An Historic Event

The original purpose of this weblog was to speak of recent events from the point of view of an Eastern Christian. I would like this week to return to that original purpose. This last Saturday, I saw history being made. As usual, most of the usual suspects from the fifth, er, fourth column were absent. Fortunately, EWTN was there to present, and hopefully, to record the event.

The event of which I speak took place in Rome, at St. Peter's, in the Sistine Chapel. There, at the invitation of His Holiness, Benedict XVI, His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemew I addressed the assembled Synod of Roman Catholic Bishops. (The text of that address may be found here. In the event that I am able to find a YouTube or other video link, I will certainly put it up here.) As His All-Holiness remarked in His address, this was the first time in history that an Ecumenical Patriarch had been invited to address such a Synod. That alone would be saying something.

But there were three things that happened at His All-Holiness' address that have not happened in more than a millenium.

The first thing was that His All-Holiness, instead of simply reciting the Creed or a prayer together with His Holiness the Pope of Rome, initiated a prayer, in which He invoked the aid of the Holy Spirit to bless and to help the Synod of Bishops. That simply has not happened since the Schism of East and West.

The second thing was that His All-Holiness, in His written speech, addressed the assembled (Latin) bishops as "My brothers in Christ". Unless I am gravely mistaken, that has not happened since the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the last such council in which East and West spoke with one voice.

But the third thing that happened, which was not in the written speech, was that at that speech's end, His All-Holiness referred to His Holiness, Benedict XVI, as "My elder brother in Christ."

While I severely doubt that the Orthodox Churches would ever accept either Papal Infallibility or Jurisdiction as those terms are held among Roman Catholics, this would appear, at least to me, to be a first step between East and West in working toward an Orthodox understanding of papal primacy in synodicity. For more as regards this concept, I would suggest that the reader look here.

Whatever the ultimate result, history was made on that Saturday. I was happy that I was able to witness it.

Lady Palin and the Branchflower Report

Well, I've decided to switch from economics to politics, at least for this week or so. It seems I'm needed to use my paltry knowledge of law to tell something like the truth about Lady Palin (with a tip of the hat to that genuine comedian and true reporter, Dennis Miller).

I've read the Branchflower Report, which may be found here, and after reading it, I now would like to read an Alaska State Ethics Report which actually follows Alaska law. Branchflower's report certainly did not.

I'm glad in passing to find that at least that Branchflower, the investigator who wrote the report, was able to find that Lady Palin was within her rights to fire the Administrator of Police, Mr. Monaghan. You see, Article 3, Section 25 of the Alaska Constitution states that all heads of Alaska's departments are to be hired by the Governor and are to serve as his or her pleasure. That basically means that Palin could hire and fire any one she pleased, with or without cause.

But I'm shocked, shocked to find that while Branchflower quotes a part of the law on Executive Ethics, he fails to quote, far less to act upon, any part of that law which would seem to me to exonerate Lady Palin.

You see, Branchflower, at pages 49 through 52 of his Report quotes from the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (Title 39, Chapter 52), and in particular, quotes from the first sentence of Section 110, subsection (a):

"The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

What I find surprising is that nowhere in his Report does Branchflower mention subsection (b) of that section, which I will quote in its entirety:

(b) Unethical conduct is prohibited, but there is no substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer's

(1) personal or financial interest in the matter is insignificant, or of a type that is possessed generally by the public or a large class of persons to which the public officer belongs; or

(2) action or influence would have insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter. (emphasis added)

Now I find this surprising because Branchflower goes out of his way to state that while Palin wanted to have Officer Wooten fired, and to have his administrative benefits cut off, she was unable to do that. It would seem clear to anyone reading the report that since Palin's actions had no effect on Officer Wooten's career, that Palin's actions had an "insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter", and thus did not constitute a substantial impropriety under Section 110(b)(2).

I also find Branchflower's report surprising because he goes out of his way to state that Palin wanted Officer Wooten fired, not only because Wooten was involved in a nasty divorce with Palin's sister, but because she had evidence that Wooten threatened to kill Palin's father, that Wooten had driven in a police vehicle with an open beer can, and that Wooten had committed other misdemeanors. It would seem to me that there was evidence by which Branchflower could find that Palin shared an interest with those members of the public (and I suspect they may be many) who would not want a police officer committing crimes under color of law or of his office. Thus, I think there was evidence that Palin's actions did not constitute a substantial impropriety under Section 110(b)(1).

