Maxximilian Seijo's Blog

July 17th, 2014. A Day to Ponder.

2014-07-18T16:00:00.001-04:00

July 17th, 2014. It was a day of incomprehensible sorrow. Malaysian airlines flight 17 was shot down. The Israeli invasion of Gaza will kill many. Men. Women. Children. All dying. Indiscriminate killing—the kind of psychotic behavior that gives you a knot in your stomach. The behavior that causes you to embrace your family with honesty. It makes every word immeasurably more meaningful. “I love you.” Our voice will be deeper, interwoven with a touch of worry. worry.

We think to ourself, “What makes people do such horrifying things?” “Why must people perpetuate suffering?” “What makes me better?” “Why?”

We will never know how the future would have greeted the people aboard MH17. How many people they would have touched, hurt, and loved. We will never know what kind of life the dead children of Gaza would have lived. Where they would have traveled. How often they would have cried. We might never know why people do what they do, but we still feel. We feel the loss as though we knew the victims of these crimes. In a way, we do know them. We are human. We are alive. We feel. We hurt. We see ourselves in them.

Odds are that tomorrow will be better. The sun will rise, and wipe away the pain. Most people will move on with their lives. Most people.

Inflation of College Tuition Costs

2014-07-12T00:01:00.001-04:00

College tuition costs in the United States have gone up more than 500% since 1985. As can be seen in the chart, the inflation of college tuition has outpaced medical costs, housing, fossil fuels, and the consumer price index (CPI)—the general goods and services inflation index.

College education affordability encapsulates a multitude of complexities that needs to be understood before definitive reasons for tuition growth can be evaluated. However, with that being said, there is one main reason I’d like to highlight that is partially responsible for the recent raises in college tuition rates.

Decreased state and local funding for college education.

When the recession hit, state/local funding for universities was one of the first sectors of the budget that state legislatures cut. According to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report released last month, states are spending on average 23% less on every student compared to pre-recession funding levels (Adjusted for inflation).

Now as basic economics dictate, the costs in lost revenue (funding) are predictably passed on to the consumer, which of course is the student. Now if the university financing was in a pure economic system—which for the purposes of this explanation is a free market—the nearly 200% increase in tuition rates would cause less people to attend universities, which would in theory force universities to be more efficient so that they could lower tuition prices and attract more “customers” (students).

But, this pure economic system doesn’t exist—and if it were to, it would likely cause a class divide of prospective students, where the affluent could afford college and the poor could not, thus reenforcing present day economic inequality with even more educational inequality. As well, the market wouldn’t move at the speed needed and we would end up with fewer college students, which as a whole isn’t advantageous in a globalized and competitive economy.

Source: New York Fed

The question must then be asked, what stopped the inevitable decrease in overall college attendance? The federal government. The feds directly subsidize college tuition via grants, and student loans. In 2010, Obama signed a bill that expanded student access to federal pell grants. And since 2005 total student loan debt has more than doubled. Most would agree that pell grants are good policy, but when the government artificially props up university attendance through loans, the universities—and states—have no immediate reason to make college actually affordable, because they know that the federal government will pick up the tab, and the students will keep coming.

There is a specific hypocrisy that is present in the debate over both college tuition inflation, and CPI inflation. In 2011 Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) cut $250 million dollars from the University of Wisconsin education system. That comes out to a 21% cut in total UW funding, of which a lot of the increase cost ended up with students. Essentially what Governor Walker did is cause the inflation of tuition costs through the reduction of the subsidization of higher education.

The hypocrisy doesn’t lay directly with Scott Walker, but more with his big business supporters. The Koch brothers’ organizations have famously supported Governor Walker with endless campaign donations and are a campaign finance force inside the republican party. As has been so artfully demonstrated in Daniel Schulman’s book: Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America’s Most Powerful and Private Dynasty, the Koch brothers are resound proponents of practically completely free market enterprise. Which is an an economic wing that opposes loose money policies like the current quantitative easing being utilized by the federal reserve. The Koch brothers even wrote in an email to their employees warning about “runaway inflation”.

As can be seen in the first chart above, the only inflation that is “running away uncontrollably” is the inflation of tuition costs, partially due to cuts that they support and contributed to. Now, I’d like to present an alternative reason why they don’t care about tuition inflation, but do seem to care about CPI inflation. Tuition inflation affects the lesser priviledged among us more than it does the affluent. Even with tuition hikes, the upper class still won’t have a problem affording the best schools around. While, tuition hikes saddle more and more middle class students with student loan debt that can hinder their economic future.

You want to know what does affect the affluent? CPI inflation. If “runaway inflation” were to occur, the US economy would collapse as the Weimar Republic’s did. There’s no need to worry about that sort of inflation nowadays, but I think this insight can give a peak into the logic of people like the Koch brothers. The reason why they care about CPI inflation, and not tuition inflation is because they are looking out for their interests, and to hell with yours.

Amazon doesn't care, Writers and Consumers Beware

2014-05-26T21:52:00.000-04:00

David Streitfeld’s article in today’s New York Times entitled, “Writers Feel an Amazon-Hachette Spat” uncovers the repulsive negotiating tactics Amazon has utilized against the New York publishing company Hachette Book Group.

“Among Amazon’s tactics against Hachette, some of which it has been employing for months, are charging more for its books and suggesting that readers might enjoy instead a book from another author. If customers for some reason persist and buy a Hachette book anyway, Amazon is saying it will take weeks to deliver it.”

These tactics have affected a wide variety of writers from famed non-fiction writer Malcolm Gladwell, to science fiction writer Michael J. Sullivan, to author Marla Heller whose diet book was in Amazon’s top 300 at the beginning of the spat between the two companies; the book is now in the top 3000. Streitfeld says, “The Authors Guild said it had received about 15 complaints Friday from Hachette authors involving more than 150 titles.”

The tactics used by Amazon are not just repulsive, but clear evidence of the dominance that Amazon has on the market. This ordeal has clearly shown that Amazon won’t hesitate to harm their sellers, or consumers if the result is a benefit in their bottom line. I wonder if Jeff Bezos thought about the harm that such actions would do before his company lashed out at these writers? No matter what the answer is to the question, we have a serious problem on our hands.

That’s not to say that Hachette isn’t being stubborn, or unrealistic in their demands; for all we know the negotiating situation could be completely Hachette’s fault. Even still though, I think the important thing to recognize in this situation is that Amazon has availed themselves as a company that is okay with a bit of collateral damage—as long as their bottom line is sound.

This is something that writers should pay attention to because their potential success could be on the line. Writers spend years of their lives creating a book, and in publishing, timing is of huge importance. Don’t use Walmart-esque tactics against writers and consumers to get your way. Actions like this could could easily doom the sales of a title and undermine a writer’s ability to make a living in an already tenuous literary market.

I suppose the reaction that I have towards this story is born out of a fear for the future. If there is no legal recourse for these writers, then what’s to stop Amazon from doing this again? I suppose pressure from consumers is the only option, but with Amazon’s current market share, I don’t see a consumer backlash coming to fruition.

With as much innovation that Silicon Valley has produced, I wonder if in the end, it will be consumed by the same forces of greed and indifference that have so plagued capitalism. Until I start to see a trend in the opposite direction, I fear that we will have another Wall Street to contend with. But, instead of a expensive Armani suit, it’ll be jeans and a pullover.

What Inflation Hawkery Teaches Us About Journalism

2014-05-26T21:43:00.000-04:00

Tuesday, Matt O’Brien, Economics writer at the Washington Post’s wonkblog, wrote a piece entitled, “There’s still no reason to be afraid of the inflation monster”. In the piece he lays out how the inflation hawks have been eagerly searching for evidence of the “inevitable” inflation monster that will wipe out wealth in the US.

O’Brien says:

“First, it was the national debt and the Fed’s bond-buying that were supposed to bring us back to 1970s America, if not 1920s Germany. Then, when that turned out to be wrong, it was only supposed to be a matter of time until it was right — if it wasn’t already, and government bureaucrats were just hiding it! But now, with PCE inflation at 1.1 percent, even the most diehard inflation hawks realize they need a new story. So, worrying about rising prices is out. Instead, worrying about rising wages is in.”

He goes on to talk about how a Monday Wall Street Journal piece lacks evidential basis for its claims about building wage pressure, and that the piece even acknowledges its own lack of evidence to back up its claims.

It would appear to me, that the sort of inflation hawkery that O’Brien is thoroughly and rightfully ridiculing, is emblematic of a broader issue in journalism. Not letting the data be the sole director of an analytical deconstruction, but rather looking for data that reaffirms a fundamental belief. When one looks for data to verify a preconceived notion about a policy, they pigeon hole themselves into only finding things that concur with their preconceived notions. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. They will at times even ignore the most glaring of red flags. It’s punditry, not journalism.

