Fox News is Maddening Tonight!

September 22, 2014

Please pardon the frustration that will show in this post--I have been watching Fox news just now!

Tonight they feature retired generals and other "experts," on the Obama strategy against ISIS. Our President has said there will be no "US boots on the ground." He is focused on an air war, weapons, advice, and support, from the US and allies, with boots on the ground by local forces who are directly affected by ISIS threats.

Fox and its friends apparently think they are clever to try to put all the focus on whether the "no US boots on the ground" will be effective, with the clear and repeated assertion, "expert" after "expert," that it will not--i.e., there will definitely need to be US boots on the ground before this war is won--the local boots on the ground will not be sufficient.

What is disingenuous on the part of Fox and friends is this--if all these experts feel we should put US boots on the ground, why are they, each and every one, unwilling to just say that?  It's certainly implied, but never stated. Isn't it curious to carefully put all the focus on whether Obama is correct in offering a sufficient strategy? But isn't it cowardly to avoid taking a position on the issue of American boots on the ground?  I heard none of these experts say they recommend US boots on the ground! None!

Why, just why, are Fox and friends not willing to take a position? Why are all these critics of the "strategy" not willing to courageously say they each recommend putting US troops on the ground?  I argue they are extremely naive to think Americans find criticism of the strategy wins admiration. A proposal of a better strategy is the only way to win true admiration. Too easy, Fox and friends. Same approach you have used for years now with Obamacare--find fault, definitely under no circumstances offer an alternative. A proposal requires courage. There is insufficient courage to put a better plan forward.

I didn't say they're not smart. They're just cowardly. They surely calculate the risks if Fox and friends were to strongly recommend US boots on the ground. First, they might hope to ride a temporary wave of disgust and fear that results in recent polls showing Americans support attacking ISIS. My guess is that they realize the reaction to three beheadings will surely fade when  dozens or hundreds of US forces are returned to the US in body bags, just as we have repeatedly found in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Consider what's happening in the Ukraine right now. Russia is riding a record high Putin popularity, fueled by intense nationalism, popularity far higher than any US President has enjoyed in a long time. Yet, Russia has avoided admitting to its own people that their youth are directly engaged in the Ukraine conflict, even to the extent that these young soldiers, fighting in civilian clothing, are being denied proper burials and tribute--all for fear of engendering a sharp reduction in government popularity among Russians, as well as heightening Western resolve to stop Russian incursion in Ukraine. See the BBC report: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28949582

Isn't it revealing the the US Congress has been so reluctant to fully debate, discuss, and approve the extent of US engagement in this new war? Why does our Congress seem to hope the President will act unilaterally to decide the extent to which American lives are put at risk?

Yes, indeed--it's one thing to be on record as saying the Obama strategy will not work, and it's quite entirely another to be on record as recommending US go to war with American soldiers on the ground. I don't see any generals, congressmen or other experts anxious to admit they supported a full scale war in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

And, by the way, what is so wrong with a strategy that restrains the danger to young Americans? Why should we offer a nuclear option just because that might be required in the end to win a war? Why shouldn't we let the strategy evolve? Shouldn't the locals most directly affected and who understand how to navigate this unfamiliar terrain have a chance to try first?

I thought Bill Maher had made it sufficiently clear that Lindsay Graham and John McCain are off the charts with their fear of ISIS showing up in Arizona: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/21/bill-maher-fear-isis-monsanto_n_5857344.html

No matter how many say the current strategy cannot work without US boots on the ground, it's still far better to start this way.

And, I recognize it isn't just the Right which enjoys criticizing without recommending an alternative, but wouldn't it be nice if that was the requirement--no criticism be aired without an accompanying alternative recommendation. It would make television far more educational and meaningful.

Basics of Global Trade

Basics of Global Trade
September 9, 2014

On September 3, Brookings summarizes a report by Miriam Sapiro, now with Brookings and formerly a deputy US Trade Representative (2009-2014). Sapiro argues strongly for the benefits of increased foreign trade. She's writing in the context of the Transpacific Partnership ("TPP"), the huge trade alliance the US, Canada, and Mexico are negotiating with 9 Asian countries, including China and Japan. She speaks even more broadly, arguing that more trade is good for the entire global community.