Finally, I find surprising that Branchflower fails anywhere in his report to quote from subsection (c) of Section 110. I will quote it in its entirety:

(c) The attorney general, designated supervisors, hearing officers, and the personnel board must be guided by this section when issuing opinions and reaching decisions. (emphasis added)

It would seem to me that this subsection would apply to Branchflower as an appointed hearing officer, and that he should at the very least have quoted, and perhaps actually considered, this subsection before coming to his conclusions. I thus believe that under Alaska law, Branchflower has failed to follow a mandatory provision of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, and thus has come to both an invalid decision. I look forward to seeing a revised report which actually takes Alaska law in account. But I am not holding my breath.

Economics for Dummies, Part II

Well, boys and girls, there have been a good number of questions raised about my last lecture. I shall do my best to answer them.

First, though, I would like to thank Darwin and his wife both for their kind comments, and for linking to my lecture, here. I would like all of you to know that I have known Darwin since he was a babe in his mother’s arms, and I have had the honor of being one of his teachers, in a very great hall. I am only sorry to say that I was the least among those who taught him; the greatest of those teachers began with Darwin’s father and mother. I am very proud to see that he has grown up to be a good and wise man, and that he has taken an equally good and wise lady as his wife. When I speak about boys and girls here, it is most surely NOT Darwin or Mrs. Darwin of whom I speak.

It seems that most of the questions raised are by a young Master Black Adder. They can be found here. Now while, as every good teacher knows, there are no dumb questions, it is a sad truth to say that one can phrase a good question in a very nasty and stupid way. One need only read the Gospels to see what I mean there. I would leave that as a word to the wise for young Master Adder.

That said, young Black Adder does raise some very good questions, which deserve good answers. Taking young Master Adder’s words for what I would hope that he meant, instead of what he said, I will try to answer.

Before every thing else, it seems that Black Adder asks whether one can explain complex matters in a simple way without being simple one’s self. I think that one can, and I know of at least three great men who have done so.

The first was a great scholar, by the name of C.S. Lewis, of whom I will be speaking again later, in my lectures on such things as "Modern Philosophy", "Modern Literature", "Medieval Literature", "Theology", and so on. Lewis thought that unless one could write simply about some thing that one knew, in very simple words, then one did not really know it at all, “not to the bitter, ruddy end,” as he put it. I think that his writings, from such grand topics as “etymology”, “mediaeval literature”, “modern fantasy and science fiction literature”, “Christian Trinitarian Theology”, “modern philosophy”, and many others, show that it can be done, and done well.

The second was a great writer and comic, called Mark Twain. While I could tell you any number of ways that Twain was able to write simply and well, I will give you only three: “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” is the first. Many people are trying now to write some thing called “The Great American Novel”. I’m sorry for those who are still trying, but Twain wrote it long ago, using only the words of a poor white trash kid. The second is that at a time when many “people” were talking about a thing called “Economic Determinism”, Twain explained it in the words of a poor young black slave (for those who are about to call me names, please note that this was back in the 1840’s): “You tell me where a fellow makes his corn pone, and I’ll tell you what his opinions are.” The third is this sentence: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

The third person who showed that one could write both simply and well about the most complex things was the late Doctor Richard Feynman. Feynman was one of those giants who put what we know about modern physics in the place that it now is, and explained it simply in two very good sets of books: Lectures in Physics, and Q.E.D.. The last of those books, by the way, boys and girls, was not the Latin for “thus it has been proved”, but explains some thing called” Quantum Electro-Dynamics”, which is much of the basis for what modern physics calls “The Standard Model”. Feynman does so, with skill and beauty, and with short words.

In short, dear young Black Adder, yes, I do think that one can write both simply and well about any subject. All that one needs to do this are two things: to know how to use words, and to know what one is talking about. I invite you to try, young Adder.

And no, Black Adder, I do not think that I am simple, though I have come to use simple words to speak my mind. The last time that I took the tests which measure what the many call “I.Q”, and what the few call “g”, I stood just a tad more than four sigmas to the right of that bell curve. Put a simpler way, at the age of 16, I was both smart enough to join Mensa, and wise enough to resign two months later, when I found what that scam was all about. I’ve gotten smarter and wiser since.