The best example of this is Lara Logan’s 60 minutes piece on the Benghazi attack. Joe Hagan’s feature in this week’s NY Mag profiles Logan, and chronicles the debacle. According to Hagan’s reporting, when Logan was asked whether Dylan Davies—the report’s main source who was later proved to have lied about his account of incident—was believable. She said that Davies was one of the “best guys you’ll ever meet”. Whether she blinded herself to the idea that Davies was lying because of the trust that she built with servicemen and contractors like him throughout her years in Iraq and Afghanistan, or because she innately believed that the Obama Administration’s response to the terror attack was inadequate, the fact of the matter is, that she was blinded because of unverified preconceived notions brought into the reporting process.

The problem isn’t necessarily that journalists are biased, because we all think things, especially when we spend so much of our time participating in an 24 hour environment of dialogue. The problem is when those thoughts, whether through a feeling of righteousness, or self-worth, become bigger than the fact-finding impulse within ourselves. The yearning for truth, and not validation of a truth that you project on the world. That is the true meaning of journalism.

Love, Charlie Chaplin and a New Wave Forward

2014-05-26T21:35:00.001-04:00

Before you read on, you must listen to this speech given by Charlie Chaplin in the 1940 film, The Great Dictator.

Silence. That’s the reaction I had when I first heard the culmination of his words. What did I just listen to? The fast paced nature of his communicatory style left me analyzing his words as a big mass of ever-present truth. He almost bounces elements of truth from one intellectual plain to another. Bouncing back and forth until the friction between his words evolve into something moving. Evolve into something so close, yet so far.

Even 74 years on, I feel that he was talking to me. He died in 1977. I was born in 1992. He had no incling of my existence. But yet he did. He wasn’t just speaking to me. He was speaking to all of us. Everyone who has, and will ever live. He manages to break time, and provide a forward looking perspective that will give all humans—past and present—hope in their despair. A sort of human despair that might always be. Maybe we will never be able to eliminate injustice, but why not try. I see beauty in his possible ignorance. The hope that love and kindness will chart the ultimate path.

As an american, it’s easy to look at Charlie Chaplin and practically idealize the beauty of his speech. What’s harder to fathom is why we kicked him out of our country. In 1952, Charlie Chaplin was banished from the US, likely for his progressive ideals that some saw as Marxist. He was no where near a perfect man. I am nowhere near perfect. You are nowhere near perfect. We are all flawed. That is the nature of humanity. But, humanity consists of other things too. Love. Something so innately human, and so powerful. Call me ignorant. Call me an idealistic. I won’t give up on love. With regards to Charlie, my last question is. As Americans, who are we kicking out now?

The Reimagined Hobby Lobby Case, The Danger of Undermining American Law

2014-04-10T20:48:00.002-04:00

On Tuesday March 25th, the Supreme Court heard arguments on Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, a highly anticipated case regarding the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate—which requires for-profit companies to offer insurance plans that pay for contraceptives.

Hobby Lobby is owned by the Green family, devoted Southern Baptists who don’t believe in contraception. In the case, Hobby Lobby is arguing that the contraception mandate violates their 1st amendment rights—because don’t forget corporations are people—by making them pay for their employee’s contraception; which goes against the Green family’s religious beliefs.

The arguments seemed to play out as predicted. The four liberal justices, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer, will likely side with Sebelius. The four conservative justices, Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas, will likely side with Hobby Lobby. That leaves Kennedy, the swing justice who as predicted, could go either way. With the possibility of the court siding with Hobby Lobby, I would like to portrait an alternate vision.

Let’s suppose that instead of the challenger being Hobby Lobby, it was Furniture World. A furniture company that has 150 stores across the country. As well, let’s suppose that instead of the Green family, we had the Kazim family; who are descendants of Saudi Arabian immigrants. The third and final supposition we are going to make, is that instead of the contraception mandate, the Kazims are challenging the ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act). The Kazim family believes that the ENDA violates their religious beliefs because it mandates the treatment of Men and Women as equals, which isn’t in accordance with their faith. They are petitioning the court to declare the ENDA unconstitutional due to the previously stated percieved 1st amendment violations.

For the conservatives on the court, it would be one thing to rule on the side of Hobby Lobby because they truly believe that laws that infringe on all people’s religious rights should be done away with. However, I don’t believe that to be the case. Is there any doubt, that if the Greens were instead the Kazims, that the conservatives on the court would vehemently oppose the challenger’s argument? The case would have likely have been handled in the lower courts, and not even made it to the highest court in the land. I believe that the conservatives support Hobby Lobby’s case, because they can identify with the Greens’ beliefs—which run in line with hyper-conservative platform. This presents a judicial hypocrisy, and contributes to the right wing idea that America is a Christian nation; a notion that directly contradicts the establishment clause of the constitution. The court as a institution cannot favor a particular creed in such an obvious manner. If this bias persists, the Supreme Court will start to lose its credibility as the impartial court of last resort.

These two cases—one fictional, and one factual—can be interpreted to be of the same judicial vein. Which is to say, that if the Supreme Court allows Hobby Lobby an exemption from the contraception mandate, then they would also have to allow Furniture World to have a similar exemption.

If the court sides with Hobby Lobby, they could undermine the effectiveness of laws that infringe on a company’s owner’s religious beliefs. Religious beliefs that—under American law—are undefinable. We can’t say that someone’s beliefs aren’t religious as that would violate the 1st amendment. In essence, religious belief can be any belief, no matter how radical.

Typically I find the slippery slope argument to be logically lazy, but when it comes to judicial jurisprudence, precedent is what matters. And when blind adherence to precedent exists, the slopes can get icy.

Vox Interview with Susan Crawford Explored

2014-03-31T22:25:00.002-04:00

Today, Ezra Klein—Editor & Chief at vox.com—sat down with Susan Crawford, author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age. The main theme was whether or not the there should be a public option for the internet. It was a truly enlightening conversation, and I would highly recommend giving it a watch.

In the interview they wrangled with various important topics. For example, how a 1GB per second fiber telecom infrastructure could be a platform for the next economy, or how the current telecom monopolies like Comcast and Time Warner are diminishing America's overall internet accessibility, and how a lack of competition in the telecom industry is causing America's rank in internet speed to drop to 28th worldwide. However, the one thing I feel was left out was how faster internet speeds will increase productivity.

Even just from an anecdotal perspective, it would make sense that with faster internet comes at least a marginal increase in productivity. This doesn't even account for enhancements in technology based in a fiber infrastructure that will allow us to be more innovative and efficient. Imagine sitting down at your desk, and everything works 100 times faster. The fact of the matter is, if we have faster internet speeds, we will get more done.

A public option for the internet is truly a great idea. The critics will call it socialism, and a "Government takeover of the internet", but let's not forget who invented the internet in the first place. The importance of enhancing our broadband capabilities cannot be understated. Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner be warned, because I foresee anti-trust laws coming your way.

The Joy and Pain of Words

2014-03-30T16:19:00.000-04:00

I pour a jar of ink onto the paper. As the ink flows through the tiny channels and grooves, it starts to gather itself in a semi-coherent manner. As time goes by, it becomes more structured, more intelligable. It’s working its way towards becoming a work of art; a piece of literature that is defined by its creator.

Writing.

Sometimes I wonder whether in the pouring of a jar of ink, I would accomplish more than if I were to meticulously write for hours. What is the difference? I suppose the answer depends on one’s response to another question.

Are people reading what I write?

I—probaly like almost every other writer—want to be heard. It’s funny when you think about it. What makes me so important that I should be heard, and not the thousands of other budding writers? Do I reveal my arrogance in wanting to be heard? So many questions, but too few answers. And so is life.

I can’t be the only writer who looks at the stats section of his/her blog, to doubt the entirety of their existence. (At least I hope not.) If practically no one reads what I write, then why do I do it? Is it because of a naive hope that someday everybody is going to realize that I’m awesome? What about retirement? But I digress…

I really don’t like writing, but as the great Maya Angelou said, “There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”

I don’t want to write. I’d much rather be a software developer, or small business owner. It certainly would be a more comfortable life, but do people on their deathbed regret not having lived a more comfortable life?

I need to write, but not in some high and mighty sense of endowment or clairvoyance. I need to write for myself. Pouring a jar of ink on a blank sheet of paper provides no hope.

Hope, the last step on the road to despair or salvation.

I must persevere. I must keep writing. For breaking the silence, is the first step to a life of meaning.

The United States & Germany, A Tale of Two Economic Powers

2014-03-30T16:13:00.002-04:00

Germany. It’s a nation of undulation. The rolling hills of a traditional European countryside can incite wonder into the previously unfamiliar. The mix of metropolitan modernity, and rural monarchical beauty, is quintessentially European. It’s a place where history—good, and very bad—intersects with the optimism of scientific and technological exploration.

