TED RALL COLUMN: The Contrarian Manifesto
Boom or Bust? We're Always Wrong
My father taught me to go left.
Not politically. He was a right-wing Republican. At the movies.
"Most people choose the right entrance," he told me. "There are usually more seats on the left side of the theater." I've found that to be true.
He dressed like a conformist. But Dad was a contrarian. "If you don't know what to do," he said, "do the exact opposite of what everyone else is doing. On average, conventional wisdom is always wrong. Run away from the crowd—and you'll come out ahead in the long run."
Never has the wisdom of his words been more apparent than now. Acting like Chicken Little proven right—this time, the sky really is falling—government and business are making decisions that are the exact opposite of the right ones.
Which is nothing new. Politicians and businessmen also do the exact opposite of what they should do during boom times too.
Consider prison policy. Hit hard by the Depression that began in 2008, cash-strapped states are releasing prisoners early. California's early-release bill even eliminated supervised parole. Because the average recidivism rate is 80 percent, "[unsupervised parole] is designed to reduce the number of parolees returned to prison, essentially because the state will not know if they are violating the terms of their parole," reports The Contra Costa Times.
But facing a state underemployment rate of 23 percent, California parolees have no real chance of finding work. Most will commit more crimes. From the standpoint of social stability and public safety, it would make more sense to keep them locked up.
If anything, a better time for leniency would have been the 1980s and 1990s. Jobs were plentiful. Wages were steady. Some employers, dealing with a tight labor market, would have welcomed ex-cons. Criminals could have gone straight. But leniency is not what happened.
Instead, "tough on crime" politicians pushed through longer sentences, fueling a massive boom in prison construction. In 1975 there were fewer than 600 state prisons in the U.S. By 2000 there were over a thousand —a 70 percent increase.
Many of those prisons are now being closed due to budget cuts.
If the leaders of our government and major corporations were smart, they would respond to booms and busts the opposite of the way they do.
During a boom, salaries are high. Stock prices rise. State and federal tax revenues go up. Governments run a surplus. Soon we hear calls to "give back" the people's money—by cutting their taxes. As a result, tax rates fall. So do government revenues.
This is stupid. During a period of economic growth and low unemployment, governments should increase taxes. After all, people can afford to pay more when they earn more. And booms eventually end. So some surplus should be set aside for a rainy day.
During a bust, salaries stagnate or decline. Securities markets seize up or crash. Governments run into fiscal trouble. So they raise taxes.
This is stupid too. People are broke. The last thing they can afford during a recession is higher taxes. Governments should cut taxes when the economy sucks. They should be drawing on that big nest egg they should have stashed away during the fat years to pay bills and stimulate recovery.
The Stupid Opposite Game has been in full effect since the mid-1990s. Bill Clinton, who presided over the largest and longest economic expansion in U.S. history, slashed income taxes. Barack Obama, dealing with the gravest economic catastrophe since the 19th century, is effectively increasing them. To Obama's credit, he doesn't have a choice. The cycle can only be broken during a boom. It has to begin with that nest egg.
Then there's spending.
Obama is a typical victim of the fear reflex, proposing a budget that freezes federal spending for the rest of his term—except for the military. Hit especially hard would be the Army Corps of Engineers and NASA.
This is exactly the opposite of the budget he ought to be proposing.
The Army Corps of Engineers builds the massive public works projects that create a ripple effect through the economy, immediately employing thousands of workers and leaving a legacy of infrastructure that can promote future economic growth. As FDR did during the 1930s, Obama ought to increase spending on infrastructure. Funding for NASA ends up paying a lot of salaries for scientists—people we ought to be encouraging.
The military budget, on the other hand, ought to be slashed. True, wars stimulate the economy. But they cost more than they earn—in lives, subsequent foreign aid and international contempt.
If CEOs and government officials were smart, they would be hiring like crazy. Millions of smart people are out of work. They can be hired much more cheaply than in the late 1990s. Plus they'll stay longer. Competitors real and imagined have vanished. There's less pressure to expand too quickly.
Venture capitalists ought to be loosening, not tightening, their purse strings. After all, there's no better time to start a new business. Eighteen of the top 30 Dow Jones index companies were founded during economic downturns, including Johnson & Johnson, Caterpillar, McDonald's, Walt Disney, Adobe, Intel, Compaq and Microsoft.
So what is a good contrarian to do? Celebrate. Take chances. Because the sky really is falling—and that's great.
(Ted Rall is the author, with Pablo G. Callejo, of the new graphic memoir "The Year of Loving Dangerously." He is publishing a new political manifesto for Fall 2010. His website is tedrall.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL
My father taught me to go left.
Not politically. He was a right-wing Republican. At the movies.
"Most people choose the right entrance," he told me. "There are usually more seats on the left side of the theater." I've found that to be true.
