Debunking Liberal Economics Volume 1 "A College Degree is Key to the Middle Class" Issue 1: Government Inflated a Bubble

Before I begin I also would like to welcome our new writers and thank them for their time to helping Matt and I out on this crazy project we envisioned. To our readers, I hope I am turning you. 

(Matt, I would love to put up a poll to find out the ideological skew of our readers, my guess is at least 70-30 against me. Maybe even 95-5…) 

Now, I will dive into the issue at hand: liberal policies of just throwing money at the problem have created an issue and the only way to solve it is by completely re-envisioning the model.

I didn’t mean to make this post a response to Matt, but I later decided to just focus this post on something Matt wrote in his last post in what has shaped up to be “Education Week at CR”. Matt wrote, “Whenever anything goes wrong, you can always expect conservatives to blame the government.” Matt, there’s probably a cause-effect problem here. You see if A constantly causes B, one would be correct to say that A caused B. However, what you are asserting in that statement is that A did not actually cause B. So let’s take a look at whether A did cause B, shall we?

The Next Bubble

Its been so long since last we... okay, I'll stop.  But seriously, as our three readers know, its been awhile since I've taken the time to put together something substantive for the blog.  Thank goodness for Conflict Revolution's new writers, or Stephen and I might owe more in child support to this whole enterprise than a certain former elected official does to his love child. 

Guess again!

Which brings me to the point about welcoming the new writers I mentioned.  We are happy to benefit from the outstanding contributions of Elaine Chen, who will be helping us with morning updates and assorted other posts, and Nadia Sheikh, who has kindly offered to cross post some content from her excellent blog Nadia in Pakistan.  Thanks Nadia and Elaine, and welcome!

Yet even as Conflict Revolution's platform widens and the blog expands, we can't forget where we came from.  Steve and I have most recently been working on a couple of (mostly) friendly exchanges on topics ranging from inheritance taxes to regulatory burdens, Republican obstruction, and tacky campaign fundraising gimmicks.  Sexy!  But if you're craving some email debate and you just can't wait, see our most recent discussion on plastic bags and global warming.  It's... great.

Now, that promised substantive post. 

Afternoon Update: Healthcare Roundup

I don't know if anyone heard, but there was a Supreme Court ruling of some minor importance this morning.  Stephen and I engaged in an extremely in-depth and substantive debate about it here.

Here are some additional perspectives on the case, and the health care issue in general:

1) The saga of Republicans having been for the individual mandate before they were against it is well-chronicled, but here's a fun fact: Jim DeMint, arguably the most tea-partying Tea Party member of the US Senate, wrote a letter to George W. Bush in 2007 urging the former president to:

“ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage.”

Sounds an awful lot like what the Supreme Court justices just signed off on.  Nevertheless, Ezra Klein wonders: Do Republicans even want everyone to be covered anymore?

2) Francis Wilkinson of Bloomberg points out that public knowledge of what's in the health care bill is still pretty weak, with even Republicans liking most of the individual provisions in the law they so abhor.  A full 48 percent of Americans either thought the health care law had been repealed or were unsure.  Mitt Romney has outlined no alternative health care plan whatsoever.  Does he really want a fight on this?

3) Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal argues that, if it is not eventually repealed, the Affordable Care Act will forever be swimming against the tide of history.   Ironically, in Mr. Henninger's analysis of a law that is allegedly at odds with an era defined by "a dazzling, unprecedented array of choices," he makes no mention of the fact that the Affordable Care Act is designed to provide exactly the kind of health care choices he supports.  Perhaps the WSJ should write a column excoriating all those Republican governors and state legislatures for refusing to establish the state-level health insurance exchanges that encourage health care competition and are a linchpin in the legislation.

4) Lastly, Alex MacGillis argues that with the legal distractions now put to bed, Obama must make a strong case for his signature domestic achievement.  

As a certain stuttering duck once said with significantly more difficulty... that's all, folks.  If you're looking to waste more of your own time reading about the health care ruling, I would recommend starting here, here, and here.

Rapid Reax: Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare

It's a great day for individual responsibility, as the Supreme Court held this morning that the individual health care mandate, and most of the rest of President Obama's 2010 health care law, is in fact constitutional.  Somewhere, the pre-2008 edition of the cyborg known by his friends as Mitt Romney is rejoicing. 

The blogosphere is abuzz with reaction to the decision, and Stephen and Matt joined in by engaging in a bit of pre-emptive sniping on Twitter this morning.  Here's a sampling:

I know, I know.  But if that was exhausting to read, just imagine how difficult it was to take so many screen shots. 

