Let's talk about poverty

So I see that John Edwards has finally hopped off the fence and picked a candidate. It seems like he was waiting for a winner to become apparent before making his endorsement. As I laid in bed, suffering through Edward's speech, my ears perked up when he mentioned poverty. The main reason he is supporting Barack Obama is because Obama plans to cut poverty in half within ten years. Those words seemed to echo of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society'. Those words sent shudders through my body; not because I favor poverty, but rather I fear the means used to eliminate that poverty. If there is one thing the state can never do, it is eliminate poverty.

Lyndon Johnson had good intentions when he proposed his war on poverty in the 1960s. America saw a great bloating in social programs, aimed at eliminating poverty. Welfare and Medicare are both prime examples of this farcical mission. Until the mid 1990s, Welfare payments were enough for a single mother to subsist. If someone is able to subsist at the teat of the government, then why work? Instead of lifting up someone's lot, the state guaranteed a permanent underclass by paying people simply for being poor.

Whenever I hear of a politician speak about eliminating poverty, I just shake my head. The state replacing a free market in allocating capital is bound for failure. It's what we saw with Welfare, and it most certainly is what we will see with Social Security. These are all bloated programs that are aimed at eliminating poverty. The only way for poverty to truly be reduced is through growth in private business.

The state has tried to hire people for make-work projects (Tennessee Valley Authority) and they've tried paying them for doing nothing (Welfare). Programs that aim to eliminate poverty only end up perpetuating poverty. It's no wonder that the times where we see poverty decrease is through real income rises, due to higher demand for labor. If business is growing, they need more hands to help them grow. The more they grow, the higher wages that business will pay for labor. Business growth will always do more in alleviating poverty than either John Edwards or Barack Obama can ever imagine. I'll just keep my fingers crossed, and hope the next president doesn't repeat the mistakes of FDR or Lyndon Johnson.
Read more...

Red Queen

Since I've been sick these last couple days, sitting still in my bed, my mind has been busy at work while my body refuses. Being sick reminded me of a book I read about a year ago, called Red Queen: Evolution in Human Nature. It's about this constant race that humans have with bacteria and viruses. Our immune systems and viruses are constant adapting to do battle. A virus will evolve constantly until it can find a host. That host must adapt and evolve as well if they hope to beat the virus and return to good health. The author uses Lewis Carroll's character, The Red Queen, as a metaphor for this constant struggle. No matter how fast or long the Red Queen runs, she is always in the same place. It's an effective metaphor because the balance between human and microbes is ever-fragile. Each holding the keys to each other's destruction, yet never quite able to finish the job. This stuff is normally fascinating to me, but being sick gives me a chance to witness the exchange first hand.

My immune system is now struggling to defeat whatever internal infection I have. It could be bacteria or a virus. Either way, something is multiplying exponentially inside me. While the microbe multiplies, my immune system is busy not only trying to defeat the invader but also make copies for later. That microbe will never be able to penetrate again, even though it doesn't do much good. At the rate of reproduction, a virus can easily multiply thousands if not millions in a few days. Each of those viruses are different genetically, each hoping to find a host in which to replicate some more. Inside me, a battle is raging. My immune system will probably win out, but whatever I have will live on many generations. In the end, the microbes will win. They lose so many battes, but in the end they will win the war.

Evolution is always fascinating. Knowing that everything is always changing around us is stunning. We are always changing, but never really going anywhere. Our balance is at best tenous, and anything can happen at any time. It adds value to a world than many take for granted. The more I learn about little things like this, the more insignificant I feel. But it's not a bad insignificance. Even the most famous people of our time will be gone in a few hundred years as generations slowly forget. Being insignificant reminds me that everything continues on, whether anyone's here or not.
Read more...

How the mighty can fall

I know in this blog I've usually stuck to economics and politics. They usually dominate my reading, but I still read sports religiously as well. Growing up in Denver, I've always followed all Colorado sports as well as the national sports scene. As I grow older I look back at a lot of events with a different perspective. As analytical skills grow, you start to see things in sports that you didn't see as a kid. One example I can think of was in 1990, when Buster Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson.

