American Politics

[Soapy Smith]

A little levity to offset too much serious discussion about corruption and the things that ail and animate the Philippines:

http://www.gocomics.com/candorville/2016/04/03

Many of the comments are fun, too. OlongapoJoe, if you're one of us, stand up and take a bow.

[Jelly Donut]

Max Weber

The bit about Calvinism is persuasive. It confirms the general idea that the more religious a nation or individual is, the more likely they are to work harder, save and invest (with emphasis on saving and investing). At least this seems to be the case with Mainline Protestants (Calvinists) and perhaps with the religions I mentioned below. The general arc of Europe and it's Calvinist descendants over the past 300 years, and certainly the past 50 years, confirms that the less religious these countries and individuals are, the lower their relative economic thrust.

control for wealth from oil

Controlling for oil wealth makes sense, since geography is a bit of a lottery. If you controlled for wealth inherited (from Calvinists and their protege), that would also shape the results.

It's a pretty fluid topic. Is North Korea religious or not? Is any state with a personality cult around it's leader (or dead leaders) religious?

Thanks for caring enough to ask.

Thanks for the response. I'm toying around with some ideas here and enjoyed your post.

[Soapy Smith]

Many of the richest countries in the world are among the most religiously conservative. Qatar, Brunei, Kuwait, the UAE and even Norway all have official state religions.
I'm curious where you found a demonstrated correlation? It's a difficult area in which to make sweeping generalizations. Can you name a dispassionate source?

Thanks for caring enough to ask. The Gulf states you name are exceptions among Muslim countries, but if you control for wealth from oil I suspect religiosity related to GDP ceases to be positively correlated. The United States is a bit of an outlier. Despite a decline in religiosity, it still ranks quite high in religiosity compared to most industrialized countries. The likely explanation is that the country's predominant Protestantism makes Calvinist asceticism a cultural factor that encourages thrift and hard work and makes the accumulation of wealth appear to be a reflection of God's blessing. The German sociologist Max Weber had a pretty good explanation for this more than a century ago (see **The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism**).

As a source for my claim that religiosity and poverty are correlated, a Gallup Poll was a recent source. I think it qualifies as dispassionate:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/re...t-nations.aspx

Hopefully this will appear as a hotlink. If not, copy and paste into your browser.

Another reliable source dealing with these issues is Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart (2011). **Secular and sacred: Religion and politics worldwide**. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Also see if you can find any material from Christian Welzel, a German political scientist. He and Inglehart have done lots of work using data from the World Values Survey, maintained somewhere in Scandinavia, I think. I have a powerpoint of some of Welzel's work that I can share with you if you give me an email address in a personal message.

You could actually do your own analysis quite easily: extract World Value Survey data (they are free) on religiosity and grab GDP and income inequality data from sources like UNDP. Paste them into an Excel spreadsheet, sort the religiosity column by high to low and check out the progression of values visually for the other columns of data.

[Jelly Donut]

...there is a demonstrated correlation between countries' religious conservatism and their poverty levels and economic inequality.

Many of the richest countries in the world are among the most religiously conservative. Qatar, Brunei, Kuwait, the UAE and even Norway all have official state religions. You could "correlate" declining church attendance in the United States with the apparent decline of the middle class. At least in the United States, being unaffiliated with a religious group suggests that you earn less than someone identifying as Hindu, Jewish, Orthodox, Buddhist, or even with any of the Mainline Protestant churches. I'm curious where you found a demonstrated correlation? It's a difficult area in which to make sweeping generalizations. Can you name a dispassionate source?

[Soapy Smith]

Wow. Really wow.

So you compare the donor (USAID) emblazoning the aid they sent, to a local politician grabbing the aid from that donor and repackaging it.

Amazing. Your sense of morality is truly amazing. Are you an Investment Wanker or a Consultant by any chance?

If you read more carefully you will see that I merely pointed out that many different groups emblazon their relief materials with their names. It was a descriptive rather than normative statement. So the attribution of moral equivalence is all your own. I believe it is welcome in this setting. Others have weighed in as well.