More reaction to come, along with some court analysis from CR Chief Legal Correspondent Stephen DeGenaro, who Conflict Revolution enthusiasts may remember wrote this recap of the oral arguments on the health care case in March. 

Stay safe out there folks, and watch out for the job killers.  Now that Obamacare is constitutional, they're everywhere...

Wednesday Morning News and Updates

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel's plan for Europe is causing doubt among other European countries as well as the rest of the world. Will their grand plans of creating European integration through a political union be successful?

The super heat-spike has caused Colorado's wildfire to double in size since it began last night. It has grown to over the span of 24 square miles, with only 5% being contained. Local firefighters are currently assessing the situation in how to keep the flames from spreading.

Issues on how much Facebook stock should be priced at is a major topic today in Wall Street. While major financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan believe it should be priced between $45 and $47 respectively over the next year, others believe it should settle at the price it started out: $38. Currently, the average Facebook stock is $37.71. Has the stock market overestimated the revolution Facebook was to have over the industry after going public?

[Not-so] Love Lockdown, Prologue (1/4): Do Convicted Criminals dream the American dream?

Do convicted criminals dream the American dream?

Sure they do - Just look at freshly sentenced criminals Rajat Gupta (former Goldman board member), R. Allen Stanford (sentenced to 110 years in prison without parole), and of course Grandaddy Ponzi himself, Bernie Madoff. Hell, these guys even lived the American dream, with its fast cars, deep pockets, luxury yachts and diamonds for the ladies in life.

Now, these riches-to-rags storybook characters are scheduled to rot in a Federal penitentiary for the rest of their lives, leaving exponentially more finances and possibly life plans ruined in their wake. All this justice, of course, conducted in order to dissuade other current or would-be criminals from acting...in exactly the only way they know of how to get to the American dream - Get Rich or Die/Go to Jail Trying.

50 Cent was on to something

A rather paradoxical message, given the global rash of government-bank bailouts and the continued reliance on the instruments (i.e. financial markets) of who-dares-wins capitalism. But enough of this suddenly-fashionable bashing of fallen financial idols. It seems like just yesterday when activist judges, juries, and members of the media started defending the rights of convicted rapists, murderers, gang-bangers and the assorted denizens of American death row - new and vindicating/damning DNA evidence notwithstanding - so I'm sure public opinion will grow weary of its latest social witch-hunt sooner or later, and that District Attorneys/Federal Prosecutors will likewise find some other scapegoats upon which to build their reputations on the docket. Sooner or later, our generation's To Kill a Mockingbird of the early 21st century will be published, this time admonishing the veritable inquisition of financial criminals during a time of long-term recession and entrenched unemployment.

Yet even in a time of economic downturn, when Wall Street becomes an easy target of Main Street's wrath, no one seems to be pissing on how the wildly-popular (and mostly plastic) Kardashians, the train-wreck-of-an-excuse-for-a-man Charlie Sheens, or the well-paid, drug-snorting Lindsay Blohan-type celebrities don't pay "their fair share" of American taxes. Plus Justin Bieber- he's CANADIAN!! Where is that money going??

oh...nevermind.

What compelled me to finally write original content for the blog again - and a three-part series, at that - was a combination of many factors, the premier of which was my roommate's comment that, "no offense, but I think the American Dream is more of a Dream than a Reality."

Email Debate: Paper or Plastic?

When Stephen saw a study on his favorite blog purporting to show that the production of plastic bags generated fewer carbon emissions than their reusable counterparts, and that it would take up to 131 reuses of said reusable bag to make for the increased carbon emissions it took to produce it, his eyes lit up.  Had he finally found the noble sword to drive into the stone that his longtime scourge called a heart?  Sure, we may be talking about environmentalists, who care about things like clean water and sea turtles.  But after many years of doing battle with Matt - Mr. Eco-Action - on issues related to environmental protection, Steve sensed he may have found the knockout punch he so craved.  A lively debate ensued:


Stephen: Matt, in light of this study, will you join in me in saying the environmentalist crowd has gotten this one wrong? 

Matt: The article you linked is simplistic at best, and the dumbest thing I've ever read at worst.  First, their measure of "better for the environment" is extremely narrow - the study measures carbon emissions but says nothing about waste.  The carbon emissions finding is insightful, for sure, and should make people think twice before they reflexively assume a "reusable" bag has no impact.  But the article says nothing about plastic bags ending up in landfills or waterways.  Does that not impact the environment?  The DC bag tax, which I assume you don't support, wasn't created as a high-minded local solution to global warming... they did it to keep plastic bags from ending up in the Anacostia River.  Alternatively, have you ever heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? 