He dressed like a conformist. But Dad was a contrarian. "If you don't know what to do," he said, "do the exact opposite of what everyone else is doing. On average, conventional wisdom is always wrong. Run away from the crowd—and you'll come out ahead in the long run."
Never has the wisdom of his words been more apparent than now. Acting like Chicken Little proven right—this time, the sky really is falling—government and business are making decisions that are the exact opposite of the right ones.
Which is nothing new. Politicians and businessmen also do the exact opposite of what they should do during boom times too.
Consider prison policy. Hit hard by the Depression that began in 2008, cash-strapped states are releasing prisoners early. California's early-release bill even eliminated supervised parole. Because the average recidivism rate is 80 percent, "[unsupervised parole] is designed to reduce the number of parolees returned to prison, essentially because the state will not know if they are violating the terms of their parole," reports The Contra Costa Times.
But facing a state underemployment rate of 23 percent, California parolees have no real chance of finding work. Most will commit more crimes. From the standpoint of social stability and public safety, it would make more sense to keep them locked up.
If anything, a better time for leniency would have been the 1980s and 1990s. Jobs were plentiful. Wages were steady. Some employers, dealing with a tight labor market, would have welcomed ex-cons. Criminals could have gone straight. But leniency is not what happened.
Instead, "tough on crime" politicians pushed through longer sentences, fueling a massive boom in prison construction. In 1975 there were fewer than 600 state prisons in the U.S. By 2000 there were over a thousand —a 70 percent increase.
Many of those prisons are now being closed due to budget cuts.
If the leaders of our government and major corporations were smart, they would respond to booms and busts the opposite of the way they do.
During a boom, salaries are high. Stock prices rise. State and federal tax revenues go up. Governments run a surplus. Soon we hear calls to "give back" the people's money—by cutting their taxes. As a result, tax rates fall. So do government revenues.
This is stupid. During a period of economic growth and low unemployment, governments should increase taxes. After all, people can afford to pay more when they earn more. And booms eventually end. So some surplus should be set aside for a rainy day.
During a bust, salaries stagnate or decline. Securities markets seize up or crash. Governments run into fiscal trouble. So they raise taxes.
This is stupid too. People are broke. The last thing they can afford during a recession is higher taxes. Governments should cut taxes when the economy sucks. They should be drawing on that big nest egg they should have stashed away during the fat years to pay bills and stimulate recovery.
The Stupid Opposite Game has been in full effect since the mid-1990s. Bill Clinton, who presided over the largest and longest economic expansion in U.S. history, slashed income taxes. Barack Obama, dealing with the gravest economic catastrophe since the 19th century, is effectively increasing them. To Obama's credit, he doesn't have a choice. The cycle can only be broken during a boom. It has to begin with that nest egg.
Then there's spending.
Obama is a typical victim of the fear reflex, proposing a budget that freezes federal spending for the rest of his term—except for the military. Hit especially hard would be the Army Corps of Engineers and NASA.
This is exactly the opposite of the budget he ought to be proposing.
The Army Corps of Engineers builds the massive public works projects that create a ripple effect through the economy, immediately employing thousands of workers and leaving a legacy of infrastructure that can promote future economic growth. As FDR did during the 1930s, Obama ought to increase spending on infrastructure. Funding for NASA ends up paying a lot of salaries for scientists—people we ought to be encouraging.
The military budget, on the other hand, ought to be slashed. True, wars stimulate the economy. But they cost more than they earn—in lives, subsequent foreign aid and international contempt.
If CEOs and government officials were smart, they would be hiring like crazy. Millions of smart people are out of work. They can be hired much more cheaply than in the late 1990s. Plus they'll stay longer. Competitors real and imagined have vanished. There's less pressure to expand too quickly.
Venture capitalists ought to be loosening, not tightening, their purse strings. After all, there's no better time to start a new business. Eighteen of the top 30 Dow Jones index companies were founded during economic downturns, including Johnson & Johnson, Caterpillar, McDonald's, Walt Disney, Adobe, Intel, Compaq and Microsoft.
So what is a good contrarian to do? Celebrate. Take chances. Because the sky really is falling—and that's great.
(Ted Rall is the author, with Pablo G. Callejo, of the new graphic memoir "The Year of Loving Dangerously." He is publishing a new political manifesto for Fall 2010. His website is tedrall.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL






27 Comments:
shhhhh! if you tell everyone to go left then it won't be the contrarian way anymore! :)
Ted, this is a fantastic essay, one the best I've read of yours in the past couple years. It makes a lot of sense. In my opinion, the reason for the failures here is that we fundamentally only have two options in the US, and they are ideologically based. So, nobody uses discretion, because their political capital is based on consistency (NOT Being a flip flopper means never using discretion, and Americans have been trained to punish flip flopping). Thus, politicians are rewarded for always making the same choice.