VP Binay's actions are conspicuously viewable for our moral appraisal. For Samaritan's Purse and USAID, however, moral appraisal has a number of subjective elements. I presume that Mr. Graham's followers see only beneficent intentions in the relief and evangelical work of Samaritan's Purse. As an Agnostic, however, I am more skeptical about his NGO's desire to separate its practice of relief work from its evangelism. And I am skeptical about trying to convert poor Filipino Catholics to conservative Baptist Protestantism. I believe that many individuals who act from their faith to help less fortunate people probably relieve suffering in many places where relief is needed. On the other hand, there is a demonstrated correlation between countries' religious conservatism and their poverty levels and economic inequality. Why? Because most world religions tamp down dissent by telling the masses that their suffering will be rewarded in an afterlife. Long before Karl Marx thought of it, Napoleon Bonaparte argued that "religion is the only thing that keeps the poor people from killing the rich people. ".

Judgments about the morality of USAID's actions are much more difficult to make. Where you stand depends on where you sit. It is difficult for us Americans to not let our nationalistic chauvinism affect our judgments. But perspectives from people in Pakistan, Palestine, or Yemen may be much different. Pakistanis find it difficult to trust anything from American foreign policy. The drone strikes don't help, nor did the attack on Osama Bin Laden, even though many people may have been relieved at his death. The problem from the Bin Laden strike is that the CIA set up a bogus NGO under the guise of Polio vaccinations. From this they got nurses inside the compound to draw DNA samples under the guise of vaccinating the kids. The results? An explosive outbreak of polio within Pakistan when Pakistanis started refusing vaccinations; unwillingness among Pakistani officials to work with American officials; a segment of Pakistani intelligence whose allegiances shifted toward extremist groups (or perhaps merely became more entrenched). Regardless what USAID's role may have been, I think there's little doubt that their moral standing suffered in the eyes of Pakistani onlookers.

As to the intentions of USAID, their website recently stated, and may still: "The principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance programs has always been the United States. Close to 80% of the USAID contracts and grants go directly to American firms. Foreign assistance programs have helped create major markets for agricultural goods, created new markets for American industrial exports and meant hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans. ".

From a more radical view, World Systems Theory, the objective of foreign aid is to contain development such that developing countries have to play by Western rules and become dependent on the superior resources and established markets in Western countries.

We all get to choose which of these we subscribe to. Personally, I just try to avoid going all knee jerk in my judgments. But there's another problem in attributing moral intentions to USAID: USAID is an organization, an abstraction, and as such is not capable of moral judgments or actions. It is easy--but naive--to assume that the output activities of an agency like USAID reflect the objectives of a unitary, rational national policy. They never do. Foreign policy has always reflected continuous ongoing adjustments as situations change and a persistent pushing and pulling among various interests, both inside and outside government. In this scenario morality probably plays a minor role as against political and economic interests. Unfortunately for USAID, their work since 9/11 has redirected priorities from some areas of greatest depravation to areas where the United States has greatest national security concerns. The shift in aid dollars is quite conspicuous. In many cases they and NGOs and private firms through which their aid is delivered have to work increasingly in parallel with the military. This makes their work more difficult, but it also affects external judgments about the morality of their work.

None of this points to an easy assessment of morality where foreign policies and bilateral aid are concerned. Is this just a lot of verbiage over nothing? Again, it depends where you sit. In my case, the older I get the fewer definitive answers I have for things around me. I barely even know the right questions.

Am I an "investment wanker or a consultant"? Not guilty on the first count, occasionally guilty on the second. I won't assume you were passing a moral judgment about these professions, but were you? If so, what is the basis for the judgment? BTW, it might interest you to know that a number of regular contributors to the Philippines forum make their living from consulting. Are you uncomfortable with what they do for a living?

