Conserberal

Are you a liberal or a conservative? If you have any brains at all, your answer should be "Yes."

I've been working for some time to get to the bottom of this question and I've had nothing but trouble. First off, while people are glad to tell me that they're one or the other, not a single person has been willing or able to tell me what it means. One woman I spoke with was convinced she was a conservative because she didn't believe in abortion. She did, however, favor government-run health care and higher taxes on the wealthy. Two hours later, a man who claimed to be a liberal proclaimed the merits of a welfare state, but defended the death penalty.

Some Republicans say that George Bush abandoned conservative principles by running up immense deficits. Democrats retort that Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt in eight years and therefore shouldn't be thought to be a conservative, either.

So what's a conservative? What's a liberal?

• boguseconomist's diary :: ::

Traditionally, conservatives have been advocates of limited government, balanced budgets with low taxes and more individual responsibility. Liberals have backed firmer business regulation, government assistance for the poor, universal health care and higher taxes on the well-off. Voters switched back and forth from one view to another.

I was born during the Hoover Administration (conservative) and raised during the Roosevelt Administration (liberal).

The definitions of both terms changed a lot after World War II. With the rise of huge corporations, conservatives gravitated to the side of the owners while liberals found themselves cheering the unions. At the same time, the racial divide in the United States caused people on the left to identify with the civil rights struggle while those on the right defended the status quo. It was around this time that people should have started to ask, "What do you call somebody who doesn't want black people to sit next to him in the movie house, but who belongs to a union?" Is that person a liberal or a conservative?

The more factors that got stirred into the American scene, the more confused the labeling got. Roe v. Wade was the biggest complicating factor and Watergate didn't help. As there became more reasons to say you were one or the other, more people began to use "liberal" and "conservative" to sell products, ideas and candidates. Pollsters jumped on the bandwagon. If you were Republican, you were conservative; if you were Democratic, you were liberal, etc.

Pretty soon, sub-labels appeared. Maybe you were a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat. Some even started to use "Republicrat," although I never heard anyone say "Demoplican." One thing nobody did, however, was explain what any of these terms meant. That's why the Bogus Economist has coined the word "conserberal."

A conserberal believes that all people deserve to be left alone if what they're doing doesn't hurt anybody else. In the case of pregnancy, the operating word is "anybody." Whether life begins at conception or at the beginning of the third trimester or at birth is a medical question that should be decided by medical people. Anything else is a matter of religion. Religion should not make laws.

Conserberals think all people who enjoy living in the United States deserve to support it with an equal percentage of what they have to lose, i.e. their net worth. No deductions.

Businesses should be free to do anything legal as long as consumers are fully informed about what they're buying and the businesses accept responsibility for their products. Conserberals do not believe in "corporate personhood." If a CEO is drawing the pay, that's the person who should be cracking the rocks.

Conserberals feel that nobody should make a profit out of war. When the nation is at risk, everyone has the duty to defend it. This means universal military service. They also feel the National Rifle Association should stick to rifles.

If somebody is accused of committing a crime, the amount of money he/she has should have nothing to do with the quality of justice he/she receives. Conserberals also believe in public financing of elections. America should not be for sale.

There's a lot more, but you get the idea. We have enough labels that don't mean anything. That's why they deserve definition. It might take a lot more time to really find out what somebody believes, but then we'd be able to discuss things intelligently. And isn't that really another name for democracy?

Sales

Vol.2 No. 83 February 15, 2008
The Bogus Economist
Sales


Ever since I wrote about our government being for sale, I've been a lot more sensitive to sales, generally. Over the last three months, I've been bombarded by Pre-Christmas Sales, Post-Christmas Sales,, End-of-the-Year Sales, Beginning-of-the Year Sales and some more imaginative ideas like Santa Sale, Kick Back Sale, Employee Pricing Sale and This is It Sale. It wouldn't have surprised me too much to see a Les Schwab Scratch-and-Sniff Tire Sale or a Two for One event at the local mortuary.

