Today’s announcement of unemployment rates for March has reminded me of an issue I wrote about a few years ago concerning work ethic and income. Today, the Associated Press reported:

Unemployment zoomed to 8.5 percent last month, the highest in a quarter-century, as employers axed 663,000 more workers and pushed the nation’s jobless ranks past 13 million. The hard times were only expected to get harder — a painful 10 percent jobless rate before long.

The current rate would be even higher — 15.6 percent — if it included laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have had to settle for part-time work because they can’t do any better. That’s the highest on record for that number in figures that go back to 1994.

In my paper, which was a rudimentary exercise in academic social research, I criticized an earlier article by Barry Bluestone in which he cites 10 primary reasons for income stratification. My primary criticism was that Bluestone ignored an important factor– work ethic. You can download a copy of my paper, “The Impact of Work Ethic on Income,” here.

Today’s unemployment report reminded me of this paper, because it raises yet another important factor– the economy at large. It would be interesting to research how an economic recession affects income stratification.

News Commentary Shows are made extremely popular by relatively sensationalist/biased examples such as The O’Reilly Factor. Most of these shows make a mockery of journalism and confuse the definition of news. But, there is one that I like: Bill Moyers Journal, which airs in New York City on the public Channel 13. Incidentally, the production of his show is paid for entirely by fundraising, and not by PBS. While Bill Moyers holds some political views that I oppose, his conversations with guests and his commentary in general is critical and in-depth. Last night, however, he drifted into the more stereotypical territory of the format, as he criticized Alan Greenspan who recently testified before Congress about the current economic crisis.

I’m essentially glad that Alan Greenspan was willing to admit that he was partly to blame for the state of the economy, and I hope Americans were listening, but Bill Moyers used Greenspan’s somewhat honorable admission of complicity to take potshots at Capitalism, and, for some reason, at Ayn Rand– a dead philosopher whose followers pose absolutely no threat to what passes for conservatism these days. If you read this blog regularly, you may remember that I blogged about Greenspan’s warning of a recession over a year and a half ago. My disappointment in Moyers’s commentary led me to send him the following e-mail through his website last night:

Dear Mr. Moyers,

I have enjoyed watching “The Journal” for a few years now, and I have a great deal of respect for you as a journalist. However, as I watch tonight while you criticize Alan Greenspan for his culpability in the current economic crisis (and, indeed, he is culpable), I’m somewhat disappointed.

Yes, it is true that Ayn Rand was one of Greenspan’s early influences; but, there really isn’t any reason not to believe Greenspan when he mitigates that influence, since his behavior as chairman of the Federal Reserve was far more meddlesome than Rand would have ever liked. Greenspan’s culpability in the current economic crisis actually stems from his involvement in President Bush’s “Ownership Society” initiative– launched several years ago– which, among other things, actively encouraged banks to make loans to riskier prospects. Don’t believe me? The White House website used to say this about “Expanding Homeownership":

In June 2002, President Bush issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities.

The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade.

Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent.

How was Greenspan involved? The rate of increase in the US money supply (the paper, not the gold) doubled from 2004 to 2007– the years in which we ramped up to the problems we’re now facing. That meant that banks had more money in their coffers and the President telling them just what they could do with it.

So, I’m glad you’re pointing a finger at Greenspan, but disappointed that you’re only using the occasion to attack a philosophy that he wasn’t very faithful in practicing in the first place. You may not like Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and that’s okay by me, but I expect you to put that aside when you’re doing your job. That is, if you want to remain credible. There are already too many people like Bill O’Reilly, who exploit the news for spite of opposing ideas. Let those guys have their fun– none of their viewers are really hearing anything they don’t already want to believe anyway.

Your characterization of Greenspan’s shock at the economic downturn was inaccurate as well. In his testimony before Congress, he said he was surprised by the breadth of the problem (a clip which you included in your commentary), but if you’d done a little more homework, you’d know that he was warning of a recession as early as the beginning of last year. The AP Story was picked up by the International Herald Tribune and other major news outlets, and, if you’re interested, you can read it here:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/26/business/AS-FIN-ECO-Hong-Kong-US-Greenspan.php

It’s important that people like you find and report the truth in the difficult issues that we face. Nobody’s listening to me, but some people are listening to you, Mr. Moyers. That’s a privilege you should handle with care. It’s far more important that we know how we really got into this mess than it is to exploit the situation for short-term gain and a chance to badmouth our philosophical or political opponents.