Of course, more free trade sounds good for all--on the surface.  But, for those who have not had the opportunity to study major global failures in this regard, I offer a few observations, while acknowledging that some of the ills I refer to are complex and a host of other country specific factors also contribute to the outcomes I want to point out.

• First, the direction of Sapiro's argument is along the lines of open borders, deregulated free trade, elimination of barriers and tariffs--let the free market determine who gets the business. Sounds good on the surface.
• Second, this trade agreement is between 12 countries. The 11 represent about 44% of US exports at this time. Only one of these countries, Peru, can be seen as early "developing," unless you consider Mexico and China in that camp. So, the first question is what about the rest of the world? What about sub-Saharan African countries? If trade increases between the 12 in the TPP, does it mean that there is less opportunity for others, especially young developing countries, to sell to these 12? I think it does, to some degree.
• History has shown that when borders were opened by the influence of the Washington Consensus in the 90s, with the force of IMF lending conditions behind it, foreign investment increased mostly between developed countries, and relatively few western companies made investments in the places conservative economists expected--where wages were lowest. Why? Because of lots of handicaps in those developing countries--absence of rule of law, absence of institutions, absence of infrastructure, absence of sufficiently educated work force, language, customs, etc.
• As most clearly pointed out by economist Ha-joon Chang in his Kicking Away the Ladder, western nations are duplicitous in their demand for open borders. He points out that when they were young, the US, England, Japan, So Korea and most all developed countries had highly restrictive protections for their infant industries, high tariffs for example, no open borders, for a considerable period of years! So, have we forgotten that, or do we really feel something fundamental has changed such that infant industries of today do not need a similar period of protection to get started? Alexander Hamilton was one of the strongest advocates for that in the case of the United States, in the 18th century.
• Furthermore, even now, we remain protective of our own. Consider the amount of subsidy we give farmers in the US, raising crops which can far more efficiently be raised in many foreign countries. Doing so, we deny our own consumers the best prices and we also flood foreign agricultural markets with products at prices locals could compete with--without our subsidies--but with those subsidies, they cannot.
• Many countries forced to open their borders had catastrophic consequences: Along with open border requirements, another imposition was reducing government. Government had been the major employer in many of those countries. The idea was that all those displaced workers would get jobs in the burst of growth produced by opening borders. But, little foreign investment came, foreign agricultural products flowed in at subsidized prices even local wages could not compete with, and there was no way to develop local manufacturing without import tariffs. Many economies which accepted IMF debt with its impositions spiraled downward. Poverty increased.
• Marco Caceres has a great summary of recent impacts of such policies in Honduras, in the Sept 3, 2014 edition of the Huffington Post. The problems of these policies of the 90s continue to this day, as the Honduran administration is currently negotiating with the IMF over the terms of a new $220 Million loan. The price might involve a forced devaluation of the currency, which improves possible sale of exports, but raises prices for consumers in Honduras. Caceres reports that across the period of 1995 to 2012, US subsidies to US farmers for rice totaled $13 billion and subsidies for corn totaled $84 billion.

Citizens of developing countries are relegated to continued poverty through our agricultural subsidization and our companion political philosophy of imposing open borders on young developing countries.

Citizens of the US are also harmed. We pay higher prices for food products than we would if foreign producers were allowed to sell us rice and corn at prices which would give them a fighting chance at a decent agricultural business outcome for their families. Just those two subsidies (and there are others) total almost $100 billion of our tax dollars--that hurts Americans also. I'd rather we spend it on infrastructure and education.

So, more free trade is something that is good for some, but not always good for all, and our trade negotiations need to take the unique needs of individual trade partners into account, along with their respective stages of growth. And, we need to try harder to look at the world as the realm we must be accountable to, not just our own healthy, wealthy country.