[D Cups]

. dc's grievances are quite different from those ge and i have expressed, but i doubt that any of us see much humor in the problems we perceive in american politics. so help me out here. please explain the punch line to me.

sk, thanks for your pm. for the record, my grievances are against obama. if he were a ceo he would have been fired in his first term. i am not a registered republican, nor from texas (as if that could predict anything) and have frequently voted independent. yes, america has greed, the upper 1 or 2, as does most countries. i believe in a flat tax. i do not think america is better than any other country but i do think it is going irretrievably downhill with all the money we give away to lazy people, defense budget, criminal justice system and immigration policies. sorry, ge, i don't think socialism is a good idea. we'd have to ask the swedes about what they think about their 70% taxes and their drug problems. young people ages 22- 30 in america have been appropriately labeled "the dumbest generation" by mark bauerlein, if anyone wants a good peek at the future of the usa and perhaps the world, read his views. i apologize to any isg members in that age category as you are probably the exception.

to my international friends around the world: it appears the entire world is fubar (effed up beyond all repair) so the only saving grace is to enjoy the company of sweet young things with an occasional beer. cheers, mates.

[Soapy Smith]

in the philippines politics thread pete benetar wrote:

"comical the preponderant liberal bent of postings here when reality is moderate politicians of both wings are captured in usa, not so unlike what wallace writes of the pi. how many criminal indictments has the obama administration served in the six years he's been in office following the trillions of dollars stolen and redistributed upwards? how many usd has he clawed back from the scores of billionairres who's wealth grew feverishly while average incomes dropped? nada. frontline's expose on obama's doj esp criminal div point man lanny breuer illustrates to all but the delusional the capture in the us, even under the liberal's precious democratic banner."

i agree with pete's argument about politicians of both parties being in the capture of wall street. in fact, hillary will be giving a speech at a goldman sachs conference in about 14 hours, presumably for her usual speaking fee of about $200, 000. assuming she plans to run for president, she clearly knows which side of the bread gets buttered:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...chs-98958.html

her husband, of course, employed robert rubin, former goldman sachs ceo, as his treasury secretary, george w. bush employed henry paulson (also a former goldman sachs ceo) as his treasury secretary, and both clinton and obama kept larry summers, a close friend and consultant for goldman sachs, employed in their administrations for short periods of time when he wasn't busy pissing off the feminists at harvard.

as to how many criminal indictments the obama administration has served on wall street types, it all depends. in general, no big fish have been indicted. some individuals are just too important to prosecute:

http://us.macmillan.com/withlibertya...glenngreenwald

but there have been prosecutions of investment bankers. such as:

somewhere between eight and 17 'employees' at steven a cohen capital advisors, and now it appears that, although cohen himself may evade prosecution, his firm has probably been effectively eliminated:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/17/inve...sattorney-sac/

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/...indicted/?_r=0

three 'traders' at flow traders:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...31034025132054

and overall, more than 70 insider trading guilty convictions and pleas during the obama administration:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...99m1du20131023

oh yeah, one goldman sachs board member went down:

http://www.pe.com/business/business-...sider-case.ece

but, following the "too important to be prosecuted" rule, it appears individual jp morgan chase executives will skate for their roles in concealing bernie madoff's activities, although the bank has agreed to a $13b penalty. what will be the long-term effect of this fine? only time will tell:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/bu...er=rss&emc=rss

and jp morgan was apparently not as lucky as goldman sachs following rep001hing senate hearings in 2010:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...sachs-20110511

for my part, do i find the democratic banner precious? no, i'm registered with no party affiliation. but the democrats do deserve some credit for the regulatory efforts they produced in dodd-frank. republican majorities in both houses of congress, on the other hand, were responsible for repealing the glass-steagall act in 1999, with bill clinton's acquiesence, thus eliminating protections intended to separate investment and commercial banking activities.

but as to humor in the situation, i'm sorry, i must be dense. dc's grievances are quite different from those ge and i have expressed, but i doubt that any of us see much humor in the problems we perceive in american politics. so help me out here. please explain the punch line to me.

one more apology: i don't have the patience to repair the hotlinks that get evaporated when posting them to the forum. if you care, figure out some keywords to look up the related stories. if you don't care, which is probably most readers, just ignore.

[ProperMan]

Excellent articles, thank you gentlemen.

[Pete Benetar]

Sole hegemon now thinks it can do whatever it wants.

Copy that; we'll see you in another six years or so

[Golfinho]

The military industrial complex had a heyday and huge boon under Reagan and how many wars did THAT complex get us into?