My best regards to you, and my sincere hope that you’ll try a little harder next time.

Sincerely,
Scott Crumpler

When I signed the ONE Campaign pledge in 2005, I held more or less the same beliefs I hold now. I believe that the more government there is, the less freedom that government’s citizens have. I believe that more freedom for each individual is a good thing. I believe it’s healthy for society and for the economy. I believe that when the government constrains an individual’s ability to lead his life as he sees fit, it weakens society and the economy. I believe some government is necessary, but very, very little. Just enough, in fact, to mediate citizens’ conflicting choices. That is to say, my rights extend only so far as the next person’s.

I signed the ONE Campaign’s Declaration, because, at the time, I believed that the government could prevent future threats to our nation by helping countries that are more likely to devolve into terrorist havens. I was, and still am, offended by America’s failure to recognize that our civil liberties are inherent, and not something we have because we are Americans. As a reaction to that, I thought we ought to be doing more to recognize the lives of those living outside this land of milk and honey. And, of course, I’m deeply affected by the plight of people suffering the world over from poverty and disease.

Lately, though, I’ve been thinking about those motives. My government’s duty isn’t to protect me from the possibility of a threat. It’s duty is to protect me in the actual moment of danger. And, while my government is failing to recognize that our rights are unalienable, no balance can be struck by simply spending more money on the issues that force us to recognize the lives of those living outside our comparatively comfortable borders.

I’ve also faced up to the hypocrisy of condemning domestic welfare programs as ineffective and tyrannical while condoning international welfare programs that seek the same ends. These Third World countries, like many of my fellow Americans, need help. Many of them are in grave need. But paying their bills and sending them supplies that will merely be consumed is no real help at all from one government to another. The ONE Campaign’s motives are good, and I support their goals of ending the corruption that wastes these resources, but I believe their intended methods will never solve these problems.

For these reasons, I rescinded my ONE Campaign pledge earlier today by taking my name and e-mail address off the campaign’s list. Their form asked for a reason, and this is what I wrote:

After careful consideration of the issue, I’ve decided that foreign aid should consist of educational and diplomatic outreach to nations in need, rather than resources which will be continuously consumed with no explicit plan for solving the essential problems of poverty and disease. We should devote ourselves to helping countries that want our help, but not to supporting their continued state of insolvency.

Further, concerned Americans should send consumable aid (money, food, supplies, etc.) directly to the people in need, rather than to our own government (which is where any increase in government spending will come from) in the hopes that they will send it on to those countries in need.

As I wrote to ONE, I do believe there is a way that the United States can help. While flawed, our government is a model for how to build a sustainable nation that can resist collapse caused by either external or internal pressures. Traditionally, we devote a lot more diplomatic resources to countries that threaten us or from which we stand to gain. But, if our government were as limited as it should be, much of that kind of diplomacy would be unnecessary. On the other hand, struggling nations could benefit from a different kind of diplomacy through which we could offer needed guidance. As the expression goes, talk is cheap, and any country can afford it if we’re willing to extend it freely to governments wishing to develop under free, democratic principles.

And, still, my heart aches for those who live on empty stomachs and with bodies ravaged by disease. Many of them are children who will never know what it’s like to be my age. I’m not going to encourage my government to take more liberty from me under the guise of helping those who suffer elsewhere, because I believe that will only lead to continued suffering.

I will, however, make a more personal pledge. I will make a more concerted effort to do something about that suffering myself. I’ll encourage others to do the same. Real people, not amorphous governments with ulterior agendas, can make a difference. That’s you; that’s me; that’s each and every one of us.

Reason Magazine’s new reason.tv Internet video site features a series, called The Drew Carey Project. In the most recent episode Carey takes a close-up look at the costs of securing the Mexican border.