References:

http://www.ustr.gov/tpp/overview-of-the-TPP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marco-caceres/honduras-beware-of-neolib_b_5758970.html

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2014/09/why-trade-matters?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=14032209&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8RTZ4df1FfeQusMXE9e5Cxrai3BXUczQyYdcR2J12AJ4A2qMJkLijgrQk5lDg9aQzumMGqXnp3K8eP1WTjT5B2XdjIyw&_hsmi=14032209

One Major Reason Inequality Matters

One Major Reason Inequality Matters

August 27, 2014

To judge for yourself whether inequality matters, just take a look at this comparison of what happens in college completion for the best scoring of low income kids vs. the lowest scoring high income kids. What happens is that 29% of the low income kids with highest scores complete college, while just about the same percentage (30%) of high income kids with low scores complete college. How can this be right?

In asserting that this set of outcomes means that inequality matters, I acknowledge a key assumption, which I believe is solid, but each can decide for herself/himself:

• I assume we agree that graduating from college is highly determinative for the vast majority in regard to their future opportunity, range of choice in their lives, and success, no matter how each individual defines that. We all recognize there will be a small minority who succeed without college, a few spectacularly, but should this mean we can all bet on such rare proceedings? Business week reports that 19 of the Fortune 500 CEO's have no college degree at all. But, 100 of them had degrees from just three schools--Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, and Columbia. Ivy League schools had a disproportionate share.

In my post on public and private schools, also dated today, I comment on the exorbitant cost of private schools in Pacific Heights where I live. I believe these kinds of schools garner disproportionate shares of Ivy League admissions, and that an Ivy League degree is usually a ticket to a comfortable life, if not in fact, an outstanding financial success.

The New York Times (August 26, 2014) reports that there has been little improvement in the admission of less well off students to selective colleges between 1990 and 2012--only about 15% of admissions are from a poor family background.

To be fair, there are lots of reasons for this, and it's not right to blame the universities for all of them. Some of it stems from the need to educate the students about those possibilities, while they are in high school. Many of the poorer families have a big need for someone with college experience and perspective to advise or even mentor their children, to get them prepared and encouraged to try for the best schools. Cost is not the main problem, since there is financial aid available, but it is also true that many colleges have to balance the low and no pay against the paying kids to achieve financial break-even.

One example of how such support can be availed is described in another NYT article. "Communities in Schools" operates in 26 states, had 75% success in remedying cases of chronic attendance problems through mentoring and counseling, and claims a cost of only $189 per student per year.

This is an example of the kinds of tools we can work with, even within our starved school budgets, with the help of community support organizations.

I keep thinking we should have no disagreement between the rich and the poor on the importance of education. Isn't this piece of it about "equal opportunity," as distinguished from redistribution?


References:
Business week: http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/blogs/mba_admissions/archives/2011/01/harvard_columbia_penn_claim_most_fortune_500_ceos.html

NYTimes Aug 26 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/education/despite-promises-little-progress-in-drawing-poor-to-elite-colleges.html?hpw&rref=us&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

Communities in Schools: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/opinion/to-keep-poor-kids-in-school-provide-social-services.html?hpw&rref=opinion&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHedThumbWell&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

Let's Join to Fix Public Schools--A Reflection from Pacific Heights

Let's Join to Fix Public Schools--A Reflection from Pacific Heights

August 27, 2014

Anyone who questions inequality in our society need only look at schools.

My perspective reflects my own experience. I went to public schools through high school. My kids went to public schools through college. I'm proud of our public education. 

School was in the 1950s and 60s for me and the 1970s and 80s for my kids.

Since then, things have changed and the quality of many public schools has declined. My kids and I were educated before public schools were forced to campaign for donations to sustain even basic programs. 

Today, within a three block radius of where I live in the Pacific Heights section of San Francisco, there are four private schools. According to their websites, their tuitions are:

Drew School:              $38,500 plus estimated costs of $2,000

Town School:              $28,170-29,245

University High:          $37,200 plus estimated costs of $3,000

Waldorf School:

      Nursery students:   $14,800

      Grades 1-12:          $21,400-32,400

Together, these schools enroll 1,539 students.

