What has capitalism done for me lately?

 

Capitalism in America today

By

 

CLIFFORD M. BROCK

 

           Lately, a great deal has been written about the failure of capitalism—how more socialism would benefit “the people.” Critics assert that executives make too much relative to workers and that working Americans are suffering because of that. In fact, some 19 percent of Americans say that capitalism is bad. 32 percent of young people 18-35 say they do not support capitalism. I confess, I do not see this misery as I look around me. So, I tried to look at some real numbers to see how American are faring in the world today. After all, life span in just the last 60 years has increased from 69.7 years to ~79 years. At the turn of the last century, it was under 50. So, how do Americans fare today?

           Well--pretty well it would seem.

           The discussion of the digital divide that raged a few years ago is a good starting point. Mr. Biden has allocated $90+ billion to bring Internet service to “underserved areas”. On its face that seems reasonable. It is hard to imagine life in 2023 with access to the Internet. But it also raises the question:” “What exactly is the state of access today?” A quick check reveals that 81.9 percent of U.S. households have internet connections. That does not sound as though vast swaths of American territory are without service. But it also overlooks an important point. About 91 percent of Americans have cell phones. Among the young people we know, cell phones are the point of access to the internet. Desktops or laptops are only used at work or at school—and then rarely. So, we are spending $90 billion to provide a service that most Americans already have and access in a form other than the one we are spending all that money to provide. Capitalism has provided that benefit.

           Another discussion has been regarding wage stagnation among workers. In 1980, median household income was ~$51,528. In 2019, it rose to $62,179, but it fell back to $61,937 by this year. Of course, inflation dropped from 9 percent in 1980 to less than two percent by 2019. The last three disastrous years--party COVID, partly business trying to get back lost profits, partly supply chain disruptions and partly wrong-headed federal government spending--have caused a jump in inflation. After peaking at above nine percent, it has dropped to 3.2. percent (July 2023).

           Most of us hate inflation, but how do we LIVE? That is the real question.

           Pretty well it would seem. American households have 2.8 cars on average {31 percent have two vehicles or MORE); 92 percent of Americans have a car. A writer said this week that an American had to make $100,000 a year to own a new car. That seems awfully high, but it is probably accurate. Do we need to own a new car? In the 1950s, I remember frequent breakdowns, valve jobs, master cylinder failure and a host of other mechanical problems. Cars with 50,000 miles were ready for trade and many people traded every year or two. Young people today do not hesitate to buy cars with 150,000 miles on them. With proper maintenance, they can expect those cars to go 300,000 miles. It appears capitalism has provided a product that serves people well.

           We do not live in our cars. What kind of living has capitalism provided when we are home? In 1950, the average American home had 983 square feet. Today, the average American home has 1,650 square feet. When I was a kid few homes, and none that I knew about, had more than 2,000 or so square feet. Today, many middle-class home homes top 3,000 square feet and 5,000 or 6,000 square feet are not unheard of. Granted, my sample is not sound, but the averages speak for themselves. Thanks to capitalism.

            Consider those numbers when in 1950, couples averaged 3.7 children--In those 983 square feet. Today, deprived by capitalism, they must live with 1.9 children in an average of 1,650 square feet. In 1950, 10 percent of American households had televisions; today that percentage is 98.9 percent. In those homes, I wondered what the status in those home is. A quick query found that 99.5 percent of U.S. homes have refrigerators and 90 percent are air conditioned. Technology? —89 percent have a computer in the home and the average household in American has 2.4 computers. On average 211 million American play videogames.

           If capitalism destroys peoples’ lives, why is it that 50 percent of our food dollars are spent on meals outside the home? Where does the ~$2,000 Bankrate says Americans spend on vacation each year come from if not from capitalism.  If capitalism oppresses people so badly, how do 37 percent of American travel abroad (2022)?

           Given real numbers, not histrionics, Americans live better today than at any point in the three-billion-year history of the planet. Don’t land on me. I know the poverty rate in the country is +/- 17 percent. But it has been stuck there for the last 50 years, even after the trillions of dollars of “programs” designed to eliminate it. And remember, that 17 percent does not take into consideration TANF, AFDIC, Section 8, Medicaid, food stamps, free lunches or the panoply of state, local and federal largess that goes to those not enjoying the numbers cited here. It also does not recognize the 47 percent of Americans who pay NO federal or state income tax. Somebody is working to pay the $4 trillion the federal government spends.

           Bottom line when examined objectively? Don’t believe the claptrap put out by social naysayers today. The American dream is alive and well. Millions of people dream of coming to this country to enjoy the “OPPRESSION” dealt to Americans. Millions more risk their lives and the lives of their children to come here and be mistreated.

           Meanwhile, enjoy the plenty afforded you by capitalism. Help the less fortunate around you to the extent you can. But above all do not listen to the nonsense that capitalism is the problem. Capitalism since the Industrial Revolution has been the answer.

           I will end here with the rising sound of “America the Beautiful” playing.

          

Two Simple Steps to Reduce Gun Violence (That won't be taken)

     Today's news announced that Denver Public Schools would re-introduce armed police presence in the schools. A series of violent incidents prompted the board to do so.