Despite the scorn with which you and the author to this article refer to the "environmentalist crowd," you've taken a simplistic study and used it to justify a wasteful status quo and then beat your chest about it.  The biggest problem with plastic bags isn't that they exist, it's that they are overused and then wasted.  The best thing anyone can do for the environment is use less, and in a country that values thrift when it comes to our economic decisions, I've never understood why some people look down on the idea that we shouldn't waste our other resources.

Read Stephen's response after the jump...

Tuesday Morning: Daily News Update

Mia Love, a black Republican, fitness instructor, and mayor of a growing town in Utah, stands to become the first black woman in Congress. She stands to compete against six-term Democrat Representative Jim Matheson.

Condoleezza Rice has gone on record to state that she has no interest in running for vice president alongside Mitt Romney.

Greece has appointed Yannis Stournaras, a former economic adviser and economist, as their new Finance Minister today. The position was originally appointed to Vassilis Rapanos, chairman of the National Bank of Greece, but resigned the position before being sworn in due to health problems.

On a lighter note, and great news for those coffee addicts out there, recent studies have shown consistent results that coffee drinkers are found to be living longer than abstainers. Coffee drinkers who started the study relatively healthy were less likely than nondrinkers to die of heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke, diabetes, and infection. So drink up my fellow coffee lovers, it's good for you.

RE: Getting your Money's Worth - College "Career Centers" Need to Live up to their Namesake

I only just realized this recently, after meeting more and more recent graduates from peer universities in the workforce (i.e. same-sized, similarly-minded and educated private schools) that Georgetown's career center is painfully sub-par offers mediocre results at best. I'm not saying it's poorly-run - in fact, they are very well-run and in many ways efficient given the skeletal staff they have in relation to the quantity of resources and student services they offer.

The problem is just that these services don't work nearly as well as they should, and indeed have to, in the present economy insofar as the actual results of students spending time and effort (and money) on their programs should be full-time, gainful employment. They need a different set of performance metrics, and in fact the ONLY performance metric they should be basing that center on is how many graduates or students affiliated with Georgetown are put into full-time job positions, or at least something with benefits.
In fact, they shouldn't even measure anything besides median/mode income, and the VALUE of EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DERIVED or PAID FOR vs.BY (out-of-pocket) recent graduates, because I ASSURE you that even worse than not having income (anyone can flip burgers and have a W-2 form to fill out come tax season) is not having stable benefits for health and welfare that were PAID for and ASSUMED services provided by colleges and universities to students.

THAT type of stability, the stability upon which overall fiscal, familial, "defining life change," or any other intangible but no less important basis of welfare, is the dominating purpose of obtaining a career.

(and Phil proves this and his other points after the jump, where you can learn about Employment Benefits and Compensation for Tax Purposes- IRS Jargon 001)

Monday Morning: Daily News and Headlines

Immigration, a major issue in the upcoming presidential elections, has become a major focus today as the Supreme Court has decided to support a section of Arizona law allowing police officers to check the immigration status of people they decide to stop. Has this become a new legal version of racial profiling?

The new wave of marketing? Buying ad space on fire trucks. Struggling cities deal with the economic downturn by turning towards naming rights on city property, with fire trucks becoming the new potential target.

Egypt witnesses another milestone towards Democracy, as Mohamed Morsi wins the first competitive presidential election the country has seen. This marks Egypt's first elected Islamist head of state, as well as the first president outside the military.

And finally, Apple continues on its reevaluation towards the pay of their retail employees. With how expensive many Apple products are, you'd think they would give a little more bang for their buck towards those Apple Geniuses so many of us consider technological saviors.

Guest Post: Getting Your Money's Worth

When Nadia Sheikh (Georgetown '09) told her Dean how she hadn't found "gainful employment" despite having both a Bachelor's and Graduate Degree, that Dean joked: "Does she want her money back?"

Nadia is now pursuing a career in international development consulting in Pakistan, where she is keeping a blog journal of her experiences living and working abroad. You can find more of Nadia's writings at nadiainpakistan.blogspot.com, or follow her on twitter (@sheikhandbake).

Getting Your Money's Worth
By Nadia Sheikh

About two months ago, Dean Gillis, the dean of the College at Georgetown University made a pit stop in my hometown of Portland, Oregon. During the Q and A section, my mom raised her hand and told him about my story -- how almost three years post-graduation, I haven't found gainful employment despite honors from Georgetown and now LSE. In his response, first, he made a joke, 'does she want her money back?' Then went on to say that I could contact him.