One of these schools started in 1973 and another in 1979. That was when income inequality began its steady upward rise, returning the United States to where it was at the end of the Gilded Age. The shift marked a reversal of a roughly 30-year period of egalitarianism in much of the Western world. According to the French economist Thomas Piketty, this period of greater equality reflected massive social policies enacted in response to the Great Depression and the two World Wars. Without such future epic events to serve as catalysts for social change, Piketty forecasts that inequality in wealth and income will continue to widen. I agree.

The way education fits into the inequality story is plain. Can a family with two workers making San Francisco’s minimum wage get the kind of education for their kids provided by these Pacific Heights private schools? Can even a family making San Francisco’s median household income of about $75,000 afford such educational expense?

In 1970, the economist Albert Hirschman advanced his "exit voice" theory. He explained that when the wealthy choose to buy high quality private services such as private schools, their exit from public services leaves only the poor to support those services. But the poor do not have much “voice” to influence government, so public services continue to deteriorate. That sets in motion a vicious circle of declining public school resources, rapid school deterioration, and more exits of those with means from the public school system.

Where I live, enough families have incomes sufficient to pay steep private school tuitions and also contribute generously to capital campaigns.  Three of these schools have had major capital campaigns, and significantly upgraded and expanded within the past 5 years.   But, not far from me live other good parents. Their ambitions for their kids are no different than those of my wealthy Pacific Heights neighbors. However, those less affluent parents mostly cannot touch these feeder schools to Ivy League universities. The gap between the rich and everyone else is perpetuated for another generation.

I don't blame these four private schools--they're all excellent. And, to be fair, they each offer financial support to some students. Nor do I blame the parents who send their children to these schools. They're good parents and I might do the same if I were in their shoes today.

But I am increasingly troubled by the growing disparity in quality of education, which translates into differences in job opportunities, social mobility, and prosperity. The sum of say $30,000 per year for these 1,539 private school students compares with approximately $9,000 for each of the 53,000 students in the San Francisco Unified School District. Student/teacher ratios of about 8:1 compare with 18:1 in our public schools.

I appeal to the wealthy to recognize that quality education like what their children get should be available to all children.  For conservatives who do not believe in redistribution, but do believe in equal opportunity, I appeal especially to you.  You undoubtedly agree that quality education is critical, or as parents you wouldn’t pay these prices. By all means, parents should provide their children with the best. But let’s join together to make sure similar opportunities are available for all by providing public schools the resources they need and restoring excellence to public education.  

Fixing our public schools will go a long way toward reducing inequality.

What China Needs

What China Needs
August 23, 2014

The current issue of The Economist features what the editors of the magazine think China wants at this point in its development.

Here are a few of the major findings/opinions of these writers and editors. China wants:

• Continued growth.
• Ideas, markets, raw material, investment.
• Stability.
• China feels a long period of its historic prestige and supremacy was lost or stolen and it wants that prestige and recognition back. 
• China wants a seat at the tables of world power, but China doesn't want to exert power in those forums by leading global initiatives. China does not want to upend the global order. China does not want to emulate America's failed global military experience.
• China does not want to make other nations to be like China.
• China wants to use its unitary power to its advantage.
• China wants to use nationalism to distract its citizens from local problems.
• China wants to protect the control of the maximum empire China ever had--e.g., as in the Qing dynasty, thus the disputes with neighboring countries over small islands.
• China does want to improve the environment and conduct other reforms.

While The Economist feels China resents the US "Asia pivot," they say China is nevertheless amenable, as should the US be, to more collaboration of the two great powers--as with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the new Asia regional trade plan.

The Economist comments on the ideological dilemma China faces in its global image. To the extent that China fails to show steady progress in the resolution of its domestic problems, it weakens what could be a huge advantage. One might say China has everything else going for it--an astounding 30 year unbroken economic miracle, and amazing economic efficiency which most democratic countries cannot match--certainly not the US, gridlocked as we are. William Kirby of Harvard is quoted as saying China once had an ideology, a soft power, so strong that "neighbors converted themselves." Nowadays, The Economist argues that the world sees the flaws in the ideology.

