Americans believe the economy is in a recession. But is it true?
Just how bad is the U.S. economy? Who's asking? More important, who's answering?
The conventional wisdom is not always wrong. But because it depends so much on emotion, it can often mislead. As a result, it is in times like these that economic fundamentals become so important. Rather than dwelling on the bad news coming from the financial and housing sectors, we believe it is important to look at the underlying drivers of the economy. And those look very solid.
Back in 2002-03, the household measure of civilian employment was much stronger than the payroll survey, signaling economic recovery. However, at the time, many prominent economists, including Alan Greenspan, (wrongly) argued that the payroll survey was right about the economy, not the household survey.
Then, in late 2007, the household survey was weaker than payroll growth, signaling slower growth and gaining some adherents now that it was showing weakness. But in the past few months, the household survey -- which we have followed closely all along -- has turned up strongly. In the first four months of 2008, when the payrolls survey shows a loss of 65,000 jobs per month, the household survey shows a gain of 179,000 per month.
Look for more positive economic data in the months ahead, as the most predicted recession in U.S. history never comes to pass.
As of spring 2008, we're probably just a third of the way through the unfolding debacle in the housing, credit, and financial markets. In political and regulatory terms, the ultimate problems and remedies have only begun to define themselves.
We're not just looking at an ordinary recession. Since the 1970s, the United States has redefined itself from a manufacturing nation to a financial economy built on debt, leverage, and a considerable ratio of speculation. Both political parties have been complicit in this, and the downturn now beginning will be unusual and potentially tragic.
The lesson of history is that previous leading world economic powers, from Rome and Imperial Spain to the Netherlands (back when New York was New Amsterdam) and early 20th-century Britain, have been unable to reform themselves in time to avoid decline. Politics has failed in the face of entrenched interests. In the process, excessive debt and dependence on finance rather than production has been front and center. New nations move to the head of the line -- and these days we can see Asia smiling.
William Lynd is scheduled to be executed for murder.
If all goes as planned, Georgia will execute William Lynd tonight for the crime of killing his girlfriend in 1988.
Retribution is the goal of restoring the scales of moral justice to balance as possible.
What, then, is the proper retribution for murder? As death penalty opponents are so fond of saying, “Executing the murderer will not bring his victim back to life.” That, of course, is true. It’s just as true, however, that giving him LIPWTPP will also fail to accomplish a resurrection. And that’s the point. There is simply nothing the murderer can do to truly restore the social fabric to the status quo ante for the obvious reason that there is no way to replace missing people. Nonetheless, as history and the Bible so clearly have held, blood alone can atone for shed blood. By requiring his life of him, we make him pay the only correct price and force him to fully pay it. This balances both the moral fabric as well as the murderer’s personal register.
Once we comprehend this distinction between murder and all other crimes (which can be restituted for), it should be clear that retribution not only justifies execution, it requires it. Execution is the only correct penalty-in-kind for murder, and retribution is the only value so far analyzed which justifies taking this most precious of payments from someone.
With several more executions lined up in death-penalty states across the country, it is important to once again focus the debate on the stark reality that the death penalty extinguishes the lives of breathing, joking, flawed and thoroughly human beings. Even if the means of taking those lives were as gentle as touching the forehead of the condemned, the ultimate challenge to our humanity would be just as vivid as a gallows, a guillotine or a firing squad.
Methods of execution that force us to confront the brutality of what we are doing more honestly express both society's rage against crime and the brutality of its consequences. For instance, there was the misery of Allen Lee "Tiny" Davis's execution in a Florida electric chair, when blood poured from his head and his contorted face could be seen through the poorly fitted mask as he struggled to stay alive, breathing ten breaths after the electricity stopped. Or the flames that sometimes shoot from the orifices of people in the electric chair. Or the extended "cut down" procedures necessary for inmates with bad veins who are being killed by lethal injection. Or the humiliating bowel releases of people hanged in the public square.