The difference comes in with which political ideology gains enough steam to be elected at a given time, which has a lag and is always the inverse of what is necessary. The problem is ideological purity and party loyalty, which trumps decision making. Loyalty requires you to check your intellect at the door or get kicked out of the party.
Thus, fear drives the electorate toward conventional wisdom, but because of political lag time, the wrong people are coming into office each time.
We're fucked, Ted, because thoughtfulness is belittled in our society. Witness the string of troll attacks to follow, which you're going to allow to be posted.
Unemployment was worse in the 80s. I'd think that your economic argument about being less harsh to prisoners would have been especially valid in the '90s ond '00s.
Very well reasoned piece. The rational response you describe is what classical economics says will pull us out of a recession. Since we've decide to go with the irrational response, we won't have a recovery for a long time.
I'm with you except for the NASA part. We need to disband our manned space program. Each Shuttle launch is a billion dollars up in smoke for no scientific or economic benefit. Its welfare for Ph.D.'s and the aerospace industry.
1) There has been no real, substantive "expansion" since the early 1970's.
It's all smoke and mirrors, mostly in the form of debt.
See:
http://www.shadowstats.com/
and
http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm
2) Please--seriously, you're obviously smart enough to know better--stop the Growth talk.
The myth of infinite growth on our finite planet rates high among our fundamental problems.
Simply stated, we're not going to grow, consume and indebt our way out of the problems of growth, consumption and debt.
But facing a state underemployment rate of 23 percent, California parolees have no real chance of finding work. Most will commit more crimes. From the standpoint of social stability and public safety, it would make more sense to keep them locked up.
Huh?
How many of those caught up in the prison-industrial system are only guilty of participating in the black market?
How's letting a pot dealer go free going to affect public safety?
Ted, you have masse cohonaes![forgive my spelling] Finished your book Silk Road to Ruin. It should become required reading for all foriegn reps of the good ol' U.S.A. As an agrairian nation we should be offering food and blankets. Instead, it's death and destruction. While paying our people to not grow.
To follow up on my previous comment, you and readers might benefit from this review of William Catton, Jr's new book, Bottleneck: Humanity's Impending Impasse.
Not to mention the Worldwatch Institute's, State of the World 2010 (press release).
We're living at the end of empire, during the century of contraction, in a culture of make believe.
All this talk of new-and-improved, more absorbent, home-made, gourmet, zesty, no-money-down, endless, booming, business-as-usual, exponential Growth is as counterproductive and clueless as it gets.
I'm laughing. To hide the pain, of course, but I'm laffin'.
Great column. One of your recent best. You and Greg Palast and Joe Bageant keep me going.
For starters, we are paying for two wars on several fronts, all on the taxpayers' and their unborn grandchildren's backs. Yet Sarah Palin's and the AlwaysVoteNoPublican Party's shortcut-to-power agenda focuses on eliminating our First-Amendment-Protected right to use the word 'retard,' even "Fucking retards," thank you, Rahm Emanuel, but not eight solid years of "Go Fuck Yourself!" thank you, Dick Cheney.
It's really no skin of anyone's nose that Sarah Palin cut a million-dollar-plus deal to make sure her 'retard' infant has the best health care protection, but most of us don't get the same carte blanche for our own life stories, much less the decency of a rejection notice. There should be a better, more definitive word to describe the kind of snakes, including Sarah Palin, who claim to be rogues, but are not even close.
If it hasn't happened yet, there should be a National Convention of Sarah Palin Look-alikes, the way there was a busload of Lucy (Lucille Ball) look-alikes in a recent movie, and a convention of Elvis Presley Impersonators skydiving in Las Vegas. No high comedy or black humor should be high or black enough for the Sarah Palin Phenomenon. Oprah noticeably gains and loses weight every day, but her legion of worshippers forget, nay DENY, the eating disorder. Sarah Palin has a disorder not unlike male politicians with hair plugs and cosmetic surgery. No one gives a shit how you look as long as you're honest and work for the citizens, not the corporations/now-classified-people, thanks to our Supremely-Compromised Court (bring out the clowns).
Sarah Palin has nothing to say and says it at the top of her voice. We didn't have enough of Bush/Cheney in eight years, so....
Palin for President in 2012!
Unemployment was pretty bad for Michigan in the 80s. Factory jobs moving to Mexico. Otherwise, good article.
Well, at last I find a column from yours, not related to the wars in the Middle East, whose general gist I can agree with.
Only thing I would add, is if businesses and government (especially) did things right there would be no boom and bust cycle.