As an American, it’s quite foreign to me. The cultural and legal intricacies employed to help furnish a better nation, can at a first glance, be puzzling. However, when I dug deeper, I began to see the adeptness that has made Germany the economic capital of Europe. I began to see a culture of bold practicality.

German Conservatism vs. American Conservatism

The immigration debate is a contentious issue in the European Union. In February, Switzerland passed a referendum mandating the cap of net immigration into their country, which has sparked controversy.

In Germany in 2012, there was a net gain in immigration by 370,000 people. To give some context, the population of Germany in 2012 was 81.917 million. That puts the yearly increase in immigration at 0.45%, which doesn’t seem like too much, but conservative Germans worry that if this migration rate is maintained, purely immigration related population expansion will cause a more than 3% increase in the overall population by 2020.

The argument is less if the population expansion will happen, but more along the lines of if that population expansion is a good thing? German conservatives argue that an increase in population will result in an increase of the workforce, which in turn will lower wages. They also worry that an increase in the demographically poorer migrants will result in too heavy a burden on the welfare state, which already consumes 57% of Germany’s annual total expenditures.

The German conservative position isn’t necessarily actionably true. Many studies show that immigration can help economies rather than hinder them, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make. The point is that German conservatives are making an economic argument against immigration, and not a cultural one.

The German conservative position on immigration comes from a completely different place than the American Conservative opposition to immigration. The American position can most evidentially be demonstrated by the controversial Coca- Cola Super Bowl commercial, in which people of all different ethnicities sang America the Beautiful. The commercial drew backlash from conservatives; former Congressman Allen West called it, “Truly disturbing”. Some might say that this is only the fringe element of the conservative opposition to immigration, but I’ve lived in Florida long enough to know that it really isn’t.

The backbone of the American opposition to immigration is cultural identity. It’s the longing for a nation that demographically stands still. However, the people throughout history who have taken this point of view have always been proven wrong, because America is, and always will be, a nation of immigrants.

The difference between American conservatives and German ones is that German conservatives think practically, and American conservatives think in terms of ideology—and politically, practicality will always get you further.

The Intertwining of the Poor, and a Progressive Recycling Policy

Since 1991, the recycling policy in Germany has stayed relatively the same. Over the years there have been stricter rules enforced, but the general application of the program has been quite uniform.

How it works is, when one buys a glass, plastic, or metal food or drink container, he pays a fee that is used as collateral for every recyclable item—in German this is called a “Pfand”. This fee typically ranges from 0.08 € to 0.50 € and is collected by the seller of the goods. When one brings back the empty bottle they purchased, they feed it into a machine that scans it and prints out a ticket that they can redeem for cash, or put towards their next purchase. Traditionally, what people do is bring back all of their empty bottles when they do their weekly grocery shopping, however this isn’t always the case, sometimes people forget to do this and throw their item away, or after parties and sporting events just throw it on the ground. This causes one of the most interesting social phenomenon I have witnessed.

An estimated 0.4% of the German population is homeless, which when compared to the US’ abysmal 0.6% isn’t terribly great. However, there is a major difference in the standard of living of the German and American homeless—next I will explain one of the reasons why.

When walking the streets of, let’s say Stuttgart—which is where I lived in Germany—I constantly saw homeless people looking in trashcans, and picking up any glass or plastic bottles off the floor. At first it didn’t seem all that unusual, but then I started to seem them opening locked underground trashcans—the sort that are fixed to the ground, in which the trash falls straight into an underground reservoir—and that got me curious.

I started asking locals what they thought about it, and the most common reaction was that they thought it was a good thing. One told me, “We are basically paying an army of homeless people to clean up our streets.” At this moment, I saw the genius of it. The “Pfand” was a lazy-tax. It directly redistributed money from the more well off, or middle-class, straight to the underprivileged, but only from the people that decided that the 0.25 € wasn’t worth taking the bottle back to the store for. It is essentially an opt-in tax that pays the homeless to clean the streets of litter. Nobody loses.

If the US were to pass a law that developed a recycling plan like Germany’s, it would reduce poverty, and help ensure that the streets of the US are as clean as some of Europe’s best.

Maternity Leave

In the United States, there is no federally mandated paid maternity leave. There is only The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which allow mothers to take 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave.

In Germany, mothers are allowed to take 14 weeks of fully paid maternity leave, and up to a full year of 60% paid maternity leave without the fear of losing their job. This program is federally funded and thus doesn’t do any harm to employers.

A paper published by the Columbia Population Research Center at Columbia University entitled, “The Effects of Maternity Leave on Children’s Birth and Infant Health Outcomes in the United States”, says this about paid maternity leave:

“High female labor force participation rates in the United States call attention to the importance of maternity leave policies. Unlike men, women who have children must take at least some time off from working during childbirth. Hence policies that ensure their job security during this time period are crucial for women’s careers, health, and overall well-being. These benefits alone provide support for the enactment and continuation of maternity leave policies in this country.”

It goes on to say:

“Thus, if policymakers are concerned with decreasing disparities in child health and well-being between children of different backgrounds, they need to consider the fact that an unpaid maternity leave policy may actually increase disparities because it only benefits those mothers who can afford to take it. On the other hand, paid maternity leave policies (such as those in California and New Jersey) may allow poor, single and working mothers to care for their newborn children at home, to seek prompt medical care when needed, and to develop a closer bond with them, thereby saving their lives and improving their life chances from the start.”

This research makes the case for paid maternity leave. It essentially states that if we had maternity leave laws like many other wealthy nations do, then there would be a decrease in the infant mortality rate—specifically in underprivileged communities. How in America can we be so far behind on such a simple issue?

Infrastructure Development

I recently visited Germany for the first time since I moved back to America in late 2011, and the first thing that I noticed was the amount of new infrastructure development. I would walk around a street corner and see a brand new, magnificently modern building that wasn’t there just 3 years ago. There was construction everywhere, a new building here, a new train line there and a big 10- year project to revamp the main train station in downtown Stuttgart. I said to myself, “This is what a vibrant economy looks like!”

In America in 2011, there was a public/private infrastructure bill that would have approved roughly $60 billion in new infrastructure spending. It would have gone towards things like roads, bridges and rail transportation. At the time it seemed like a common sense bill that was widely supported by the American people. Unfortunately though, the bill failed in the Senate with a vote of 51 fore, and 49 against—which seems odd I know, but that’s how the Senate works nowadays.

If congress could get its act together and pass an infrastructure bill, we could start the process of rebuilding our ailing infrastructure. Maybe then, we could start recapturing the economic prowess we once had.

The Police

In 2011, the German Police only fired 85 rounds of ammunition in the entire year. Meanwhile in America, that count was eclipsed in one incident in Los Angeles when the police fired 90 rounds at a fleeing unarmed man.

I had an experience in Germany that anecdotally summed up the difference between the American and German police forces. I was standing in a popular square in Stuttgart, when I saw three police officers walking quickly past. My first thought was that they may be looking for someone, but it turned out they were just getting in line at the crêpe stand. They stood in line and got their crêpes while chatting. I got the feeling that they weren’t worried, the feeling that they were just enjoying there lunch break.

Whether the difference explained above has to do with the prevalence of guns in America, doesn’t matter, because the guns aren’t going anywhere for the time being. What matters is that Americans start to realize that the fear that our police experience, so we can help officers of the law do their jobs in a more effective manner.

Conclusion

America and Germany are both thriving economies, but we as Americans should learn from the workable policies implemented by Germany. We cannot be stubborn or naïve and think that we will be able to maintain our economic dominance and cultural influence without adopting some good ideas from abroad. We need to be the leaders in political and practical innovation; for if we are not, then China is waiting to take our place.

Career Selection, Passion or Money?

2014-03-04T15:21:00.000-05:00

Many college students—like myself—are faced with the question of whether to pick a career of passion and enjoyment, or of fiscal responsibility. We often look to our elders for help, and as you would expect, the vast majority of them tell us to invest in a career that will allow us to live comfortably. They don’t say this to hinder our happiness, but rather to ensure that our lives aren’t filled with struggle and sadness. They have lived longer. They understand the responsibilities and hardships that life can bring. They don’t have the youthful hope and excitement that we do, though they long for it.

On the contrary, when we ask our contemporaries for advice, they say, “go for it!” They tell us that we can do anything if we put our mind to it. They will say something like, “If you don’t enjoy what you’re doing, then what is the point of living?” The youthful exuberance and hope is quite evident. It’s this blissful courageousness from which monumental change occurs, though not often enough. Unfortunately the mantra, “You can do anything if you put your mind to it”, is not evidentially true. If it were, there would be no unemployment, starvation, suffering, homelessness etc. I’m sure many people around the world are putting their minds to work on things that will provide them with no financial or mental satisfaction. The world is cruel and unfair. The fact of the matter is—in order to be successful—we must also be lucky.