As our country resumes executions following the Baze decision, we must be mindful of the fact that extinguishing the life of a healthy person who wants to live cannot be done without violence. Whether William Lynd is led kicking and screaming to the gallows in a public square or goes to his death quietly, without any expression of pain as he succumbs to the poison flowing unseen in his bloodstream--he has not died peacefully. And we should know that--no matter the manner of execution--he never will.
Easy to borrow. Easy to pay off?
Payday loans are supposed to help borrowers out of short-term cash crunches. Often, though, they end up miring workers in insurmountable long-term debt. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both criticized payday loan companies and suggested they would crack down on the industry if elected president. And now the South Carolina General Assembly is considering legislation to greatly restrict lenders.
Fed up with politicians incapable of balancing budgets? Well, now state legislatures across the country want to take a crack at balancing your checkbook – whether you like it or not.
Paternalism – the idea that government must take care of adults because they aren't able to do so themselves – is the ideology behind the wave of politicians determined to limit how much and how often Americans can borrow money. By putting stringent restrictions on borrowing, these politicians would effectively ban the practice of short-term "payday" lending, no matter how many people use it responsibly in times of crisis.
For those who enjoy access to high lines of credit, these short-term loans – which essentially let customers borrow cash from their next paycheck – may be a bad deal. But many of the less prosperous don't have such attractive alternatives to the kind of loans that politicians like to demonize.
Sometimes there's no way to put a gloss on what things really are. And payday loans aren't a needed financial service; they're a ridiculously high-rate product aimed at desperate people.
The industry denies this, and with an attack-dog public relations firm goes after its critics. The only people who oppose payday lenders, they argue, are consumer groups and elitists, who don't understand how hard it is for ordinary folks to find a small loan when their car breaks down or they can't pay a bill.
Fair enough. But it's also been proven, time and time again, that these ordinary folks don't go to the payday lenders for a one-time problem, and then move on. Nearly all payday users are repeat customers, often paying 400 percent interest or more on loans that they roll over again and again, piling up more in fees and interest charges each time.
If you ignore the industry rhetoric and talk to people who use the lenders, they always tell you they never intended to keep coming back for more loans. They ran short one time, and when they were due to pay back the loan two weeks later, they owed so much in fees it made sense to take out another loan. And another. And another. And then they were stuck.
Can anybody win this thing?
Indiana and North Carolina go to the polls today -- but nobody is expecting a clean answer to the (perhaps unanswerable) question: Who will be the Democratic Party's nominee for president? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Can anybody land a knockout blow in this thing?
A couple of related predictions:
1) If Hillary wins by double digits in Indiana and squeaks out a victory in North Carolina, she will give the Democratic super-delegates much to ponder. Pat Caddell observed after the Lioness’ most recent victories, “The nomination process is not a suicide pact.” Caddell can't be the only Democratic poobah harboring such sentiments.
2) If the super-delegates do take a fresh look at Hillary while simultaneously deciding that Obama is too weak a candidate to take a flyer on in a year that should be a slam dunk for the Democratic party, Hillary's strange new respect from the right will have a life expectancy best measured in hours as opposed to weeks or months
At this crucial moment, the Democratic presidential battle is an enigma wrapped in two ironies.
The first: Hillary Clinton found a compelling voice and a plausible strategy only after she had squandered her chances of winning the nomination without a divisive struggle over superdelegates and convention rules. It took a series of defeats to galvanize her campaign and help her put forward a better self.
The second: Clinton’s embrace of a gas tax holiday has endowed Barack Obama with a sense of purpose and a burst of energy at precisely the moment when his battered campaign seemed lethargic and reactive. Standing up to a proposal that even Clinton supporters see as pandering has allowed Obama to revisit his most successful days as a fresh voice uninhibited by Washington’s habits.
The old, inspiring Obama was clearly capable of beating the old, overconfident Clinton. The pugilistic Clinton turned the recently listless Obama into a pushover. But a contest between the old Obama and the new Clinton is a fair fight. It’s too bad only a few states are left to see it.
Links to Rocky Mountain News RSS feeds.