Re: MonkeyMuffin,
I did not get in any way from Ted's article that he's buying into the growth paradigm, what he's talking about is balance in governance and the barriers in our system to progressive decision making. I have seen this very process of systemic inability to make good decisions in the past four areas I've worked in: homeland security; accreditation and certification; food safety policy; and water resource management. In all four of these areas I witnessed bureaucratic momentum and political hierarchy of organizations that led to an inability to even address the real problem, despite everyone knowing what that problem was.
It's like there's always an 8,000 lb gorilla in the room....always....and everyone sees it, but if you mention it, you're out the door immediately.
The growth paradigm is part and parcel to this, however I didn't read any aspect of it in Ted's article. Please explain what's setting you off on this.
The rich can easily pay closer to their fair share in taxes, recession or no recession.
Venture capitalists ought to be loosening
Pssssst, hey Ted, most of your posters here go apoplectic at the mention of a corporation. Yes I know it's irrational, but they are your posters.
Witness the string of troll attacks to follow, which you're going to allow to be posted.
That's odd thing to say Dave. Every attack I've had on you has been based in facts, and I've posted links to my facts. I asked you one time to back up a statement you made, and you told me to go look it up myself, you were too busy.
Dave, here's a lesson for you. Man up, quit crying, and start backing your statements up with some facts.
Anon 12:32 AM - Whomever you are, if I were as much of an arrogant, self righteous, ignorant asshole as you, I'd hang myself. I'm not suggesting a course of action for you, I'm just letting you know what I would do if I were trapped in the decrepit intellectual state you are in.
Taunt me all you want, you're still a rotten little scumbag, and Ted is a rotten little scumbag for getting amusement out of letting you post your stupid barbs on here.
Said Grouchy:
How many of those caught up in the prison-industrial system are only guilty of participating in the black market?
I think Ted just let his "social engineering" side get the better of him, Grouchy. Of course, it is totally unjust, no matter how "socially stabilizing" some might think it be, to lock up dope dealers for any amount of time.
Dave,
And you still cannot refute anything I posted. You don't like getting called out do you?
Yep, you're right again....I can't refute what you post. you got me!!!! congratulations....you got me!!!!! AHHHH . . . I've been GOT!!!!
Pffff....what a loser. You're absolutely right. It is impossible for me to refute the idiotic stories you make up in your narrow little mind. That is why I don't bother trying.
Good job buddy, you're irrefutable...Mr. Perfect does it again
Dave, I can learn a lot from you about humility.
Awwww leave Aggie alone. He's watching the democrat party fall apart, the global warming, I mean global change scam get exposed and his precious half black President isn't staying on the plantation.
Ted, I agree completely with what you've stated here. I've said for years that the gov should create a tax policy that automatically lowers taxes when the economy declines and then ratchets them back up as the economy recovers (not too quickly though--you don't want to accidently kill the recovery). This would be very similar to the way the Fed raises and lowers interest rates based on economic conditions. A coordinated implementation of tax and interest rates would give the gov some fairly powerful tools for managing the economy and knocking some of the sharp edges off of the boom/bust cycle we have all been living with.
I would take the "rainy day fund" idea one step further: I call it the "wealthy government" concept. We currently keep the gov in a perpetual state of being broke--always living "hand to mouth". The result of this is that whenever a crisis occurs we are caught with our fiscal pants down--there's no extra money to pay for anything and we end up running a huge deficit.
Well, what if we changed this paradigm by taking a percentage of what the gov takes in each year and using some of it to retire existing debt and the rest of it to set up a "reserve fund" the same way you or I do (hopefully) for unforseen expenses (brake job, etc...). After retiring enough of the debt the gov could theoretically build up this fund through prudent investing (index stock funds, etc..) to the point where it would start generating it's own income stream. Imagine a world where the gov makes so much off of it's investments that it doesn't need our tax dollars anymore! (Or at least not as much). Think of all the things we could accomplish as a society if the gov wasn't dick-broke all the time.
I know it sounds crazy, but if individuals and corporations can do it why not the gov? I have a dream...
Think of all the things we could accomplish as a society if the gov wasn't dick-broke all the time.
How about we don't depend on the government to accomplish things as a society? Instead we depend on individual freedom and starve the government until it dies a slow withering death.
I think it should be a cause of rejoicing that prisons are closing. Most developed societies imprison only a small fraction of the people the United States and have much less violence.
How about we don't depend on the government to accomplish things as a society? Instead we depend on individual freedom and starve the government until it dies a slow withering death.
The government is only a manifestation of our society. Healthy, sane societies have governments that function halfway decently and benefit the common good.
That a large minority of the population wants to "drown the government in a bathtub" says a lot about the sanity of our society.
Did you ever stop to think that our government might suck because 1/2 of our elected officials are actively trying to destroy it?
The federal government "sucks" because most of our elected officials do not feel constrained by the Constitution as they should.
Post a Comment
<< Home