when something new is not learned is a day wasted), thinking, and writing blog articles to share with you, my dear Thinking Friends.

Happy New Year to each of you!

Shameful Coaches and Obscene Salaries

University football coaches have been much in the news recently, and it hasn’t been good news. In fact, it has been downright shameful.

The most widely publicized, of course, is the child-abuse by an assistant coach at Penn State University. The problem, as you know, was not just the abuse of young boys but the lack of preventive or punitive action by the head coach and by the university. Shameful!

And then here in Missouri the arrest of the Missouri University football coach on DUI charges. While certainly not nearly as serious, for a man who is supposed to be a mentor of the young men on his team as well as the larger community to be arrested is a shameful thing also.

But I also find it obscene how most coaches at the major universities are paid such extravagant salaries. A front-page story in the 11/17 USA Today was “Coaches’ pay soars again: Average salary at top schools tops $1.47M.”

In six seasons the average pay for top coaches has increased by nearly 55%—and that in a time of a severe economic recession in society as a whole. The Florida State coach got a raise of around $950,000 last year, after just his first season there. His salary is now $2,750,000.

Thirteen coaches are bringing in salaries of more than three million dollars a year, the highest being the coach at Texas University whose salary is more than $5,000,000!

Part of the problem I see with these exorbitant salaries, is that they are 20-25 times more than the salaries of most university professors, who are doing what a university is supposed to do: teaching students who entered the university to get an education.

I know, a winning sports program not only brings in a lot of money for the university, it also produces a lot of positive publicity for the university. Still . . . .

Speaking of high salaries, many people are now complaining about the high pay for U.S. Congresspersons—and that is probably a legitimate concern. There are now said to be 250 millionaires in Congress, close to 50%. But the salaries of those in Congress don’t come close to being as much as that of football coaches in the major universities across the country.

The pay and long-term benefits of Senators and Representatives may, certainly, be too high. But they are surely not as outrageous as the pay of football coaches. And the men and women in Congress have vastly more important things to make decisions about than, say, whether to go for it on fourth and one. (You football fans will know what that means.)

And those who think Congresspeople trusted with making decisions affecting the well-being of all the citizens of the country as well as the future of the nation are too high surely realize that their pay-scale is modest compared not only to football coaches but also professional athletes, movie stars, TV personalities, and others. (Oprah’s yearly salary is said to be $350M, Dr. Phil’s, $80M, and David Letterman’s, $40M.)

Perhaps it is high time for the USAmerican public to reconsider its priorities. And surely adding a surtax to the income tax of football coaches and other overpaid people in our society is not an outrageous idea.

The Hurting 80%

The Occupy Wall Street protesters divide the country into two groups: the wealthiest 1% and all the rest, the 99%. I question whether that simply bifurcation is the best way to analyze the current financial situation of the people in the U.S. (or any other country).

In criticism of the OWS activities and public appeals, an opposition movement has been started and promoted by fiscal and political conservatives (Tea Party types). They call themselves the 53%—as in the 53% of Americans who pay federal income taxes. And they are making their voices heard on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere as they tout personal responsibility and the work ethic.

I have serious questions about the rhetoric of the 53% people, who speak mainly in opposition to the 47% of the USAmericans who do not pay any income tax. They stress that they, the 53%, are the “righteous” ones, those who are paying the taxes that support the government assistance received by many of the OWS protesters.

As you have probably seen, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in “Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007,” a document released last month, indicates that “after-tax income for the highest-income households grew more than it did for any other group.” That information was hardly a surprise.

(The CBO is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the U.S. government that provides economic data to Congress. It was created as a nonpartisan agency in 1974).

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income in the U.S. grew by:
   * 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
   * 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
   * Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
   * 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

The above summary shows a considerable difference between the top 1% and the next 19%. But still, the latter aren’t hurting all that much. In a previous posting I mentioned the fact that the top 1% possesses 42% of the financial wealth of the nation and the bottom 80% has only 7%. But that means that those who in the 2%-20% bracket hold 51% of the financial wealth on the U.S. So they should be making it all right financially.