I sent him a friendly email, explaining my circumstances and how I've done everything in my power to get a job. I interned throughout college (six internships), volunteered post college, had part-time jobs, and did another internship for eight months post college. I went to the career center at LSE and Georgetown for weeks on end, getting appointments whenever they'd let me this past year, gone to every networking and career center event I could possibly go to to meet HR reps, career fairs, 500+ applications, and continued calling and meeting alums on the alumni networks for both schools in the US and even in Pakistan. Why do I not have a job yet? Is it just bad luck? The economy? Interviewing skills? My field of choice? Lack of connections?

CR Sports: Tradition and the Mets

For all of Stephen and Matt's disagreements, there is only one that so strongly divides an entire city and parts of three full states.  While that second part of that statement may or may not actually be true, I'm obviously talking about the Mets/Yankees crosstown rivalry.  With the first of the two teams' annual meetings set to take place tonight, Matt and Stephen decided to dissect which offered more compelling reasons for fanhood. 

Earlier today Stephen offered a tradition-based justification for being a Yankees fan.  Matt now gives his take on the joy, or something, of rooting for the Mets:

CLICK HERE FOR PART I

Posted by Matt:

Ah, tradition.  The great thing about tradition is that it takes many forms.  In the most simplistic, and perhaps most conventional, reading of the word tradition, the Yankees do indeed have much more to brag about than the Mets.  The 27 championships, the '27 Yankees team, Mantle, Ruth (though I'd argue Willie Mays, not Ruth, was the best ever)... it's all there with the Yankees, except the stadium where most of it happened.  Sorry, low blow. 

But the Mets have tradition, too, and most of it is of a scrappier, more blue-collar variety - which is what we fans have come to love.  There is no team that embraces its underdog status, out of necessity really, more than the Mets.  We are the team that set the record for most losses in a season... in our first season in existence.  Talk about a precedent.  We won our first World Series, seven years later, after being 10 games back in the standings in mid-August.  Sixteen years later, we won our second title in one of the greatest and most improbable comebacks in World Series history (say no more).  Then our two best young players - two of the best from that entire generation of baseball athletes (Darryl Strawberry and Doc Gooden) - became addicted to cocaine.

Alas, this is the other side of the Mets story - the franchise that can never get out of its own way.  It's maddening sometimes, but it's a signature part of what makes being a fan of any team both interesting and rewarding.

The Yankees, at least before they tore it down to build a more expensive replacement, used to play in baseball's cathedral, but we are the guys who played our home games in a glorified 1960s trash heap for 45 of the first 47 years of our history (note that this is not in any way a knock on Shea Stadium).  We are the franchise that had it revealed during the end of a disappointing 2002 campaign that multiple players on the team were smuggling marijuana into the ballpark in peanut butter jars.  In addition to our record-setting (and not in a good way) 1962 inaugural season, we once fielded a team dubbed "the worst team money could buy."  During that 1993 season, a player of ours got in trouble for throwing a firecracker at a fan. 

And then there's the fact that in 50 years we had never thrown a no-hitter until last Friday night. 

I could go on and on, but I don't really need to.  The point is that rooting for the Yankees is like being friends with the kid in school who is good at absolutely everything - sure, they might be able to take you along for the ride, but is there anything else there?  The Mets, conversely, are like your friend or relative who just can never quite get it together: they disappoint you perpetually, but you love them anyway.  When they do succeed, you feel that much better, because you were never expecting it in the first place.  Mantle, Gehrig, and Ruth?  Our heroes in the most memorable seasons during my lifetime were people like Benny Agbayani, Endy Chavez, and Todd Pratt.  

There are so many more underdogs than favorites in life, so many more rugged dreamers than flawless perfectionists.  The Mets are the rugged dreamers and, true to form, so are many of our supporters.  We can debate the merits of whether or not that's a good thing, but it makes being a Mets fan pretty damn interesting.

Are you a New Yorker?  Just a baseball fan?  Weigh in with your thoughts on Mets v. Yankees below...

CR Sports: Let's Go Yankees?

For all of Stephen and Matt's disagreements, there is only one that so strongly divides an entire city and parts of three full states.  While that second part of that statement may or may not actually be true, I'm obviously talking about the Mets/Yankees crosstown rivalry.  With the first of the two teams' annual meetings set to take place tonight, Matt and Stephen decided to dissect which offered more compelling reasons for fanhood. 

Note that this is not a debate about which team is better, in some rudimentary sense (although if it were I might note the Mets' superior win total so far this season), but a defense of the overall fan experience for either team.  Beyond the championships, why should anyone value being a fan of the Yankees?  Or, for that matter, why should anyone root for the Mets?  See what the writers of CONFLICT REVOLUTION think, and then weigh in with your own thoughts below.

