Vote after Reading

"In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong." -John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), economist (Wordsmith.org, AWAD, 9-3-2010)

Here, as promised, and truly at the last possible minute are the...

Not-So-Frequently Asked Questions (NFAQs)

Q: Unemployment is high and people are losing their homes, so why do our politicians say the recession is over and we should cut government jobs and keep tax cuts for the very rich?
A: Well, mostly it's the Republicans saying this. So most likely they say this because they are politicians, not economists. Their job is to get elected, not to develop sound economic policy.

Q: What sound economic policy are you talking about?
A: Letting the government stay big while the private sector is recovering will help all those folks who are out of jobs. Another stimulus for underfunded state governments would increase state government jobs, which have suffered massive lay-offs, until the private sector recovers. Health-care reform policies already in place will keep poor people healthy enough to work once jobs are available - if we leave the health-care reform law in place. And well-designed banking laws might even improve mortgage availability and keep more people from losing their homes. Pushing the Federal Reserve ("Fed") to buy up the debt would virtually eliminate the cost to our children and grandchildren. Finally, restoring taxes for the very, very wealthy would eliminate any added debt for all of this government spending and would let the Democratic administration and congress keep policies that will help the average American.

Q: If all this will help the average American and do all this good, why is anyone against it?
A: Well, come on, now. Because the people not in office want to get elected. The Republicans, who are largely responsible for the large national debt in the first place, want to focus on the present and hope we are silly enough to forget about the past. Understandably, Republicans don't like solutions that make problems of the Democratic-controlled Congress go away, so they fight any policy that might work as the Democrats say it will. They want to get elected, so they fight taxes for the very, very wealthy and health care reform. And are rewarded by campaign funding. Everyone knows scare tactics work, so the Republicans say big government, healthcare reform, and the stimulus are making the debt worse.

Q: Aren't the Republican claims true? Isn't the debt very large and a threat to future generations? Aren't health care reform and taxing the rich socialist policies?
A: The debt is large, but the primary reason is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened. The debt is a threat to future generations only if there's a high interest rate and the economy does not recover - so the only way to keep it a threat is to make sure the economy does not recover. Not until the Republicans are elected, at least. Hence the national Republican campaign against sound economic policy. Health care reform is no more socialist than firefighting and emergency services, which help the poor more than the rich. Taxing those who can afford to pay in a time of economic difficulty (can't say "recession" any more) seems more reasonable than forcing more people into bankruptcy and poverty so the rich folks can continue to accumulate wealth. But maybe that's just me.

Q: Why does Federal Reserve ("Fed") chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, hesitate to use what the New York Times calls, "the most powerful tool remaining in the Fed's arsenal of weapons to stimulate the economy: vast new purchases of government debt to lower long-term interest rates"?
A: Well, gee, it beats me. After all, this would totally eliminate the Republican claim that the stimulus didn't work and isn't working by reducing the debt to what was needed to fund new jobs in the government sector. I know the Republicans would have you believe that's a bad thing, but the government sector laid off about 120,000 employees recently because of lack of state funds and the economy is suffering from a net gap of 150,000 more jobless people. If we could just believe that working for the government is better than not working at all, we might re-think this whole concept that – for the moment – small government is somehow a good thing.
I have no idea why an independent, apolitical economist who heads up the Fed would do that.

Q: This doesn't sound like the expert opinion we've been reading; why not?
A: Probably because it isn't the expert opinion you've been reading. According to some, "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion (Dean Baker. The Soft Bigotry of Incredibly Low Expectations: The Case of Economists. Guardian Unlimited. September 13, 2010)

Q: When "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion, does it help to state the expert opinion more emphatically?
A: Certainly. That's precisely what's been going on in this election campaign. Note that it also helps to question the loyalty of anyone who doesn't agree when that expert opinion is unrelated to most or all pertinent facts.

Q: When did expert opinion first begin to dominate common sense and scientific evidence?
A: Back here on the Trailing Edge, we suspect it began in the pre-dawn of recorded history when that first political genius convinced the socio-religious community that wealth accrues to those who have a moral right to it. Of course we may be wrong; we were very young at the time.

Q: Why, if we are a representative democracy (otherwise known as a republic), do we allow congressional districts to be determined by the congress just after an election which may have put one party in power because of a recent Supreme Court decision that corporations are persons?
A: Beats the wholly beffrazelatts out of me. I'm just one of the idiots who lives here, in no way responsible for the thinking or behavior of the other idiots. Get back to the main topic.


Q: If the increasingly large national debt were wiped out, would it help the economy?
A: No. Stoppit. These are supposed to be infrequently asked questions, not silly ones.

Q: Why is that a silly question?
A: Oh, all right. Here goes. But don't say I didn’t warn you. When we increased the national debt by infusing money into the economic system, it did not hurt the economy; it helped the economy. We increased the short-term debt to bring about a long term solution (jobs and a stable economic system) that would reduce the debt when the economy improved (because of jobs and stable economy). Even though we did more to help the bankers than to help the economy, it worked a little bit. As with the Great Depression, the problem has not been that we spent too much on that effort, it's that we didn't spend enough.
The reason the question is silly is that no one wants to believe the answer, so it is silly for the Trailing Edge, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, or anyone else to keep explaining it. You can't refute expert opinions that go against the evidence by using evidence. And you can't refute popular opinion by using proof that popular opinion is inaccurate.

Q: Why not?
A: I have no idea.

Q: Maybe this is a silly question, too, but the United States of America is a shining example of democracy. Everybody says so. So why do most of our citizens skip it when it comes to exercising their right to vote?
A: That is not a silly question, it's a frequently asked question. This is NFAQ, not FAQ. Just because it's not a frequently answered does not mean the Trailing Edge should treat it as an NFAQ and answer it. Quit asking so many questions and go vote.



To support future installments of NFAQs, submit your questions now.