I remember when it happened, everyone was speechless. It was unreal. This bruiser had been knocking people out left and right. He had so much going for him, I'm sure some were ready to put him in the company of Ali, Robinson, Marciano, etc. Then that night in Tokyo, Mike Tyson's Heel was laid bare for all opponents to see. The knockout showed what Tyson's life would be like from then on. He was sent to jail for rape shortly after and the downward spiral continued. Now twice a felon, Tyson lost his last fight to Kevin McBride right here in DC in 2005. How the mighty have fallen.

By the time Mike Tyson was knocked out in Tokyo, his fall had been well underway. I believe his downfall can be traced back to his trainer's death in late 1985. Cus D'Amato had helped Tyson turn his life around after ending up in Reform School as a teen. D'Amato trained Tyson, and was much like a father figure to Tyson. When D'Amato died, it was right as Tyson was ascending to great stardom. The man who had looked out for Tyson's best interests was gone, and the jackals were free to feast. For four years before the Tokyo fight, Tyson had not been trained to contend. Many sports historians will say, and I agree, that Tyson was still very raw.

The years he was knocking every one out, he only had one strategy: knock the other guy out. For those amateur and early professional years, that worked. For "tomato cans" and "has-beens," Tyson was a formitable force. Most were unable to withstand his early flurries of jabs, hooks, and upper-cuts. For those who could, they were so busy guarding that they were unable to mount any offense. Once he fought someone who could take his early punishment, and punch back, Tyson was in deep trouble.

As Tyson lay on the mat, hardly able to see with one eye almost closed, he must have been so confused. No one had ever been able to box with Tyson. Buster Douglas exposed Tyson's lack of defense, his unpreparedness, and his lax attitude. Tyson's training for that fight had been cursory. He obviously had not prepared for the fight, his trainers were sycophants. Tyson simply had no answer for Douglas' night of near-perfect boxing. Douglas continuously corned Tyson, jabbed precisely, and kept Tyson's flurries ineffective with his long reach. Although Tyson knocked Douglas down early, the whole fight belonged to Douglas. What Buster Douglas showed every Tyson opponent in the future was that Mike Tyson was a one-dimensional fighter. Tyson lacked the training support to teach the young fighter good defense and endurance. Training support that formerly came from Cus D'Amato.


The lesson of this downfall exposes a great truth in sports. Get better or get passed. The "Iron Mike" Tyson era lasted only as long as fighters feared him. He never received the guidance and direction needed to go beyond bully. Tyson never adapted, and he never recovered after that fight. Sports will always amplify an athlete's weakness. Most of the time the obselete athlete leaves the sport forcefully. It is the rarest of athletes, like Michael Jordan, John Elway or Ted Williams, who lose some physical gift, but yet somehow stay great in their sport. Mike Tyson never had what these athletes had, once he was exposed, he was never the same. His fury was usually weathered and Tyson would end up losing, either by knockout, TKO, or a decision. At least his story reveals what can happen to all of us in life when our specialty becomes obselete. Only those who can adapt will succeed, the ones who can't become obselete and sink. As true it is in sport, so too is it in life.
Read more...

To Protect and Delay

I've been meaning to complain about something that I feel does little good: speedtraps. I don't drive very much, but I do take the bus home from work every day. Today traffic was especially horrendous, some may chalk it up to regular DC Metro area traffic, but I saw something else. Three or four police cruisers were pulling over vehicles for assorted offenses; they were writing the tickets as the bus slowly crept by. As I watched those patrol officers doing their job, I had to think: is this necessary? Is it possible that this speed trap, which has all the best intentions, actually making traffic worse? How does one weigh the supposed greater good versus efficiency of traffic? Anyone who knows me knows the answer to that question, especially when the greater good being served is not clear at all.