Stephen, with the somewhat easier task of defending the most well-known baseball team in the world, leads off:  

Posted by Stephen:

The best reason to root for the Yankees over the Mets is tradition. I'm not saying the 27 championships are the absolute reason, but they factor into the long tradition of the team. Also factoring in is Monument Park, Babe Ruth (for the traditionalists out there, the best player to ever play the game), Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle and this list keeps going and going. The Yankees, I think we could argue, are one of if not the biggest, greatest, and most recognizable name in baseball and perhaps all of American sports.

Outside of the tradition there is the expectation of greatness. The NY Yankees are expected to compete every year and are extremely disappointed if they do not. The Yankees give new meaning to the sports dynasty. 

Additionally, there's just the large nationwide support. The Yankees are the most popular team in Florida, a state with two of its own teams! 

Then there's the Boss. George Steinbrenner, who, in my humble opinion, changed the game for the better. He demanded nothing but the best from his players, but also demanded that they act like professionals who are being paid vast sums of money. Also, I think he was a net good for baseball and society. 

Finally, love us or hate us, there really isn't a middle ground and that, to me, means passion which is probably the best reason to enjoy sports - the passion of the fans. The Yankees-Red Sox rivalry is likely the most dramatic in all of sports.  And that's why it's great to be a Yankees fan.

CLICK HERE FOR PART II

Email Debate: Corporate Greed and the American Dream

Stephen is no fan of the Occupy protests, or the Occupy protestors, and made his feelings known during a mid-day email a few weeks ago to Matt after witnessing a cluster of agitators who had some negative things to say about Bank of America.  A lengthy email debate touching on the subjects of corporate greed and protest politics ensued. 

Stephen: Matt, so I just stepped out to grab lunch and there's a bunch of fools protesting Bank of America. One is holding a sign saying "Corporate Greed Stole the American Dream". Care to weigh in? Or will you join me in declaring such protestors as envious free riders who aren't contributing to the system out of pure laziness but feel entitled to something because they are at least mediocre at breathing.


Matt: No, I'm not going to endorse your view of the protesters, because I think you grossly misrepresent where these folks are coming from.  First, if they were that lazy, they wouldn't have taken the time to go and protest.  Second, where do you draw the conclusion that everyone who dares to protest a bank that overpays its executives, rushes to foreclose on troubled homeowners, and funds companies that blow the tops off of mountains is an envious free rider?

Stephen: Well I don't think it's very much their business if a bank decides to overpay its executives. The only ones who have the right to be outraged are the shareholders because they are the ones affected. If the shareholders are OK, then they think the CEO has done well and is being properly rewarded. Why is it your business if those with financial skin in the game are alright with the compensation package? And is a large compensation inherently greedy? As for them being lazy, they are most definitely lazy - instead of going out and creating value (which is how and why one is paid) they are just bitching. I have no sympathy, at all, for them.

CR Sports: Johan Santana Pitches a No-Hitter

The Mets finally threw a no-hitter on Friday night, and I'm writing about it because it's a really big deal.

No, this will not fix the economy, or get Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, or make healthcare any more affordable, or even bring my favorite baseball team any closer to that long-awaited World Series championship that still only exists in my imagination.

But it's a big deal, particularly for a franchise so comically snake-bitten as the Mets. 
   
Regular visitors to this blog know that Stephen and I occasionally use this space to write about sports, as we did recently in considering the subject of ads on American jerseys, and as I felt compelled to after the Giants' thrilling Super Bowl victory.  In my statements on the latter, especially, I tried to place my raw euphoria over the game within the broader context of what it feels like to go through life as a sports fan.  The day after your team wins America's most watched sporting event is different when it's also the team you've followed since you were five years old.

On its own, this would be a rather token observation.  But it's not just the time you put in.  It's what you end up getting for it in the end, and why you're okay with that ultimately being very little. 

Let's be clear: when it comes to emotional peaks and valleys, being a sports fan is a terrible deal.  Even if you root for the best team in any given sport, over the course of your lifetime, you will be disappointed at the end of almost every season.  You will see your team screw up more times than it succeeds.  They will break your heart frequently, and tease you three times for every time they satisfy you once, starting from the moment you initially make the ill-fated decision to base your personal happiness on the trials and tribulations of a bunch of guys playing a game.  It's the sports fan's paradox, but it's really quite simple, and the fate of a multi-billion dollar enterprise depends on it: if more people were less willing to put themselves through such an abusive relationship with their number one choice of entertainment, professional sports would NOT be one of the biggest industries in America.