After hearing the various pieces of advice, we will need to make one of the toughest decisions we have yet faced in our young lives. Do we go to art school and pursue our love of painting? Or do we study engineering and certainly have no problems getting a good job when we graduate. Do we study drama and pursue our dream of one day making it in a successful broadway production? Or do we go to law school and be a picturesque successful lawyer? These are the question that college age students ponder everyday. Even still, we are the lucky ones. We are the ones that have the opportunity to pursue higher learning of any sort—many others do not.

To quote the famous 20th century philosopher, Alan Watts:

“What do you desire? What makes you itch? What sort of a situation would you like?

Let’s suppose, I do this often in vocational guidance of students, they come to me and say, well, “we’re getting out of college and we have the faintest idea what we want to do”. So I always ask the question, “what would you like to do if money were no object? How would you really enjoy spending your life?”

Well, it’s so amazing as a result of our kind of educational system, crowds of students say well, we’d like to be painters, we’d like to be poets, we’d like to be writers, but as everybody knows you can’t earn any money that way. Or another person says well, I’d like to live an out-of-doors life and ride horses. I said you want to teach in a riding school? Let’s go through with it. What do you want to do?

When we finally got down to something, which the individual says he really wants to do, I will say to him, you do that and forget the money, because, if you say that getting the money is the most important thing, you will spend your life completely wasting your time. You’ll be doing things you don’t like doing in order to go on living, that is to go on doing things you don’t like doing, which is stupid. Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing than a long life spent in a miserable way.

And after all, if you do really like what you’re doing, it doesn’t matter what it is, you can eventually turn it — you could eventually become a master of it. It’s the only way to become a master of something, to be really with it. And then you’ll be able to get a good fee for whatever it is. So don’t worry too much.

That’s everybody is — somebody is interested in everything, anything you can be interested in, you will find others will. But it’s absolutely stupid to spend your time doing things you don’t like, in order to go on spending things you don’t like, doing things you don’t like and to teach our children to follow in the same track.

See what we are doing, is we’re bringing up children and educating to live the same sort of lifes we are living. In order that they may justify themselves and find satisfaction in life by bringing up their children to bring up their children to do the same thing, so it’s all retch, and no vomit it never gets there.

And so, therefore, it’s so important
to consider this question: What do I desire?”

The persuasive and elegantly stated argument from Watts resonates with me. That’s not to say that he is completely right. What he describes is tremendously difficult. The mastery of a subject isn’t something that happens too often—for if it did— it wouldn’t be so valued. I don’t see the struggle between a career of enjoyment and the career of fiscal reward as a black and white issue. It’s tremendously grey—as is life. The right decision is dependent on a multitude of factors. How long can you bear not having enough money in order to pursue a dream? What is your threshold? Do you want an comfortable life, or a life of meaning?

When I look at the decision I must make, I think I’d rather lean of the side of hope. I’d rather be blissfully ignorant to my possibility of failure. Do you ever wonder why people wish to be young again? Is it because of the feeling we are experiencing right now? Is it the reckless abandon of the “sensible decision”? Isn’t that what it means to be young? To live! I will do what I love if it takes me to the end of the earth and back—not because I find it sensible—but precisely because I find it not sensible.

President Obama Announces NSA Reforms, What You Need to Know

2014-01-26T23:00:00.001-05:00

President Obama announced today, in a speech at the Department of Justice, a set of reforms that will address the widely reported NSA spying program disclosed by Edward Snowden in June 2013. The reforms are focused on the bulk collection of phone records, or metadata, done by the NSA. Just as the speech was about to begin, the White House release an official policy directive that proposes the following changes.

The NSA will no longer be able to query the metadata without the permission of the FISA court.

Before today, all the NSA intelligence analysts had to do before they could query the database of metadata, was to decide internally that the given phone number was subject to reasonable suspicion. There was no oversight of these individual decisions outside of the agency, which critics have said, caused an unjust abuse of power.

Now, before any individual query is authorized, it must get approval from the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance) Court in regards to whether there is a, “reasonable, articulable suspicion” of a threat.

If permission is granted, the NSA will no longer be able to use that permission to search as widely.

Previously, when an intelligence analyst was querying the database, he could look at all phone numbers within three degrees of separation of the target number. In other words, they could, “look at any phone number that is connected to the first [number], any number that is connected to that number, and any number that is connected to that number.” It was informally known as “three hops”. Effective immediately, they will only be able to make “two hops”.

President Obama asked Congress to set up a panel of public advocates to represent consumers before the FISA court.

Up until now, the FISA Court, which is made up of judges appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, was a one sided court. Due to its national security related affairs of the court, the government faced no opposing council. The lack of opposing council has caused the FISA Court to, in 2012, out of the 1,856 applications presented to them, never once deny a request for surveillance. They never said no.

The public advocates will be tasked with representing Americans inside the court. However, there is one caveat. The Washington Post is reporting that according to a senior administration official, they will only be tasked to represent Americans when the FISA Court faces, “novel issues of law”. This means that the advocates will likely only be opposing council in the court when the court faces a matter it has not faced before. Other details appear to be murky, but surely they will filter out over the coming months.

The phone records database will possibly be handed over to a third party.

President Obama has proposed that this change should not happen immediately, but rather that his advisors should be tasked with figuring out a way to make this transition in the next 60 days. There are a couple of different possibilities for the recipients of the database. It could be a newly created government facility; another option could be that the phone companies will be required to hold onto the data for a longer period of time. Further details will likely emerge in the future.

We will no longer spy on “dozens” of foreign leaders.

This reform comes to quell fears of foreign allies whose phones the NSA has tapped. The most notable of the leaders was Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who was furious when it was disclosed that the NSA had surveilled her private phone. Another prominent leader who was upset about the NSA’s spying was Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, who canceled an official visit to the US over the spying claims.

These relatively modest reforms won’t dispel the critic’s concerns over the government’s spying powers. They only address the phone records program, there is nothing about PRISM, which is the NSA’s program that spies on, and collects data on internet users like email correspondence or social network use. It doesn’t address the NSA’s alleged backdoor encryption schemes. It only addresses the phone records program, which is seen by some critics as one of the less invasive aspects of the NSA.

If there is one thing that is certain about today’s reforms, it is that none of this would have been possible without the disclosures made by Edward Snowden. He started this conversation and these reforms vindicate his actions. He was right that these programs should have been reformed. Obama, by announcing and supporting these reforms, is absolutely assigning Edward Snowden as a whistleblower. There is no way around it. The sad thing is, that we would still lock him up for years if he would return to the United States. As Daniel Ellsburg, the pentagon papers leaker, said, “He is a hero of mine”.

Writing, The Art of Reason

2014-01-11T23:31:00.001-05:00

I see writing as one of the more intriguing and complex forms of communication. In writing, an author can shape and express a narrative, that can be specifically refined, to communicate exactly what he or she intended. When I read something, I get the idea that I am interpreting exactly what I was intended to interpret. There is a filter, a filter that can sometimes reveal more about the author than the writing itself. When you read this, you must keep in mind that in writing this, I am sifting through my thoughts and experiences, in order to communicate coherent and logically consistent ideas. It’s my filter. I’m writing how I think.

In some ways writing is the most unforgiving form of communication. When an author publishes something, he is accountable for every word of it. If someone is offended by his work, he can’t go back and say that he made a Freudian slip. He meant what he wrote, whether kind or harsh. I would tend to say, that if you want to truly understand how someone reasons, you must read what they have to say. I’m not talking about a 10 word text message, or a 3 sentence email. I’m talking about reading a meaningful letter, article or book. I believe that someone’s literary eloquence, or lack there of, can give you a glimpse of their character. It can tell you something about them.

I believe that in our society, we must take another look at what writing is, and what it can be. Writing is more than just a utility, or a means of communication. A blank sheet of paper is a canvas for reason. An essay can be the seed of a cultural revolution. Writing is persuasive art form, and he who masters it may never be forgotten.

The Wolf of Wall Street, A Philosophical Review

2014-01-11T23:29:00.000-05:00

The Wolf of Wall Street, the Martin Scorsese film starring Leonardo DiCaprio, is the true story of Jordan Belfort, a New York stock broker who, in the ’90s, earned hundreds of millions of dollars through nefarious means. The film, which is a lengthy 3 hours, is well-directed and well-acted. It tells an important story, a true story that shows some of the worst aspects of our financial system.

Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance is up there with some of the best of the year. His ability to exude this sense of depraved arrogance really captures the greed and insanity of Jordan Belfort’s actions. It reminded me of his stellar performance in the Steven Spielberg film, Catch Me If You Can. Leo’s display of Belfort’s drug addiction, which often fueled his greed, shows how complicated drug addiction can be. It’s worth noting that Jonah Hill, who played Belfort’s number 2, did an outstanding job as well.

I would highly recommend going and seeing The Wolf of Wall Street. It’s comedically brilliant and entertaining throughout. There are some absurd situations which, outrageously enough, actually happened. You find yourself losing track of right and wrong while trying to figure out what will happen next. It’s a well-made movie that pulls back the veil on some of the shady aspects of American culture.

This movie, in all its entertaining glory, shows what happens to a society when money becomes the thing upon which one bases their moral compass, when money and power become the only things that matter. People no longer matter. All that matters is wealth and status. A society that defines success as wealth begets wealthy individuals who have created nothing, but have earned unimaginable wealth. Belfort and his associates were glistening examples of how a financial system that incentivizes greed and criminality begets only greed and criminality. Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, UBS, Credit Suisse, Charles Schwab, and many more, all settled with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) on allegations of misleading investors to their exposure to the mortgaged-backed-securities that caused the financial crisis. They essentially got a slap on the hand for breaking the law to protect their profits. It has practically become their new business model. Break the law, make billions of dollars and later on you might have to give some of it back to the SEC. We shouldn’t be allowing this to happen. We have to hold Wall Street accountable, because if we do not, the story of The Wolf of Wall Street will be a recurring one.

Bipartisan Budget Deal Passes, What Does it Mean?

2013-12-21T15:36:00.000-05:00

On Wednesday, December 18th the U.S. Senate approved the bipartisan budget deal negotiated by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Committee chairwomen Patty Murray. Nine Republican Senators crossed party lines to vote in favor of the budget deal with a final vote tally of 64 in favor and 36 against. Obama is expected to sign the deal soon.

This deal is the culmination of 3 years of budget battles that led to the widely reported government shutdown. Coming in, the Republicans wanted to conserve the Sequester spending cuts that kicked in on March 1, 2013. The Sequester cuts were evenly distributed, half to defense spending, and half to discretionary spending (Spending other than defense, Medicare or Medicaid). The Republicans also wanted no new tax increases or revenues.

Coming into the negotiations, the Democrats wanted to undo the Sequester cuts, reauthoriz the extension of unemployment benefits to 52 weeks after an applicant’s termination date, and they would have liked to undo the recent cuts to the SNAP (Food Stamps) program.

What’s in the deal?

The deal raises discretionary spending levels from $967 billion, which is what it would have been under the Sequester, to $1.012 trillion for 2014 and $1.014 trillion for 2015. We don’t know yet which specific agencies will have their funds restored. The restored funds will be allocated by the congressional appropriations committees.

What are the main points of the deal?

The deal raises airline security fees from $5 to $11.20 starting July 1, 2014. This change is estimated to raise $13 billion over the next 10 years.

It gradually reduces the automatic increase in military retirement benefits for veterans under 62. This is estimated to save $6 billion over the next 10 years.

It also increases by 1.3% the contribution that federal workers, hired after January 1, 2014, will have to make towards their pensions. This is estimated to save $6 billion dollars.

This deal is more of a minor compromise than a comprehensive bill that addresses our major political differences. It doesn’t address a major Republican objective, which is the reformation of so-called entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. It doesn’t address tax reform or economic stimulus, like infrastructure banks, or investments in renewable energy. It also doesn’t re-extend unemployment benefits. The list of things that this deal doesn’t do is longer than the list of things it does. Essentially the only real thing this deal does is provide much-needed stability to a financial system that has gotten used to rampant volatility over the past 3 years. It’s a good start, but unfortunately it’s not enough.

An analysis of the numbers would contend that this compromise tends to favor the Republicans over the Democrats.

To illustrate this look at this graph:

The original Obama budget, at $1.203 trillion, is far further away from the deal passed this week ($1.012 trillion) than the most recent Ryan budget, which clocks in at $967 billion. These numbers show that over the last 3 years, despite losing the 2012 election, Republicans have won the battle over the discussion of the budget. They won the battle over the narrative. The discussion ended up being not about whether we should increase or decrease government spending, but rather how much should we cut it. In the end, the Democrats came down practically $200 billion, while the Republicans met them in the “middle” by going up $50 billion.

For proponents of a government that passes laws, there just might be some good news to come out of this budget deal. In recent days, Speaker of the House John Boehner has shown his growing frustration with the more extreme members and activist groups in his party. He said, “they’re using our members and they’re using the American people for their own goals.” He later stated, “this is ridiculous. Listen, if you are for more deficit reduction, you are for this agreement.” As the only person who is standing in the way of the house passing a bipartisan immigration bill, this development could prove to be, if not the defining moment, perhaps the beginning of more bipartisan lawmaking in Washington.

Oh, Florida: Capital of Weirdness, in Review

2013-12-20T14:53:00.000-05:00

On December 5th, 2013 The Village Square at the St. Petersburg College Institute for Strategic Policy Solutions hosted an event entitled: Oh, Florida: Capital of Weirdness. The main speaker at the event was Professor Emeritus of Florida History at USF St. Petersburg, prolific author, and historian Dr. Gary Mormino. Dr. Mormino spoke about some of Florida’s weird, and sometimes humorous, news stories that have been widely reported upon across the country. He also discussed how these stories have become so uniquely synonymous with our state.

The 2000 election debacle, the “zombie” in Miami who practically ate a man’s entire face, half of the state being of a more Caribbean mindset, as opposed to the northern part of Florida, which is more of a deeply southern place, there’s no doubting that Florida is, to put it lightly, “unique.” The question is not if Florida is weird, but rather why is Florida so weird?

According to Dr. Mormino, there are 3 major theories. First: weird people naturally migrate to Florida, which sounds sort of odd but. if thought about the right way, makes an odd kind of sense. If in the late 19th century you decided that you wanted to move to Florida, you would’ve had to have been crazy. Imagine the Florida summers without air conditioning, not to mention that Florida was a practically desolate, over drenched rural state. It was just not a comfortable place to live.

The second theory is that when people come to Florida they are normal. People just like you and me. But once they get here, the “ethos” of Florida molds them into a slightly weirder, slightly sweatier human being. For better or for worse, the “pixie dust” just changes people down here.

The third and, in my opinion, most intriguing theory has to do with tourism. Roughly 19 million people live in Florida. By contrast, 90 million people visit Florida each year. To underscore this, more than four times as many people go on vacation in Florida than the amount of people who live here year-round. The theory is that people on vacation are more “relaxed,” possibly due to alcohol, than the natives. As a result, some weird things happen, like described above.

Dr. Mormino’s presentation clearly underscored the uniqueness and value that Florida maintains. From politics to natural resources, Florida is an important player on the national stage. We will soon overtake New York as the third most populous state in the union. No matter how weird, no matter how special, Florida will, for better or worse, be an integral piece of the puzzle that is the United States of America.

US-Iran Nuclear Deal: a win for diplomacy

2013-11-28T13:57:00.000-05:00

On November 24^th in Geneva, Switzerland the US, alongside it’s 4 other permanent UN Security Council members Russia, France, Great Britain and China, reached a 6-month nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Obama’s act of diplomacy has been applauded by some and criticized by others, but it’s important to say that without this deal, war might have been the only other option.

The short-term deal will:

1. Cap Iran’s uranium enrichment below 5%. This inhibits Iran’s capabilities to enrich highly potent uranium that would be needed to produce a nuclear weapon.

2. From the existing uranium that is 20% enriched, half will be aloud to be used as fuel, while the other half must be diluted to no more than 5%.

3. Not allow Iran to set up any new locations for uranium enrichment.

4. The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will be allowed daily inspections of all of Iran’s nuclear plants, as well as allowed access to specified reports about Iran’s nuclear sites and operations.

In return the US and EU will:

1. “Pause efforts to further reduce Iran's crude oil sales, enabling Iran's current customers to purchase their current average amounts of crude oil.” This essentially allows Iran to continue to sell their oil to their current customers without US impedance. This does not allow Iran to sell their oil to the EU or US as was prohibited under the most recent rounds of sanctions.

2. Suspend sanctions on Iran’s petrochemical, precious metal and transportation industries. The combination of the lifted sanctions and unfreezing of Iranian assets is estimated to amount to $7 billion or 1.5% of Iran’s GDP in relief.

Further more, the parties involved with the interim agreement have agreed to meet again within the 6-month time frame to develop a long term, “comprehensive” deal.