(The statistics given above are based primarily on the work of Dr. G. William Domhoff, a research professor at the University of California. Domhoff first published Who Rules America? in 1967, and he has updated that bestselling book several times. Domhoff also presents his updated research on financial power in the U.S. on his website. )

It seems to me our main concern ought not to be directed toward the 99% in opposition to the wealthiest 1%. Rather, if we have any compassion for hurting people, shouldn't we be most concerned for the 80%, including the vast majority of the 47% whose income is so low paying taxes is not required? They are the people in our society who are hurting the most, and people who need help rather than criticism.

What about the OWS Movement?

The Occupy Wall Street movement started more than five weeks ago, on September 17. Beginning in “Liberty Square” in Manhattan’s Financial District, it has now spread to over 200 cities in the United States and to over 1,500 cities worldwide where similar actions are taking place.

Not surprisingly, there have been diverse evaluations of the OWS movement. In general, many Republicans and most conservatives are critical of it; many Democrats and most liberals are supportive.

In talking with one caller early this month, for example, Rush Limbaugh called the people demonstrating with OWS “crazy,” “stupid,” “abject tools,” and “idiots.” Many people on the right would not go that far in maligning those involved in the OWS movement, but they are quite negative about the whole thing.

On the other hand, liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and Nation of Change are highly supportive of the OWS movement and are helping to supply things they need.

Herman Cain seems to be the most outspoken Republican presidential candidate on this issue. About three weeks after the movement started, Cain declared that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are un-American and against capitalism. He also said the protesters shouldn’t rally against Wall Street bankers or brokers because “they’re the ones who create the jobs.”

On Sunday afternoon June and I stopped by the lively Occupy Kansas City group. Ironically, the protesters' meeting/camping spot is just a couple of minutes’ walk from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, where Cain was the chairman of the Board in the mid-1990s.

We talked with several of the people working with Occupy Kansas City. They didn’t seem to fit the description Limbaugh used for people in the OWS movement at all. At the information table we talked with a level-headed young woman who is a professor at the Kansas City Art Institute. At the same table was Melissa, a bright-eyed student from nearby Penn Valley Community College.

At a table close by was Dr. Fred Whitehead (b. 1944), former professor at the University of Kansas School of Medicine and editor of Freethought on the Frontier (1992).

Occupy Kansas City was sponsoring the “Day of Learning” on Sunday. When we were there, two groups, most seated on the ground, were listening to talks about common concerns. The “lectures” were low-key, sounding like what you would hear in a college classroom. They were anything but rabble-rousing.

As seems to be true for the OWS movement nationwide, there is not yet a clear focus concerning the goals of Occupy Kansas City. Some of the people we talked with, such as the semi-homeless woman with three children, were there out of frustration. She has tried hard for years, but is having a hard time finding work that pays a living wage.

At the very least, it seems that the majority of the people participating in the OWS movement want “economic justice,” which includes some adjustment in the current economic structure of the country that allows the top 1% of the population to possess 43% of the financial wealth of the nation and the bottom 80% to have only 7%.

Because of that disparity, and the continuing high rate of unemployment and personal debt, the OWS movement is probably going to be around for quite some time. And the people involved in the movement need support and understanding far more than criticism.

And, then, there is this poster to consider:

“Get the Government Off Our Backs!”

The separation of church and state is a long-standing and much-appreciated (by many, including me) principle in the United States. To be sure, there are some who criticize that principle, often because they don’t understand its true meaning.

Recently I learned that there are also people who advocate the separation of economics and state. Just as the principle of separation of church and state means, among other things, that the state should have no control over religious institutions and activities, the separation of economics and state means primarily that the state should have no control over economic/financial activities.

This seems to be the position of the people in our society, most clearly represented by the Tea Party, who keep exclaiming “get the government off our backs!” It is mainly the federal government they are talking about, and their specific opposition is to taxes and government controls/regulations on anything related to economic matters.

The call for separation of economics and state was a strongly-held position of Russian-American novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, who has gained a remarkable number of followers through the years. Her name has been heard often this year.