The Economist argument ends with a prognostication that unless China moves to give more power to the people, its world power will continue to suffer--"neighbours will continue to cling to the coat-tails of Uncle Sam."

Having studied modern China diligently last year in London, I agree with most of what The Economist says.  No one believes that autocratic rule there for the next century would be best for China's sustainable development. However, moving sharply to democratic rule is idealistic, impractical, and perhaps not in the best interests of China and the world.

Here's why:

As we watch other countries struggle with the outcomes of early democracy, we see chaos, conflict, civil war, battling religions and ideologies. Examples include Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and young democracies in Africa. Moving steadily, but cautiously and slowly toward that objective might well yield a better outcome, especially considering that such unrest as we see in other young democracies might be catastrophic, not only for hundreds of millions of Chinese, but for the world, considering that China is nuclear armed, and is generally supportive of world order and peace, plus a critical element of the global economic system. A meltdown in China might bring down the entire world economy.

Second, lets consider what the Chinese want, as somewhat distinct from what the leadership want (the latter being what The Economist is talking about in this edition). Chinese citizens are indeed protesting for more democratic rule, but they're also protesting about the environment, about inflation, food safety, water, pollution, inequality, human rights, rule of law, poverty, the rights of rural migrants to the cities ("houkou issues), healthcare, corruption, and a slew of local matters. Setting aside democratic rule for a moment, many of these issues can be addressed under the autocratic system just as well as under a democratic system.  Maybe even better.

In fact, significant progress has been made on a number of these issues. For the additional benefit of protecting major cities from the dust and sand from nearby deserts (a major problem in Beijing), The Guardian reports that Chinese citizens have planted 56 billion trees in the last decade. There appears to be an increase in charges and prosecution for corruption, even at high levels, example being the recent investigation of Zhou Yongkang, former security head for the CCP. Progress on these and other faults is insufficient. China ranks poorly on these matters. But, the point is that progress is being made on many of these issues.

Pew studies indicate that of 21 nations surveyed, Chinese surveyed have the highest rating of all nations in seeing their financial status better than their parents at the same age. They are second only to Brazil in seeing their current situation better than 5 years ago. Pew indicated a majority of citizens are strongly favorable to their government. Other studies show the same. Indications from the surveys are that the tradeoff is the benefits of the continuing economic growth, vs. other reforms which are desired. It appears that as long as China can deliver continued economic growth and make some progress on other complaints, albeit slow progress, the citizenry support their government.

One matter some of us liberals wish was not the case is a basic economic reality: There is a necessity for governments to make painful tradeoff decisions between growth and the kind of reforms listed in the above paragraphs--in China and everywhere. Why? Because the government revenue available is always limited. It can be invested in things which produce growth and jobs, like infrastructure. Or it can be invested in controlling pollution, as an example. This usually imposes additional costs on manufacturers, reducing their ability to grow and hire more people. Imposing pollution controls on automobile drivers means more public transportation must be built and paid for, and fewer cars will be sold, meaning fewer jobs in the auto plants. Bottom line--most reforms cost money and many result in slowing growth. These are the kinds of tradeoffs which must be made. And, as indicated above, while Chinese (like Americans) want everything, as indicated in the Pew survey, net-net, up to now, they vote for growth at the expense of these other reforms.  

There is virtually no way to reduce poverty without solid economic growth. China since 1980 prioritized economic growth and reduced poverty from 65% of the population to 10%, according to the World Bank. I would argue that China's leadership has done a rather good job of making the painful tradeoffs, all things considered. Their citizens complain, as do Americans, but they like their government perhaps more than we like ours.