In reaction Fmr. Deputy of Defense under President Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, said in an interview with MSNBC host Chris Hayes, “we’ve made too much of vague promises that can easily be reversed.” He went on to compare the Iranian deal to the North Korean nuclear deal made in 1994. As well, he emphasized that there was no way we could trust the Iranian regime.

Mr. Wolfowitz fails to see the fact that without this deal, there would be no other option besides war. The Israelis would undoubtedly take military action if Iran’s nuclear program weren’t curtailed. That would undoubtedly lead to the US stepping in, in support Israel. Another war? As the President of the NIAC (National Iranian American Council) Trita Parsi said,

“It is difficult to imagine that the American public would be so ferociously opposed to a relatively minor military engagement in Syria, but favor a potentially unending war and invasion of Iran.”

This is the most important aspect of this deal. The fact of the matter is that without this deal, we would be going to war. It would be a bloody, drawn out war that would siphon the life out of America’s physical resources and would have a tremendous human toll. It would lessen, just as the Iraq war did, America’s influence and power on the world stage. It would be a disaster, as all wars are.

In Iran, the hardliners are calling this deal an Iranian surrender. In the US, the hawks are calling this deal a US surrender. Is it possible that we are both surrendering? Or is that just what diplomacy is, a universal surrender. A compromise.

SPC’s “World Peace, Let it Begin with Me” Forum

2013-11-28T13:55:00.000-05:00

On Nov. 14th SPC’s Institute for Strategic Policy Solutions and Rotary International co-sponsored a forum that was held at SPC’s Seminole campus titled “World Peace: Let it begin with me.” The forum opened by highlighting the work of an organization called Seeds of Peace. Seeds of Peace is an organization that aims to furnish the world’s next generation of leaders by exposing them to different personal perspectives that enable them to think more openly about conflicts around the world. The upcoming quote from Seeds of Peace’s charter best describes the ideas that they aim to promote:

“We now refuse to accept what is when we know what can be, if we truly implement these principles in our homes and our hearts. We refuse to be victims. We know it is possible to redirect human passions, even calls for revenge, toward the positive goal of creating peace.”

The forum panel was made up of local experts:

Prof. Roy Slater, Moderator of the event, Associate professor of American Government, International Relations, and Model United Nations at SPC.
Sane Haidara, an SPC student from Timbuktu, Mali, who is a refugee from that country’s recent military violence.
Dustin Lemke, a member of the Religious Society of Friends and professor of Communication and Leadership at Hillsborough Community College.
Prof. Randy Lightfoot, Professor of American Government and Model United Nations at SPC.

Professor Slater opened the discussion with some prepared remarks on the nature of education and peace, saying:

“Across the academic disciplines professors expect you to critique and ponder, to read, reflect on and analyze, to wrestle with the great questions of the day. A forum such as this, questions such as human rights violations, genocide, why people fight and the challenges of achieving peace.”

A stirring reminder of what it means to be a student of higher education. Throughout the forum there was a common thread: Peace starts with the individual. The panelists, especially Mr. Lemke, often emphasized the idea that people’s fear or emotional unhappiness could be motivators for conflict. While they do not necessarily cause war, they can provide a stepping stone for unpeaceful actions.

To the question of why people fight, Sane Haidara, who grew up in Mali said, “There is always a common denominator that we see. In Mali we are facing starvation, that’s a huge issue. There are human rights issues, equal rights for men and women, lack of educational opportunities, lack of jobs, “ He went on to say that, “until we fix those issues, until we create equal rights, social justice for all people, having a sustainable peace will remain, to me, difficult.”

Sane Haidara touched on an important point, that there can be no lasting peace while inequality and injustice remain. A little later in the forum Prof. Randy Lightfoot was asked what he saw as the biggest challenge individuals face in attaining peace. He said that, “A problem we have in this country, [is] we don’t listen to the points of view, of people that might be different than ours. There’s merit in that.” Professor Lightfoot underscores the idea that we should all respect one another, even if we differ on opinions. He also emphasizes the importance of listening and learning from people of differing backgrounds.

The final question that was asked was, “What is your definition of peace?” Sana Haidara said that peace was “Being able to go to bed every night without worrying about breakfast tomorrow.” It was a statement so profound and so foreign to the experience of most members of western society that I could practically feel the collective emotion of the audience.

Throughout the forum I couldn’t help but notice that the redeeming factors of all of the speakers’ opinions were based on the individual. The emphasis on the need for people to act peacefully in their own lives was so very apparent. The assertion that peaceful actions breed more peaceful actions gave credence to the idea that world peace is ultimately attainable.

SPC National Model United Nations DC Trip

2013-11-28T13:52:00.002-05:00

I recently went to Washington, DC with St. Petersburg College’s National Model United Nations (NMUN) team. NMUN is a United Nations-sponsored program that brings together students from colleges around the world to compete/work with one another in conferences that simulate United Nations Committees. The goal is to provide “quality college/university level programs that bring together the next generation of international leaders.” While at the conference students will get “cooperative, hands-on learning (that) allows students to confront a range of topics with the perspective of their assigned country or organization.”

SPC was assigned the countries Austria and Ethiopia for the DC conference. The 12 delegates assigned for the DC trip met sometimes up to twice a week in preparation for the trip. We had to write position papers for our respective countries and committees so that we would be prepared for the task before us. We were in DC for 4 days, 3 of which were purely work. However, the first day we arrived we got to tour the capital, something that I have never done before and thoroughly enjoyed.

The keynote speaker for the opening ceremony of the conference was Acting Assistant Secretary of State Dean Pittman. As a governing policy nerd I was quite, for lack of a better word, “starstruck”. I even got to ask him a question regarding Obama’s so-called “Asia pivot,” which he didn’t seem to take a liking to, but answered nonetheless. During the opening ceremony I realized the gravity of the opportunity before all of us; the chance to meet people who have the same interests and knowledge in the fields of politics and international affairs, the chance to commingle in an intelligent forum and discuss the pressing issues in our world.

Our SPC team did quite well at the conference, taking home 2 outstanding committee delegation awards and a general honorable delegation award. It was an experience that I wouldn’t trade for the world and one I hope to have again. The friendships that we created are invaluable to each of our respective lives and careers.

For those interested in joining SPC’s NMUN team for the upcoming NYC trip I would advise you to contact Prof. Earl Fratus at Fratus.Earl@spcollege.edu or (727) 394-6045. (Tell him Max sent you)

The US economy: a solution

2013-11-28T13:50:00.000-05:00

On October 16th President Obama signed into law a bipartisan bill that will open the Government until January 15th, 2014 and raise the debt limit until February 7th, 2014. As well, the bill mandates that the two houses of congress set up a bicameral budget committee to reconcile the differences between the budgets passed by the Senate and House earlier this year. The committee must present a budget by December 13th for votes, and if an agreement can’t be made the two parties will be right back where they started before the Government shutdown.

In recent years, the Republican budget plan has been about spending cuts, and serious ones. The current Ryan budget would cut $4.6 trillion in federal spending, none of which comes out of defense. We’re talking about the EPA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security etc. The idea is to cut spending and taxes in order to increase confidence and encourage economic growth, which sounds great, but unfortunately it would only reduce the deficit by $155 billion over the next ten years while turning Medicare into a voucher system, significantly cutting Social Security and significantly hindering economic growth. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said, “Republicans eagerly adopted the concept, already popular in Europe, of “expansionary austerity” — the notion that cutting spending would actually boost the economy by increasing confidence. Experience since then has thoroughly refuted this concept: Across the advanced world, big spending cuts have been associated with deeper slumps.”

Krugman refers to European austerity; I don’t see a better representation of this austerity than in Great Britain. Britain’s Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron assumed office in 2010. The year he entered office, he put forth a plan to cut £83 billion ($134 billion), which included 490,000 public sector jobs. He said that the cuts would be, “”fair” and support economic growth.”

The graph above shows the GDP of Great Britain over the past 5 years. As you can see, the post-recession growth has been quite stagnant. This is what Krugman was alluding to, and is a quite real phenomenon. If you cut spending, and more specifically jobs, while recovering from a recession, then your growth will be hindered.

The great recession of 2008 ravaged the American economy. Our worst quarter was Q4 2009, in which GDP receded by 8.9%. The national unemployment rate doubled from around 5% to about 10% over the course of a year and a half. The Dow Jones Industrial Average had fallenalmost 60%, but then something happened. Two major spending bills were passed into law. One called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and the other called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but better known as the Stimulus.

TARP was aimed to relieve Wall Street of troubled assets and the Stimulus was a large jobs-and-investment program that tried to jump-start the economy. Now, I acknowledge that there are valid arguments against how these to programs were implemented, but there is no denying that, based on the graph above, the two spending bills had a significant growth-promoting effect on our economy.