Rand is well known partly because of her two bestselling novels The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) and for the philosophical system she called Objectivism.

I have to admit that I have not read Rand’s novels, and I certainly have not taken the time to listen to the 63-hour (!) “audible audio edition” of her 1957 novel.

But I have read enough about them, and her philosophy, to know her key ideas. And recently June and I watched the movie “The Fountainhead” (1949), for which Rand wrote the screenplay. The next evening we watched the biographical documentary “Ayn Rand: In Her Own Words” (2011).

And then we watched the movie “The Passion of Ayn Rand”(1999), featuring Helen Mirren as Rand and based on the book by Barbara Branden, wife of the young man with whom Rand had a lengthy affair.

The Ayn Rand Center (ARC) is the public policy and outreach division of the Ayn Rand Institute. According to their website, “The Center’s mission is to advance individual rights (the rights of each person to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) as the moral basis for a fully free, laissez-faire capitalist society.”

This idea of “a fully free, laissez-faire capitalist society” necessitates the separation of economics and the state (government). Such separation may be good (financially beneficial) for people in business and for those who have money (capital). It is not so good for people who are poor, needing help in securing the basic necessities of life.

Since Ayn Rand was an outspoken advocate of selfishness and opponent of altruism, it is disheartening to see how now there are so many, including some top politicians (Congresspersons), who openly advocate her philosophy.

For example, Representative Paul Ryan reportedly requires his staffers to read Atlas Shrugged and calls Rand “the reason I got involved in public service.”

Doesn’t that kind of thinking lead not only to the separation of economics and state but also, sadly, to the separation of compassion and state?

The Land of the Free

It was Francis Scott Key, as most of you know, who penned the words to “The Star Spangled Banner,” our national anthem. What you may not know is that it was eighty years ago this week, on March 3, 1931, that Key’s composition officially became the national anthem.

Key (1779-1843) was a lawyer and amateur poet, and his poem written in 1814 was first titled “The Defence of Fort McHenry.” (It is interesting to note that the British spelling of defense was still used.)

During the War of 1812, which did not end until February 1815, Key watched the bombarding of the American forces at Fort McHenry during the Battle of Baltimore. The next morning, September 14, 1814, Key was able to see a large American flag still flying above the besieged fort. That was his inspiration for the poem. (It is also interesting to note that Key’s poem was set to the tune of a British drinking song, which was popular in the United States at the time.)

It was on March 3, 1931, then, that “The Star-Spangled Banner,” Key’s re-named poem, was made the national anthem by a congressional resolution and subsequently signed by President Herbert Hoover.

Although we don’t usually hear more than the first verse of the national anthem, all four verses end with the words about the flag flying “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Those are words that most Americans like, and for good reason.

It recently dawned on me, however, that at the time Key wrote those words, there was a large segment of the people living in the United States who were not free. In 1810 there were more than one million (!) slaves in the United States and more than 110,000 in Maryland where Key wrote his famous words about the “land of the free.”

At that time in American history, women did not have complete political freedom either, as they did not have the right to vote. And even though Key extolled the “land of the free” it was more than a century later before women were free to vote.

Of course, by 1931, thankfully, slavery had become a thing of the past (even though racism was still deeply embedded in the country) and women had gained the right to vote (a whole 10½ years earlier).

But is this the land of the free now? Certainly, for most of us. But still there are problems.

The well-known words on the Statue of Liberty contain this appealing invitation, “Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Probably most of those who came to this country from Europe, as did the ancestors of many of us, came for economic freedom rather than for political or religious freedom. That was the case for the Neigers and the Abplanalps from Switzerland, my ancestors who most recently came to this country.

But now within our society there is considerable animosity toward people who recently came to this country for economic reasons, especially, of course, toward those who came "without papers." But that animosity extends even to their children who had no choice in the matter, as seen in the defeat of the DREAM act in the U.S. Senate last December. 

The next time we sing about the land of the free, perhaps that should help us to be more sympathetic towards others who now want to enjoy the same freedom that so many of our ancestors came to this country to have.