I believe that those police officers are actually making more traffic simply by being there. Everyone knows that driving behavior changes when the boys in blue are out. Suddenly everyone's hands are at ten and two, their seatbelts are quickly clasped and most importantly, they slow down to or below the speed limit. I'm all for safety, but sudden slowdowns caused by traffic police presence is not for the greater good. What happens is a giant accordion effect, like a catepillar contracting before expanding. Traffic all slows down, and the effect trickles further and further back. Before you know it, the police have caused far more traffic by simply being present than if they were not.

There are other ways to monitor driving behavior, like cameras and sensors. In Germany, the police would put a radar in the back of a beat up van, pulled over on the side of the road snapping pictures and speeds of passing drivers. These unintrusive devices can ensure a steady flow of traffic while satisfying the need to catch speeders. I simply argue that a police officer's presence during an already congested rush hour is more harmful than good. Traffic inevitably slows, making congestion that much worse. Are the few speeders caught worth the headache that the police cause simply by being present?
Read more...

And the race drags on...

This week's Economist.com KAL cartoon.


As you might have heard, Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania on Tuesday. I was hoping for her to lose so that this race could be over. So, that didn't happen. Instead she's still in the race, brandishing her unique brand of populism. Chris Matthews suggested that Obama be more of a "firebrand" and a "torch-bearer" speaking for the working man. It really made me think about the contrast of this race. If you know some political science, then you know that the bulk of the voters are in the center. On the extreme left and extreme right are the minority. Most of the time the one who becomes elected President is the one most successful in collecting the majority of the center (moderates). But, this isn't so in these Primaries, why not?.

It seems that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama used to be far more center than they are today. Perhaps it was their centrist appeal that made them each "inevitable," albeit it at different times. Hillary was unstoppable when she declared her candidacy in 2006. How far she has fallen. Barack Obama seemed inevitable after a decisive Wisconsin vote, remember? Then a shellacking in Ohio, Texas(popular vote) and lately, Pennsylvania. It seems they've each flown from the center to the left. It seems the longer this race goes on, the more populist it becomes.

Look at the key issues, Universal Health Care, the Economy and good ole fashioned gossip! Each of these issues offers a vision for a better tomorrow, what they fail to mention is the cost. Populist sermons tend to leave out those pesky details. But who really cares about that when we hear that someone's preacher gave a bad sermon, or that someone conjured up memories of past battle in Bosnia? This is what the race has come down to: who can appeal most to both a populist media (Thank you Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews and Lou Dobbs), and a blue-collar worker who just lost his job. This is a recipe for some government intevention. That is why Hillary Clinton will be the next FDR.

Social Programs, Price Controls (she proposed them in her previous medical care plan in 1994), and so on can be relied upon if she is elected. She will have a friendly congress, she will probably have a friendly majority. Spend, Spend, Spend. Historically, this has gotten us into big trouble. We're just coming off a spending Republican Congress and President. In with a spending Democrat? I may not like either candidate right now, but I can't see Hillary as president, it's a scary proposition. I just hope the one who is the least left wins. Democrat or Republican, our economy will thank you in the end.
Read more...

Please don't politicize the Olympics

Anyone who has been following the news this week knows that the Olympic torch relay, which precedes the Olympic games is under way. You may also know that that relay has been fraught with interruptions, protests and lots of grand-standing. The subject of all this distress is China's treatment of Tibet, a small region that most Americans would have trouble finding on a map. It is true that China has been represssing Tibet for over 50 years now, and it is true that they are heavy-handed in dealing with the small Himalayan region, but my question is what does this have to do with the Olympics? I understand that the Olympic Games cast the host city into a limelight, but that doesn't mean they need to be politicized. The Olympics are supposed to be beyond politics, Hu Jintao won't be throwing the javelin, Nicholas Sarkoszy won't be running the 100m dash, and George Bush and Vladimir Putin won't be involved in synchronized swimming this summer. These world leaders have nothing to do with the Olympic Games, it should stay that way. I truly hope, for the athletes sake, that this doesn't turn into the 1980 and 1984 Summer Olympics.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter believed it to be the duty of the United States to boycott the Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan. Sixty-two other countries joined in this protest. The Soviets retaliated by boycotting the Los Angeles Games in 1984. Political posturing won the day, but it was the athletes who lost. These athletes trained their entire lives to compete against the best in the Olympics. They gave their proverbial blood, sweat and tears to get to compete, and they could not. Why? Because their home country didn't like the politics of another's.