According to my trusty dictionary, a sale is “the exchange of a commodity for money.” However, the way we seem to hear the word is “the exchange of a commodity for far, far less money than it's worth.” Presto! A bargain! Hence, lots of sales.

The Law of Unintended Consequences dictates any action will set off an unwanted reaction. One of my strongest reactions to Big Sales is “If an item is selling at a fifty percent discount, how much was I ripped off when it was full price? If a store is still making money at half of what it was, how much have they made on stuff that was sold for twice what I could have paid later?”

That's one question. Another is the paradox of infinite expandability. I saw a sign advertising “Huge Discount Sale – up to 70% AND MORE!” Hold on. What does “up to” mean if there's MORE? If I were in a building and the elevator went up to the thirtieth floor AND HIGHER, would I eventually reach Heaven? Would going down to the Bargain Basement AND LOWER lead me to perdition? I can hardly wait for a “Hundred Percent and More Sale” where they'll give me money to take the stuff away.

I discussed sales with a real, honest-to-goodness economist, Dr. John Cooper, a former professor at Lewis and Clark College and, at present, a successful real estate broker. He talked about the differences between products that are socially useful and products we are taught to want through advertising, which Dr. Cooper says drives our consumption. So who's driving the drivers?

Once, the villain was often pictured as an old man rubbing his palms together. “Ah,” he was chortling, ”Here is a new design that looks like a pregnant fireplug. All I have to do is pin a French-sounding label on it, mark it at $450.00 and advertise it at thirty percent off. The women will knock down the doors.” Women are smarter nowadays, but both sexes will shell out $6.99 for something they won't touch for seven bucks. It's not spending the extra penny, either. Research shows that we ignore the pennies and concentrate on the dollars. Seven is more than six. If there is a sign reading “BIG SALE!! Two dollars apiece – three for $6.99,” there are some who will buy three.

The “Nothing Down” sale is fun, especially when you don't have to make a payment until 2009 or so. If there's anything more absurd than making you pay for something until it's worn out, it's making sure it's worn out before you have to pay for it. This leaves you needing a replacement, which can be bought with nothing down and no payments until 2011.

Does the Bogus Economist advocate the end of sales? Heavens, no! Trying to economize and get as much as possible for a shrinking dollar is becoming a way of life for more and more of us. All The Bogus wants is for the value to be real and for the buyer to be aware of what he or she is getting for the buck. This is called Truth in Lending and has been fought tooth and nail by many manufacturers because they're mortally afraid consumers might discover the money goes for the packaging instead of the product. If you don't believe me, check the labels of some headache remedies. When a sale seems like a chance to get something for much less than you've been told it's worth, the key word is “told.”

There wouldn't be any problem at all with sales if we knew what the price of the product was to start with. For instance, I know cotton candy is composed roughly of a spoonful of sugar and some air. The cost of the product, including mechanical wear and tear, is about a nickel. The last time I bought cotton candy it set me back a dollar. This is a huge profit margin, but I don't mind. I know how much the stuff costs. I like cotton candy and I'll pay it. But how about an iPod or a Starbuck's mocha? Or a box of cereal? Or a Barbie? Should the buyer be told the cost of manufacture? How about the wholesale price?

There have been a number of efforts to get this information out, but all have been defeated on the grounds that telling customers how much profit the companies were making would reveal proprietary secrets to competitors. Instead, we get the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP), which allows dealers to “slash” prices in order to offer great – SALES!!!!

Ready for Mothers' Day? Fathers' Day? Fourth of July? Don't worry. You can practice on Presidents' Day. It's just around the corner.

-30-

The Bogus Economist © 2008

Clawed

Vol.2 No. 79 December 21, 2007

The Bogus Economist
Clawed


My exclusive interview with Santa Claus was the most frustrating thing that has happened to me since I tried to pin down Vice-president Cheney on the fine points of quail-hunting. It wasn't that Santa isn't a great guy – he is – and his wife bakes pies like you couldn't imagine. It was that Claus is too nice. By the way, Santa isn't his name – it's a title that comes from the word Saint, as in Saint Nicholas. His real name is Claud (not Fred). He told me this was a source of irritation for him in grade school since the guys all spelled it “Clawed Claws,” which was depressing.