Soviet Union, Cold War, mutual deterrence, uhm. How fast we forget. Sole hegemon now thinks it can do whatever it wants.

[Soapy Smith]

I might have added this to the post in the Manila thread, LOL. The military industrial complex had a heyday and huge boon under Reagan and how many wars did THAT complex get us into? I would not count Grenada as a "war", OTOH in terms of impact on global stages I might certainly include Afghanistan (mujahideen, stingers etc) , though that one clearly came back to bite us in the arse. Wait, wasn't that a DEMOCRAT's War? (Charlie Wilson)

I'm impressed that you actually followed through to the "USA Politics" unused thread. This is where many of these conversations probably belong, and now that you've created the precedent I have no excuse not to move my occasional political diatribes here. I will check out these links, but I am going to try to copy and paste them again here to see if I can get them to got hot. They don't seem to be hotlinks in your post.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/op...pagewanted=all

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...x-2186133.html

It worked. The trick seems to be to do a hard carriage return after each url.

[Pete Benetar]

I might have added this to the post in the Manila thread, LOL. The military industrial complex had a heyday and huge boon under Reagan and how many wars did THAT complex get us into? I would not count Grenada as a "war", OTOH in terms of impact on global stages I might certainly include Afghanistan (mujahideen, stingers etc) , though that one clearly came back to bite us in the arse. Wait, wasn't that a DEMOCRAT's War? (Charlie Wilson)

A few decent recent iterations of M-I complex

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/the-permanent-militarization-of-america.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ike-was-right-all-along-the-danger-of-the-militaryindustrial-complex-2186133.html

[Clandestine782]

And Constitutionalists find that any time spent providing rational arguments to Progressives is wasted as well - upon people who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.

Thank you! I get so tired of listening to Progressives (whatever that may mean, since forward motion in time is not always necessarily for the better). I enumerated my points and didn't get a single answer from that other poster.

I had checked his posting history before I made the first response, I agree with your conclusions about him. I also think that Progressives waste a lot time providing rational arguments to people like birthers, creationist and racist who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs.

My brain works just fine. It is too active, in fact, and that is why I take sleeping pills.

I think that you are also a liar. How can I believe that either of you read over (and understood) my earlier posts when I have made about 10 posts on this topic and neither of you read or understood them? I didn't say anything about white supremacy. (For what it is worth, the book that I quoted the most was "The Bell Curve," and it, in turn was about "intelligence and class structure in American life." The racial component of the book was only 2 chapters-- even though those are the ones that everyone skipped to and read first. The authors pleaded with the readers to go back and read the whole book before the racial chapters.) It's plain old mainstream psychology. Nothing fringe or racist about it.

For the third or fourth time, this post is about American politics. What I discussed was the fact that every time a black administration has taken over a city, it has collapsed. Why can't we talk about that in a sub-forum that is titled "American Politics"?

If you had read carefully any of the things that I posted (you didn't) or understood any of the enumerated points (you didn't), then you might have at least come back with one or two intelligent questions (you didn't).

The idea that I was sketching while on the drive home today (with respect to intelligence) and that Murry and Herrnstein talked about was: If you have people who have lower IQs, then it might not be that they can't understand the things that are necessary to make an advanced society, but that the cognitive investment might just be too high. Lots of people will accept the easiest answer about something *because* it is easy. (Religious people. Other types of chauvinists.) Could it be that intelligence really *does* explain that? I mean, people who have used intelligence to try to predict things such as medical school admissions are successful. Why not try to scale up and explain the direction of whole societies based on native talent?

I guess Mr. Whopping-3-posts must have been a bit slow. I haven't gotten any clear answers to the enumerated points from him. So much for that.

[DeepCover]

And Constitutionalists find that any time spent providing rational arguments to Progressives is wasted as well - upon people who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.

I have no problem with debating Constitutionalists as long as we are debating the constitution and rights. The constitution is an objective reality. I draw the line at arguing mythology such as "Jews are inherently evil" and other such bigotry.

[Westy]

I also think that Progressives waste a lot time providing rational arguments to people like birthers, creationist and racist who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs.

And Constitutionalists find that any time spent providing rational arguments to Progressives is wasted as well - upon people who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.