Politics and Policy have their time and their place. Every day, there is some speech by some politician, either applauding or decrying some country's foreign or domestic policy. That opinion can change from day to day, as politicians are notorious for this activity. The summer of 2008 will come and go, and eventually the world will again forget about Tibet, as they have for the last half-century. But, if we boycott the Olympics for that purpose, what have we gained? A headline today and a Wikipedia article tomorrow, not much else. All these athletes who have worked all their life for the opportunity to compete on the world stage, they will lose. For many, this is their only chance to compete. Politics and the Olympic Games should not mix. The world leaders can say what they want, they always do, but leave the games to the athletes.
Read more...

Africa and the Lessons of the American Revolution

What was the greatest test of the American Revolution? Was it when the signers of the Declaration of Independence sealed their document and watched it sail toward England, knowing what they had started? Or was it when the Articles of Confederation were determined to be inadequate as a governing document, and a new Constitution was needed? Perhaps it was all those bloody battles during the Revolutionary War, where men suffered from malnutrition and hypothermia, ready to quit. Though each of these events are considered important to the Revolution, they were not the greatest test. The greatest test was in 1800. Long after the Constitution had been ratified and George Washington had served his two terms as this nation's first President. John Adams had just lost the Presidential Election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson. When John Adams ceded power to his political rival, I believe that to be the cementing of the greatness of the American Revolution. It would be a lesson that some current African leaders would be keen to heed; losing an election may be hard, but relinquishing control can be the greatest gift an ousted leader can give.

When George Washington died in 1799, the Federalist Party was in deep trouble. They had lost their uniter, and thus were destined to lose power. John Adams lost a hard fought election to a most bitter rival, Thomas Jefferson. It could have been so easy for Adams to turn his back on the system of government he himself had fought so hard for decades before. It most certainly would have been the end of the American Revolution if John Adams had ignored the will of the electors. It would not have been the first time a leader refused to acknowledge the will of the people. Kings and Queens had been doing it for centuries, why should the Americans be any different? John Adams, of course did not betray America, and handed the keys of power to his opponent. This changeover set the standard for this country to follow long after Adams died in 1826. It is this lesson that two recent African leaders have chosen to ignore at their own countries' peril.

This past December, Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki seemed to have lost an election to his rival, Raila Odinga. Allegations of ballot-stuffing and vote-fixing tarnished both sides of the election, and Kenya descended into chaos. Kibaki showed just how difficult it can be for a leader to heed the will of an election. He had stymied his country's growth and lost his bid for the Presidency. Instead of ceding power, he clung to it, ensuring the near-destruction of his own country. More recently, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe seems to have lost his latest bid to remain President. So far, there has not been violence on the scale of Kenya, but nothing is concluded yet. After nearly 30 years of power, Mugabe has nearly destroyed his country with 100,000%inflation, astronomical unemployment, and an administration frought with corruption. It appears that his time is at an end, but will he leave?

John Adams did more for his country by leaving than will ever be acknowledged in the history books. His presidency was marred by the Alien and Sedition Act as well as a near war with France. Power is not an easy thing to release, just ask Fidel Castro. Next January will be a lesson for the American people as President Bush will hand power over to most likely a political opponent. Change is necessary to correct the ills of the past and guide a new future. Kenya lost that opportunity in December, Zimbabwe will likely miss theirs, thankfully we will not miss ours. Good governance does not just mean just laws, and a working legal system. It can also mean leaving when your time is up. That is the unsung legacy that John Adams gave to the Revolution in 1801.
Read more...