Finally, let us examine ourselves before urging our system onto others. How well is our democracy working as it relates to reforms? Consider our President's attempts to regulate coal mining. Fox news and The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank argued on Fox News today that our President is impeding growth, costing job, and costing the consumer by trying to reduce pollution from coal. The Keystone pipeline,  to bring oil from Canada to the US, was first proposed in 2005, and it still not decided. Such delays in deciding would never occur under the autocracy of China. 

It may sound unpatriotic to suggest democracy is not always, under all circumstances, the best form of government for all countries. However, history and current events do not support this thesis. I would say that China need not feel too anxious about the pace of its move toward democracy. Our government's poor performance is hardly drawing converts to the coattails of Uncle Sam. If China makes steady progress yielding visible continuing improvement in the reforms Chinese want, albeit measured and slow progress, while continuing steady growth in its economy, their autocratic government may well have a decent remaining lifespan.

References
The Economist: http://www.economist.com/printedition/2014-08-23
The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/23/china-great-green-wall-climate
Pew: http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/10/16/chapter-1-domestic-issues-and-national-problems/

Ferguson Postcript

Ferguson Postscript

Aug 18, 2014

Following on the thoughts I shared in my post of yesterday, I want to highlight this Brookings Institution article of today:

"Ferguson, Mo. Emblematic of Growing Suburban Poverty"

(link below)

Here is an excerpt from the article: 

"But Ferguson has also been home to dramatic economic changes in recent years. The city’s unemployment rate rose from less than 5 percent in 2000 to over 13 percent in 2010-12. For those residents who were employed, inflation-adjusted average earnings fell by one-third. The number of households using federal Housing Choice Vouchers climbed from roughly 300 in 2000 to more than 800 by the end of the decade. Amid these changes, poverty skyrocketed. Between 2000 and 2010-2012, Ferguson’s poor population doubled. By the end of that period, roughly one in four residents lived below the federal poverty line ($23,492 for a family of four in 2012), and 44 percent fell below twice that level."

And, as I argued yesterday, Ferguson is just an example of widespread increases in poverty: 

"Within the nation’s 100 largest metro areas, the number of suburban neighborhoods where more than 20 percent of residents live below the federal poverty line more than doubled between 2000 and 2008-2012. Almost every major metro area saw suburban poverty not only grow during the 2000s but also become more concentrated in high-poverty neighborhoods. By 2008-2012, 38 percent of poor residents in the suburbs lived in neighborhoods with poverty rates of 20 percent or higher. For poor black residents in those communities, the figure was 53 percent.

And, lest one think this phenomenon occurs only in suburbs, there are numerous studies of growing urban poverty and inequality. See my previous posts regarding San Francisco.

Poverty is one of the elements making up the reality for those in the lower income classes in the US and the world, along with homelessness, inadequate housing, health care, educational opportunity, safety, and a number of other challenges.

We won't know exactly what happened between Michael Brown and officer Darren Wilson until the investigation and/or the trial are completed, and most likely some will not be convinced then. But we do know one thing for sure, no investigation or trial necessary: Poverty and inequality have risen dramatically across the last 30 years.  There can be little doubt that this is a contributing factor to incidents such as we see today in Ferguson, MO.

(http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2014/08/15-ferguson-suburban-poverty?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=13825046&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_CQLzEde1EJVi30NGkTgqpVrbiFcq3reihjeu-8brWCvzl0za1_h9xTKSdRVRYxpCUYEF4TGaosm-3g-GwZapShsZ3hw&_hsmi=13825046)

Ferguson MO August 2014

Ferguson MO August 2014

August 17, 2014

A week ago, unarmed 18 year old black man Michael Brown was shot and killed in an altercation with 28 year old white police officer Darren Wilson in this small town near St. Louis. What has transpired since then has been continuous media coverage of massive demonstrations (not only in Ferguson, but in other cities across the country). Most of these demonstrations have been peaceful, but some have involved heavy police force and there has been some looting and lawlessness.