I’ve spent most of this article talking about economic growth, and there’s a reason for it. As Harvard Economist Larry Summers wrote, the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers suggest that “an increase of just 0.2 percent in annual growth would entirely eliminate the projected long-term budget gap.” This is profoundly meaningful. This means that even if we took no new policy actions, CBO data would imply that an increase of just 0.2 percent in annual growth would entirely eliminate the projected long-term budget gap, solving our long-tem debt problem.

As I demonstrated with TARP and the Stimulus, an effective way to spur growth is with government spending. Even better, targeted government spending. For example, the setting up of an infrastructure bank to fix our falling bridges, or investment in renewable energy like wind and solar, or maybe something like President Obama’s American Jobs Act of 2011. Whatever the solution, it should be pro-growth and based on empirical data and not ideology. If we elevate our growth, the long-term debt problem will take care of itself.

I will admit that growth is not the only way to tackle our debt problem, but it is the only way to do it and not destroy Social Security and Medicare as we know it. A couple of weeks back, my Grandfather told me that if it weren’t for Medicare he would be dead. These are programs that mean so much to our seniors. We don’t have to compromise them to solve our debt problems, and I hope in the upcoming budget negotiations we will come together and pass a pro-growth budget.

Obamacare Explained

2013-11-28T13:46:00.001-05:00

The implementation of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, began on October 1st. This means a lot of different things for a lot of different people, but I will try to provide an informative summary that explains the ACA.

If I have insurance from my employer will my coverage change?

48% of Americans have employer-based health insurance. If you are one of those people, your health insurance will not change as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

If I am covered my Medicaid or Medicare will my coverage change?

32% of Americans receive their health from government programs like Medicare, and Medicaid. If you get your healthcare from either of these programs your healthcare will not change.

What does the Affordable Care Act do?

The Affordable Care Act was designed to affect the 20% of Americans that either don’t have health insurance or purchase health insurance on the individual market. Here’s what is going to change for the aforementioned 20%:

Insurance companies can no longer reject people because of preexisting conditions.

Insurance companies can no longer charge higher rates solely based on the gender of the individual applying.

If you are under 26 years of age you will be able to stay on your parent’s health insurance plan. (If your parents don’t have health insurance they will be required to pay a penalty to the IRS until they do, but I’ll get to that later)

I’ve heard about online exchanges. What are they?

The administration, in conference with the States, has set up online marketplaces for consumers to shop for health insurance. (They are similar to websites like priceline.com and kayak.com for travel booking) On those marketplaces consumers will be able to pick the plan that best suits them and purchase health insurance. The idea behind the insurance exchanges is to encourage competition and thusly drive down prices.

How do I pay for it?

Any consumer that makes more than the federal poverty line, which is shown in the graph below, but less than four times the poverty line ($94,200 for a family of four), can buy subsidized insurance on the marketplaces. This essentially means that if you make less then 4 times the poverty line then the government will help pay for your insurance.

What if I still can’t afford insurance with the subsidies?

Now, one exception to the aforementioned formula is that in the states that accepted the Medicaid expansion proposed by the Affordable Care Act, (Florida not being one of them) people who make less than 133% of the poverty line will be able enroll in Medicaid and have there healthcare completely covered by the government. This expansion allows states to cover people who previously made too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but currently don’t have enough money to buy health insurance on the marketplace. Unfortunately, if you are in a state that did not expand Medicaid, you will be left to pick up the insurance tab. If you are one of those people I would suggest contacting one of your state representatives and encouraging them to expand Medicaid in your state.

I understand all of that, but why should I get health insurance?

Well besides the obvious “so you can go to the doctor” answer, there is something called the individual mandate. This is the aspect of the law that provides the incentive to get people to buy health insurance. If you do not have insurance on January 1st, 2014 then you will be subject to a penalty that will be imposed when you file your taxes. The penalty will be $95 per person, or 1% of household income, whichever is greater. It will go up in every subsequent year and by 2016 will be $695 per person, or 2.5% of household income.

Where do I sign up?

The website where you sign up is healthcare.gov and the deadline to buy insurance and not be subject to the penalty is December 15th, 2013 even though the marketplaces will stay open until March 1st, 2013. If you don’t have insurance, check it out. You could qualify for the subsidies and get covered.

Politics Past and Present: The Upcoming Debt Ceiling

2013-11-28T13:45:00.001-05:00

November 2, 2010, fueled by the Tea Party, favorable redistricting, and enthusiastic opposition to the Affordable Care Act among conservatives, Republicans make astounding gains on Capital Hill. They picked up 5 seats in the Senate and 63 seats in the House of Representatives. These wins dawn a new governing relationship between the White House and congress. With President Obama’s majority in the House of Representatives decimated, he will have to negotiate any future legislation with Speaker of the House John Boehner and his increasingly conservative caucus. In the run-up to the midterms, prominent conservatives started alluding to a possible bitter debt ceiling fight. RNC Chair Michael Steele said, “We are not going to compromise on raising more debt. We are not going to compromise on raising the debt ceiling,” Unfortunately, this thinking is still a prominent strategy in the Republican Party, and could cause dire economic consequences in the future.

What is the debt ceiling? According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the debt ceiling or debt limit is the “total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations”. It functions to “simply allow the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past.” It’s a rare, practically American-centric mechanism that enables Congress to obstruct our Government’s ability to borrow funds to pay for programs which Congress itself previously appropriated. The only other democratic country with such a mechanism is Denmark. Some might ask the question, “why would it be so bad if we went over the debt ceiling?” Well, according to the Treasury Department, “Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history.”

Since the midterm elections, we only once came really close to hitting the debt limit. In the summer of 2011, Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans, fueled by their midterm gains,used the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip to try and cut federal spending. Once stating that he would not support a debt limit increase without equal cuts in spending. President Obama and Speaker Boehner were a part of a much-publicized negotiation in with they tried to hammer out a “grand bargain” that would address the Republican’s spending concerns as well as increase revenue to help curb the deficit. Roughly 2 weeks before we hit the debt ceiling on August 2, 2011 the negotiations fell through over Boehner’s disagreement with Obama’s revenue proposals. Luckily, at the final hour, just 3 days before we hit the debt limit, the two Houses of Congress agreed on a debt ceiling increase and the President signed it into law. However, we did not escape the debacle unscathed. Just three days after the agreement, Standard & Poor’s, the credit rating company, downgraded the United States’ credit rating from AAA to AA+. It dealt a significant “symbolic blow to the world’s economic superpower” and could’ve potentially hurt our bet bond market, previously seen as a safe. It also likely raised the cost of the United States’ borrowing capability, thus ironically costing US taxpayers more money. All that caused by the Republican’s irresponsible strategy, which was to hold the debt-ceiling hostage in order to get spending cuts that would save the taxpayers money.

If that sounds bad, just wait: They’re at it again. We will hit the debt ceiling again in mid-October, according to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. Read this statement made by Speaker John Boehner, “Any increase in the debt limit must be accompanied by cuts and reforms greater than the increase.” Sound familiar? The Republicans are planning to hold the debt ceiling hostage again. Except this time Obama is saying no. In a letter addressed to the Speaker’s office he states that he, “has been clear that he is not going to negotiate over the debt limit, and Congressional Democrats stand behind him strongly.” With the President displaying a much different tone than last time around, could this mean that we will hit the debt ceiling and default on our debt? If we do, there will be tremendous economic consequences. The Federal Reserve Chairman said it would be a “recovery-ending event” and would in turn put us back into a recession.

To demonstrate another possible, more dire, consequence, here’s a chart that shows current foreign bond holdings:

A 2011 Congressional Research Service report suggests that a loss of confidence in the debt market could prompt foreign creditors to unload large portions of their holdings, thus inducing others to do so, and causing a run on the dollar in international markets, which could in turn threaten the US Dollar’s global currency status. What would that mean? According to Dick Bove, vice president of equity research at Rafferty Capital Markets, “If the dollar loses status as the world’s most reliable currency, the United States will lose the right to print money to pay its debt. It will be forced to pay this debt.” He went on to say that, “The No. 1 security issue we have as a nation is the preservation of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, it’s a thousand times more important than a nuclear bomb being tested by North Korea. It’s a thousand times more important that we keep the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and yet we are doing everything to abuse that status.” Even with all that said, Congressional Republican’s are still holding a debt ceiling raise hostage for political reasons.

I fear that the GOP’s current obsession with the Affordable Care Act, a law that was properly litigated, deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court and only just went into effect yesterday, could produce the same deadlock that we saw in the run-up to the government shutdown. If it does, our economy will be in for a close shave, but hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

Stoicism

2013-09-10T16:17:00.000-04:00

I admire the great minds behind Stoicism. Socrates and Plato to name a few. They truly revolutionized the way that humans looked at life. There are parts of Stoicism I believe in. I believe in living a moral life and self-examination. To contrast however, there are parts of Stoicism that I fervently disagree with.