And now, dear boys and girls, since this is my second lecture on economics, I think it is now time to turn to the numbered questions of young Master Black Adder.

1. Do you equate the Market with the stock market?

No. I do think, though, that the agora, or market place, is a type for the study and actions of the market. In much the same way, the wise have viewed the City as a type for “Political Theory”, which is why we give it the name “Politics” (from the Greek word polis, or “city”). Further, the wise have found the old home (which often was the source of the farm and much of business until now) to be the type for what we call “micro-economics", which is why we give it that name, “ecos” or rather “oikos”, being the Greek word for “house” or “home”.

If I may put it an other way, those who study living things have long ago found that we can know more about the way that the human body has its structures and functions (which is a simpler way of putting such things as “anatomy” and “physiology”) if one first studies the structure and function of simpler creatures. In the same way, I think that one can better know or explain the functions and actions of a complex business system by starting first with the study of a simpler one.

2. Do you say that a recession is when the stock market goes down (so I guess that there was a recession on Monday, but it was over by Tuesday morning)?

Of course not, and I do not see how, young Black Adder, you could come to that thought from what I had written. I think that a fair and true reading of what I had said would be that if stocks have come to have far more than their real (or "fundamental") value, and if in a panic they lose that extra value, this is what is called a “market adjustment”. And if this happens to most or all of the stocks in a market, and for a long time, that is what is called a “recession.” I would advise you to pay more mind to what you read, young Master Adder.

3. Do you define a depression not in terms of the severity of an economic downturn, but in terms of its geography?

Again, no. And again, I think that that is neither a fair nor a true reading of what I had said. It is, alas, true that the experts do not all agree as to what a “depression” is, save that it is more severe than a “recession”. But just as I think it clear that a plague is more severe when it infects not just one country, but the whole world, so also is a “depression”, when it harms not only one nation’s markets, but all the markets of the world. That should be clear even to you, young Adder. It is a pity to say that that does not seem to be the case.

4. Do you say that it's dumb to try and figure out who to blame for a bubble only to proceed to blame Congress (despite having previously said that the problem was all the stupid people trading the bits of paper that weren't worth anything);

Again, the answer is no. And I think it clear from what I wrote that it is one thing to try to find out or prove how and why some thing has gone wrong, and quite another to use that knowledge to say that some one is bad, and should either be made to stand in the corner, or to be turned out of office. I think also that a fair reading of what I had said will show that I did the first thing, and not the second. I should think that even very small boys and girls know that and how these two things differ. It is again a pity that you do not seem to be able to do this, young Adder, or to read what I am saying.

5. Do you try to blame Congress for the housing bubble by obliquely referring to the Community Reinvestment Act? And is that really the case?

First of all, young Adder, do please read the answer above, where I repeat how the words “prove” and “blame” differ in meaning. That said, I will repeat what I said in my last lecture, that the main causes of the present mess seem to be the results of the wish of some in Congress to have people buy homes, even if they can’t afford them, added to the wish of some others to leave the Market alone, even if its actions should involve such things as theft and fraud.

Now if you want to know if what I have said is the case, all that I can say is that it seems to fit all of the facts, and it seems that both experts and newsmen agree that this is the case. One should be very leery of trusting something just because many say it, or just because experts say it. But when the facts, the experts and the many are all agreed on a thing, then the burden of proof tends to rest on those who would say other wise. That means you, young Adder. If you have other causes for the problem, I would suggest that you tell us of them. Simply laughing at those who say other wise just does not cut it, young Adder. And calling the opposing thesis names such as "an implausible scapegoat" without making one's case does not work well, either.

6) It seems that you do not explain why the bailout is a good idea, aside from saying that it's not socialism and that it's stupid to be against it.

For once, Black Adder, you have hit the mark. This one piece of gold makes dealing with the rest of your dross almost worth it. It is true that I did not explain why I think the bailout is a good idea in my last lecture, though I do not think that I really said in so many words that it would be stupid to be against the bailout. Again, young Adder, I think you should look to improve your reading.