Claud was busy working when my plane landed near the Pole, so I was picked up by a little guy in a funny outfit who told me his name was Shorty and that he was an elf. During the drive to Headquarters, he confided there were labor problems due to a shortage of elves. To fill the ranks, Claus, Inc. was hiring dwarves and gnomes for the grunt work. This caused a lot of outrage since only a few of the newcomers could speak Elvish and even fewer elves could get along in Dwarfish or Gnomish. A movement was underway urging the deportation of all non-elves and the construction of a high fence around the North Pole.

Claud greeted me at the door of the workshop and ushered me into his spacious office. In one corner, there was a high stack of letters with a sign marked “War Toys” right next to another stack marked “First-Person Shooters.” Boxes of iPods nudged boxes of Blackberrys, Razrs, Chocolates and iPhones. Most of them were made in China.

The interview started off with my asking Claud what was the most popular request he was receiving this Christmas. He replied this depended on where the request was coming from. The letters he was getting from Third World countries primarily had to do with food and medicines while the ones from the industrial countries generally centered around large electronic products, GPSs and such. Government agencies asked for more accurate weapons, sophisticated listening devices and alternatives to water boarding.

When I pointed out this didn't seem particularly Christmas-like, Claud smiled. “Look, I don't like it any more than you do, but I'm in the business of answering demand. If kids want paintball guns and their parents want cases of bourbon, who am I to tell them what they should have?” Claus went over to the refrigerator and took out a diet Coke. “I've been the Nice Guy for a few hundred years and I'm not going to start being nasty now,” he continued, “Anyway, what should I be giving them?”

I glanced out the window at a couple of polar bears feeding quarters into the ice machine and suggested Santa Claus might be delivering more copies of “An Inconvenient Truth.” At this, Claud broke into a laugh. “Are you kidding? The last thing I should be is political. If I start sending out books by Al Gore, people will think I'm a Democrat and that would lose me Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and most of the deep South. I got into hot water before when I sent out some Al Franken stuff. Fox News reamed me out for not putting in more Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. You can't get people mad.”

“But what about world peace?” I asked, “Shouldn't you push books about getting along and respecting each other?” Claud thought for a moment, then replied, “There's nobody who likes world peace more than I do,” he said, “but it's pretty plain that the people in charge don't really want it. If they wanted peace, they wouldn't start wars. There just was a report that Iran wasn't really planning on making nuclear weapons and you didn't hear any changes in the speeches, did you?”

“As far as getting along with each other, have you been watching campaign ads lately? I actually overheard a lady saying she'd never vote for Barack Obama because she heard he was a closet Muslim and his name rhymes with 'Osama.' Everybody's calling everybody names.”

I glanced at my watch and was astounded to see I had spent more than an hour with Claud and I was feeling guilty. I got up and thanked the old gentleman, but he motioned me back into the chair. “One more thing, Mr. Bogus,” he said, “this is off the record, but I have to deal with all sorts of people, not just the nice ones,” He then gave me ten minutes of some of the most shocking details about entertainment figures, politicians and sports stars I have ever heard. Naturally, I can't reveal any of them.

As I got back on the plane after being driven to the airport by Shorty, I reflected on what I had learned. Santa Claus was caught in a bind between what he really wanted for the world and a desire to please. I guess it's really us who determines what Christmas is – whether it's peace on earth and good will to men or endless heaps of merchandise. Santa's just going to do what we want him to do.

Merry Christmas.

-30-

The Bogus Economist © 2007

Vol.2 No. 73 Oct. 12, 2007

The Bogus Economist
Measure 50



Shortly after mailing my last column to this paper's ever-patient editor, I received three (count them) pieces of mail informing me our Oregon Constitution was in mortal danger and I could save it. Wow! Who could be against saving the Oregon constitution? I quickly picked up the first piece entitled “Taxpayers oppose Measure 50 because laws are supposed to solve problems – not create them.” I also oppose laws that create problems. At the bottom of the page it added, “Please join us.” I was ready – who's “us?”