At one extreme, some may believe or at least hope that the police officer had justified cause to kill the young man, perhaps because the officer was in fear of his own life, that there may have been a scuffle over the officer's gun. At the other extreme, parents of the young man, friends in the community and sympathizers in our nation, feel this may have been an unprovoked killing, believing that eye witnesses are telling the truth--saying the young man was holding his hands in the air to surrender when shot.

This brings back to mind for many the still recent killing of Treyvon Martin by white neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, and the 1991 Los Angeles policy killing of Rodney King, resulting in massive riots in Los Angeles.

The Ferguson case is tainted by a video which shows the deceased young man only a few minutes earlier stealing some cigars and appearing to physically threaten a convenience store owner. The Rodney King case evolved from King taking police on a high speed chase, presumably to avoid capture. And, in the Martin/Zimmerman case, although Zimmerman was acquitted, his personal life involves troublesome misdemeanors. Yet, we know that whatever may have been the behavior of Michael Brown before the altercation with the policeman, that should not result in an unarmed man being killed, if indeed he was not wrestling for the gun or somehow threatening to kill the officer.

No one knows yet what really happened. We have to trust our justice system to try to get to the right answer, while knowing our system is not always perfect. I commend the young man's parents for consistently only asking for an honest and fair answer, and for only peaceful protests, as has our President.

I'm not writing this Sunday afternoon to opine on the right or wrong of this case. I don't know. I am writing to agree with commentators of both races who say we have seen too many thousands of young black men die at the hands of our justice system, whether it was lawful or not at the time. We need to acknowledge that behind the difficult and sometimes troubled lives of many of our young black men is a societal system which provides little help for the underprivileged of any color, and undoubtedly less for those who are black than for those who are white, in general.

I'm talking about inequality, and all the critical elements associated with it. There can be little doubt that the inequality and the poverty our system increasingly imposes on the underprivileged results in desperate attempts of the young to find fairness or push back in the form of petty crimes such as stealing cigars, or worse. No one condones such crimes, but to a certain significant extent our society is responsible for this behavior. We could do something about it. We could provide less inequality without destroying incentives.

In a TED talk (reference below) which TED was reluctant to release, billionaire Nick Hanauer makes a powerful plea to "fellow plutocrats" to support the minimum wage increase. He forecasts that we will have "pitchforks" or worse to fear if we do not--the threat of revolution. He also makes a strong argument that providing more support for the underprivileged is beneficial to everyone--even the rich--with more opportunity, the poor will spend more and thus grow the economy. This would also reduce crime.

Hanauer also makes a point I have made before in these posts: like me, he was born in America, white, anglo-saxon, protestant. He says that with the same natural talents that propelled him to the .01%, born elsewhere, he might well have spent his life selling fruit by the side of a dirt road in some lesser developed country in the world--because, as he says, this might have been all that could be sold in those countries. So unlike the US. I feel the same. I am not a plutocrat, but I acknowledge the benefits of circumstance such as Hanauer's. And the obstacles and limitations our system imposes on the lowest income categories make life feel like living in a poor country with no opportunity to get out. And, it's worse when not far away you see people driving Bentleys and living in mansions in gated communities.

Today, Martin Luther King III spoke at the Greater Grace church in Ferguson. He said we go around the world promoting our democracy, and our democracy is failing us. Jesse Jackson spoke also, and called the Ferguson situation a metaphor for abandoned urban America. I agree with both.

I address some of these issues in my previous post "Capitalism and Democracy." I hope "democracy" is not defined for us simply by "one person, one vote." It took us a long time to even get that, but I hope we include other definitions, such as "an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights,"  and " the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges." (Webster)

An effective tax rate of say 15% for the ultra rich can only be considered arbitrary. Likewise, sending your high school kids to private schools costing $35,000 per year, and leaving the woes of the public school system to the declining prospects of continuing tax cuts can only be considered arbitrary. And that's not equal rights.

Inequality is a good thing, up to a point. Capitalism is a good system, up to a point. We're well beyond the beneficial point in both. We need to acknowledge we must soften the excesses of capitalism if we want to keep the pitchforks at bay and keep the system.



Nice Hanauer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g