Now, boys and girls, I did not explain why I thought the bail out was a good idea, for two reasons. The first was that I only had two hours to write my lecture down at the Public Library where I use the screen and keyboard there. You see, boys and girls, I have found it wise to limit the time that I go “on-line”, as you kids call it. I have found that one can do more, and read more, and think more, if one's world view does not begin or end on a CRT or plasma screen.

The second reason was that I do NOT think that the bail-out is a good idea. I do not like the bail-out on any of its terms. You see, boys and girls, I have long agreed with people with names like Smith and Hayek and von Mises, who thought that both Wall Street and Main Street do better when City Hall and Congress leave them alone. For as long a time, I have also thought that the ideas of people like Keynes or Samuelson are worth less than a hill of beans. From what I can see, it looks like both Black Adder and I are agreed on something.

I hate the idea, boys and girls, that Congress will spend hundreds of billions of OUR money on a course of action which will also bail-out many of the people on Wall Street who helped to cause this mess. I hate even more the idea that Congress will get the credit for taking care of something which it, that is, Congress, caused by its own actions. Last of all, I hate it that even in the best of all worlds, that money can not be used for much better reasons, such as lining the pockets of those who pay taxes, until the jokers who caused this mess are able to pay it back to us. And there is the real threat that we may never get it back at all.

No, boys and girls, I hate most of what the bail-out stands for. And I do not think that the bail-out is a good idea. I do think, boys and girls, that it is the only idea that I can think of that might work, and might keep us from going down the tubes to a very dark and stinking place, and one without a paddle to get us back out. If any of you boys and girls can think of anything that might work better, now is the time to speak of it.

What I do know is that Wall Street does not seem able to take care of it, and that we have had loads of history to show that if nothing is done there will be a run on most of the banks in the world. This means, boys and girls, that people will run to the banks, and will run with as much of their money as they can out banks, and will thus run most of the world's banks into the ground. And I fear this almost as much as I fear death. Be afraid, kids. Be very afraid.

7) It seems that you are saying things that are not so, such as that President Hoover didn't do anything about the stock market crash or buying into the whole tulip mania legend.

Let us take first things last. I think, young Adder, that if you were to read the essay you cite about the “tulip mania legend”, even those who pooh-pooh it agree that the facts show that there was a market in Holland for tulips (which were a Turkish import), that after a time, the price of tulips went far, far beyond their real value, and that after a time, too, that price dropped greatly.

While some of the claims made by Mackey and those who followed him may not have been strictly true, I think that they fall within the realm of that old Italian saying: “Non e vero, ma ben trovato,” which roughly means: “It may not be true, but it was well said.” This legend, as you call it, has been used by a number of writers in teaching others about the Market, from Mackey to Adam Smith (no, not the one whose name I took in vain in my last lecture, but the one who wrote The Money Game. Unless you would wish to try to debunk the work of those two good men as well, I would suggest that you drop it, young Adder.

And as regards former President Hoover, while it is true that in time he did try to do some thing about the Great Crash of ’29, it is also true that at the prompting of Secty. Mellon, (of the U.S. Treasury), he did nothing in the first ten months of the Crash, while nine HUNDRED banks failed. At that point, while he tried a number of things, they did not seem to work. Finally, he and Congress imposed a thing called the "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act", which just seems to have made things much worse. You must know, young Adder, that when one paints with a broad brush, it is hard to draw fine detail. But even you must know that doing nothing in time, or nothing for a long time, or nothing that works, or nothing that makes things better, translates very nicely into having “done nothing.” If you want to quibble about that, do so some where else. And I think that that answers all of the questions posed by the young Adder.

While it would be tempting to conclude that you do not know how to read, and even more tempting to suggest that you try working your way through this book,
I know as well, Blackadder (and for once I will stop taking your name in vain), that it is hard for any save the smartest and wisest to be able to read both clearly and well the work of some one with whom they do not agree. It may be that I have mis-judged you. It also may be that you have mis-judged me, or at least my lecture.

For my part, I will be happy to link my weblog to your's, if you allow it, as I find your writing there to be clear and good. I would also suggest that you may want to listen to the wise counsel of Elwood P. Dowd, which I have long tried (some times without success, alas), to follow: “My mother used to say to me, ‘Elwood’—she always called me Elwood—‘Elwood, in this world you must be oh-so clever, or oh-so pleasant.’ For years I was clever. I'd recommend pleasant—and you may quote me.”