On page two, I was told “Our State Constitution deserves more respect.” Again, I agreed. The second piece was headlined, “Measure 50 would set a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT for Oregon's State CONSTITUTION” (their caps). Here, I found out that a retired professor of law thought Measure 50 would “limit the rights of voters while making a particular tax policy a constitutional mandate.” On the facing page was a distinguished-looking unidentified man next to a caption again reminding us Measure 50 “deliberately evades” constitutional taxpayer protections. Under that, a blurry cartoon warns Measure 50 could “open a Pandora's Box of future tax increases.” Finally, I was told our constitution should not be amended to promote the political agendas of “...special interest groups.”

By this time, I was champing at the bit. Who is “us?” Which special interest groups would Measure 50 promote? Does Pandora have a political agenda? What kind of campaign uses blurry cartoons? This was the biggest soap opera of the year. I plunged on.

My first clue came when I read some small print on the back of the second piece. “Major funding provided by Philip Morris USA.” Aha! It must be tobacco! I looked through the pamphlet for the word “tobacco.” I didn't find it. I went back to the first piece. There it was! On the top of the second page, it said Measure 50 would amend our constitution, a document that “should not be amended casually...,” to increase taxes on tobacco! Right on! No casual amending!

Now I knew who “us” is. Now how about “special interests?” For this, I turned to the third piece, ostensibly written by a a non-smoking first-grade teacher named Ben Matthews. He bitterly opposed Measure 50 because only 30% of the money would actually go for the Healthy Kids Program, which is the title of the Measure. Almost seventy percent would go to “whatever health care expense it (the state) wants.” Mr Matthews called Measure 50 “a blank check that will probably be written to state health care contractors like HMOs, health insurance companies or hospitals for bigger reimbursement payments.” Probably. Possibly. Well, maybe. Or maybe not.

Speaking of blank checks, I found – small print at the bottom of the page – a notice that Oregonians Against the Blank Check (OATBC) provided the resources to help Mr. Matthews share his thoughts. OATBC, I discovered, is almost wholly supported by Reynolds America, parent company of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company. So much for special interests.

R.J. Reynolds, by the way, was among the companies whose CEOs solemnly sat in front of a congressional committee and swore under oath nicotine was non-addictive and there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. They stuck to this story under questioning despite their noses having grown long enough to knock over objects on adjacent desks. After getting off with nary a perjury charge, they promised to do what they could to persuade young people not to buy their products. Their noses by then were sprouting small flowering plants.

I've written about snus, little porous packets of tobacco to be placed between cheek and gum, allowing users to experience the kicks (and cancer) of the stuff without having to spit. They're now on sale in Portland. Answering complaints that a product like this will be welcomed with cheers by kids who realize they can not only use tobacco in school, but use it two seats from the teacher's desk, the butt companies reacted with shock. Kids? Goodness, no! However, Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris, Inc, is also quoted as saying about snus ,“This is a growth opportunity for us.” This is also known as “getting replacement users”.

I realize amending the Oregon constitution to cement in a tobacco tax is something to be careful about, but whether talking about smokeless cancer or the people who sell it, both seem to warrant Measure 50. Airing pious commercials warning kids not to smoke while coming out with flavored snus including cola, mint, and spice, isn't convincing. Nor is Mr. Matthews. Nor is Mr. Phelps. Frankly, I wouldn't believe the tobacco companies under oath - their noses tell me so. The pamphlets said to make up my own mind. I did.

In the eyes of the Bogus Economist, Measure 50 is only one of a set of essential ways to pay for the things we need, like children's health care – or any other kind of health care. Ronald Reagan, who acted as spokesman for Chesterfield cigarettes for years (“Not a cough in a carload”), joined his wife in telling kids considering a toke or two during the '80's to “Just Say 'No'.” On Measure 50, I intend to “Just Say 'Yes'.”

-30-

The Bogus Economist © 2007