The idea of emotional detachment is keeping yourself emotionally detached from the suffering of others because everything happens for a reason. Everything is pre-determined. The idea sickens me. The moment one becomes emotionally detached from the suffering of others is the moment that one loses his or her sense of humanity. Look at WWII, Vietnam, Kosovo and countless other slaughters.

Has the idea of determination served us well? If God planned or allowed those horrible events to occur, then is that a God that you would want to believe in?

The PRISM of Politics

2013-06-07T15:26:00.001-04:00

Yesterday The Guardian newspaper obtained a top secret document that exposes a previously unknown program called PRISM. PRISM, a program developed by the NSA in 2007, allows the National Security Agency to directly access the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple, and other US internet giants including Microsoft, Yahoo and YouTube. According to the document this access allows the NSA to collect and catalogue search histories, email contents, file transfers and live chats. (Greenwald & MacAskill, 2013)

The response from Silicon Valley has been uniform. They contend that they have had no prior knowledge of PRISM and only hand over their user's information to the government if it has been previously subpoenaed. They also say that if the NSA is gaining access to their systems then they are doing so without their knowledge. This side of the story is still developing and hopefully soon who knew what will become a little clearer. (Greenwald & MacAskill, 2013)

Washington's response has been somewhat as expected. The more establishment Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have defended the program. Feinstein said when asked about PRISM, "It's called protecting America". (Mac & Everett, 2013) More liberal Democrats like Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) attacked the administration for its policies. He said, "This type of secret bulk data collection is an outrageous breach of American's privacy. Can the FBI or the NSA really claim that they need data scooped up on tens of millions of Americans?". (Associated Press, 2013) More hawkish Republicans like Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) have supported the program. He said this while speaking to a reporter, "I don't think you're talking to terrorists. I know you're not. I know I'm not. So we don't have anything to worry about". (Kogan, 2013) The more Libertarian Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) have attacked the program. He said, "American tradition has been to err on the side of liberty. But what we're seeing now. An all-out assault on the constitution."(Vamburkar, 2013)

These responses bring to light some innate hypocrisies in the 2 political parties. The establishment Democrats along with the administration are implementing and using policies that they so hardly protested against in the George W. Bush era. And on the Republican side we have Senators who are shrugging off the accusations of the unconstitutionality of PRISM, which in my opinion violates the unwarranted searches and seizure clause of the 4th amendment. These republicans who only as far back as the recent gun control debate voted against mandatory background checks for all gun sales citing the second amendment.

We have lawmakers in this country who identify themselves as originalists, however they rely on the constitution only when it supports their argument. When their beliefs don't match up with the words written in the constitution they will just as well throw it out. This is the problem in my belief with originalism. For I don't believe any lawmaker believes that an African-American is 3/5 of a person. Constitutions evolve. Just as our country does. I don't believe the framers intended us to abide by the constitution as if it were a holy book. That is why they so brilliantly came up with the amendment process. So we could evolve as people and as citizens.

When it is all set and done I have to acknowledge the courage of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY.) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) who, as well as a couple of their colleagues, attacked the administration for the NSA's PRISM program. They did so while being fully aware of their respective parties' positions, and I believe that, those actions are something to applaud.

Works Cited

Associated Press (2013, June 6). Wyden, Merkley decry NSA phone records order. Retrieved KGW's website: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-on-nsa-its-called-protecting-america-92340.html

Greenwald, G. & MacAskill, E. (2013, June 6). NSA PRISM program taps in to user data of Facebook, Yahoo and others. Retrieved June 7, 2013 from The Guardian's website: http://
bit.ly/10W52iT

Kogan, M. (2013, June 7). PRISM Surveillance Scandal: Welcome to George W. Obama's America. Retrieved June 7, 2013 from PolicyMic's website: http://www.policymic.com/articles/46993/prism-surveillance-scandal-welcome-to-george-w-obama-s-america

Mac, T. & Everett, B. (2013, June 6). Dianne Feinstein on NSA: 'It's called protecting America'. Retrieved from Politico's website: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-on-nsa-its-called-protecting-america-92340.html

Vamburkar, M. (2013, June 7). Rand Paul Tears into Obama's 'All-out assault' On Constitution: 'Literally No Protection' Guaranteed To Americans. Retrieved from Mediaite's website: http://www.mediaite.com/online/rand-paul-tears-into-obamas-all-out-assault-on-constitution-literally-no-protection-guaranteed-to-americans/

Sen. Warren is Fighting for Students (Not banks)

2013-05-10T17:20:00.001-04:00

This graphic perfectly illustrates the current state of congressional representation in this country. According to opensecrets.org, so far this year the financial sector has spent $119,083,313 lobbying congress. This is the second most out of any sector in our economy (OpenSecrets.org, 2013).

In this country student loan debt is skyrocketing. Last year it reached the $1 trillion dollar threshold nationwide and is continuing to grow at a rapid pace (Chopra, 2013, para. 3). This amount of debt certainly does not help with our currently fragile economic recovery, and even worse it could hurt our growth prospects long term. The idea that the majority of college students will lose a portion of their income after they graduate is new. Even worse with the current laws even bankruptcy won't reduce the burden of student loans. This is uncharted territory for our economic system and could produce unforeseen consequences. For example, it has been noted that the housing market has been hurt by student loans, because if a student is already in $100,000 plus of debt they are going to be quite reluctant to get a mortgage.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Democrat from Massachusetts just announced her first bill since being elected last year. It's called the Bank on Student Loan Fairness act of 2013. It aims to, "To prevent the doubling of the interest rate for Federal subsidized student loans for the 2013-2014 academic year", as well it wants to, "ensure that such loans are available at interest rates that are equivalent to the interest rates at which the Federal Government provides loans to banks through the discount window operated by the Federal Reserve System". This essentially would allow students to get loans at the same interest rate that any bank could, thus eliminating the unfair access to capital that banks have.

This bill would be a necessary step in the direction of lessening the burden of student loan debt on students. As a student myself this is a subject that hits close to home, and I praise Sen. Warren for being on the side of her constituents.

Works Cited

Bank on Student Loan Fairness act of 2013, 113th Cong., 1st Sess. (2013)

Chopra, R. (2013, May 8). Excessive Student Loan Debt Drains Economic Engine. Retrieved from Politico's website: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/excessive-student-loan-debt-drains-economic-engine-91083.html

OpenSecrets.org. (2013, May 10). Ranked Sectors. Retrieved from http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2013&indexType=c

Economic Theories and Developmental Aid

2013-04-13T14:46:00.001-04:00

Decisions made on the subject of global economics have many consequences. Such is the vastness of the global economic system. A system that inherently has winners and losers. One in which the more developed nations can exploit the cheap cost of labor in a lesser-developed nation. Several different economic theories have been proposed. The question is which theory do we choose?

  I wouldn’t say I could wholly identify with any of the theories proposed. I am a firm believer in the government subsidizing innovation. This is a nationalistic approach. Which is an approach that says a state should use its economic strength to further its national interests. In theory this approach sounds quite good to me. However, when I take a step back and look at all of the policies that have been implemented in order to safeguard our global economic influence, I start to doubt it. The exploitation poor workers in other countries for our country’s economic benefit is just morally wrong. To give an example, Foxconn is a Chinese manufacturing company that most notably assembles Apple’s products. Products like the iPhone and the iPad. Some workers at the plant work as much as 100 hours a week (The wave of suicides among Foxconn workers and the vacuity of Chinese trade unionism, 2010). Also due to a recent uptake in worker suicides Foxconn has put up catch nets that surround the plant. This is just plain inhumane. And is probably the main reason why I can’t identify myself as an economic nationalist.

  Economic Liberalism is more of a mixed approach to global economics. An approach that tends more to let IGOs regulate international economic exchanges. I definitely identify domestically with economic liberalism. I am a firm believer in the role of government to regulate the economy and ensure no monopolies are formed. Internationally economic liberalism doesn’t take the position of any radical reform. It wants to decrease global inequality through IGOs and tries to forward the idea of global capitalism. I suppose this is the reason why I identify with economic liberalism. It is not too radical. As well is more about helping others than strictly looking out for our own interests.

I do believe that economically developed countries should help lesser-developed nations. However, that doesn’t mean that I believe that they have the obligation to. The economy is typically always in flux. Thus, one who would mandate that a more developed country help out a lesser-developed country is naïve of the global economic context. A context, like that seen in 2008, that could very well collapse if the bubble-bust cycle is not fixed.

The wave of suicides among Foxconn workers and the vacuity of Chinese trade unionism. (2010). China Perspectives, 2010(3), 135-137