    It is unlikely in today's world that we can ever eliminate violence in our schools. But, we have to ask how it is that for 200 years students went to school and gun violence was almost never present. I taught for seven years in a public high school and always had my deer rifle in my truck during deer season. Many faculty and a good many students did the same thing. No violence. 

    What changed?    

    We did. Right now, too many people (mostly on the left of the political spectrum) value criminal rights and violent students' rights more than they value the lives of our babies. That is a pretty outrageous thing to assert, so let me explain.

    A high percentage of shootings today come from two groups:

• Criminal Offenders
• Disturbed Youth

    I once read that five percent of criminals commit 95 percent of crimes. (My memory may be faulty on the exact numbers, but I am close.) Given that, I have to wonder why we do not address that five percent. The answer lies above. Liberals generally care more about the rights of criminals than they do the lives of our (especially) young people.

    

    Several years ago, I read a news report of a murderer who had been arrested 60+ times, indicted 40+ times and convicted nearly 40 times. He was on the street; he killed.

    

    Why was he on the streets, you might ask? New York, San Francisco and other cities' prosecutor's offices provide part of the answer. You and I provide the rest.

    Prosecutors today do not prosecute. California is basically considering removing criminal penalties for shoplifting. Currently, shoplifting crimes under $950 are handled as misdemeanors. Drive your buggy into the store, load up what you want and leave. No penalties.

    When Guliani and Bratton cracked down on stile jumpers in the New York subway system and prosecuted graffiti artists crime, including violent crime, dropped. They took New York from being one of the most violence, crime-ridden cities in the world to being one of the safest big cities on the planet.

    

    Current practice had ended that, making New York unsafe once again.

    So, to reduce violence take criminals off the streets. No more 20-page rap sheets. Prosecute and jail habitual criminals. That means things like Stop and Frisk and Three Strikes and You Are Out laws need to return. Yes, I know. I man was put away for life without parole for stealing a pizza. Wrong. He was put away for a third felony conviction after two armed bank robberies.

    According the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting  Program 24.6 percent of homicides were committed during commission of another felony crime. CBS News recently reported that 82 percent of property offenders would be re-arrested for new crimes and  71 percent of violent offenders would follow the same trajectory.

    Serious about reducing violence? Prosecute and jail those who have demonstrated they cannot live in civil society. Incarcerate them so our babies can live.

    Another large group of violent offenders are disturbed youth.

    I have cited the Dunedin Health Study, which tracked all babies born in Dunedin, New Zealand, in one year for 50 subsequent years. That study was exhaustive. Some 1,500 studies have mandated from their data. One of the most interesting areas was the area of crime prediction.

    They study found high probability of incarceration in adult life among those children who had poor self-esteem. That finding was wrapped in an environment of poverty, poor education, unemployment, substance abuse, poor environments and social groups and bad childhood experiences.

    It is that last finding that we could, but won't, use to reduce violence in the United States. We could intervene when known childhood factors predict adult crime. Broken families and child abuse, are primary. We could identify children growing up in those circumstances and intervene with counseling and other support.

    But we won't.

    The reason we won't is a fear of "stigmatizing" children who would otherwise grow up to be rock solid citizens. We conveniently ignore the percentage who will grow up to be killers.

    We know we have two large populations that will commit violent crime. In the first, we can prosecute and incarcerate. In the second, we can provide early childhood intervention. Things that will not reduce violence are gun registration, bans on big clips and elimination of scary pistol grip rifles.

    While we tinker at the edges with silly "solutions," our babies die.

    

 

How do you choose who teaches black literature.?

By Cliff Brock | October 30, 2021

This is my experience choosing the best university faculty member to teach black literature.  How much should the race of the faculty member play in making my decision?

Many years ago, I was dean of a division that included literature and humanities. During the course of building the schedule I met with faculty to decide who should teach what. With 20,000+ students both our faculty and our offerings were quite varied. One year many on the faculty opined that our (only) black faculty member should teach our black literature class. The thinking was that he was best apprised of the “black experience.”

Having taught black lit several years earlier I was a bit uncomfortable as an avowedly white person. My students seemed to get something out of the classes I taught and ranked them highly in annual student evaluations. As I listened to the black lit arguments, I asked myself what the implications of such a decision might be and how the various faculty members might react.

As dean I tried to listen carefully at these times and then see if I could somehow how help the unit pull toward a consensus decision.

“So, only a black faculty member should teach black literature?” I asked.

“Certainly,” said the literature chair. “As a black man he will best know what the students have experienced and be able to relate it to the art that has come of the black community.” Most of the faculty agreed. At least those who were willing to speak up agreed.

Since we were employed in an institution of higher learning, I thought we should explore the implications of such a position. “Errol” (not our black faculty member’s real name) did not take a position. Twenty years later I still do not know how he felt but having taught James Baldwin and William Shakespeare, Jane Austin and Ursula LeGuin, Mark Twain and Ivan Turgenev, various genders, nationalities, ethnicities and races, I asked myself, “Did you shortchange your students by having a lack of understanding of different perspectives?”

Errol was obviously black and he was coincidently one of our best faculty in the literature department. Perhaps he was the best instructor for the class. But was he the only one? He was in fact our only black faculty member (of ~eight staff).

So I began to ask a series of difficult questions.

“Should women no longer teach Shakespeare?” They could never hope to see the world the same as a male. “Would I be forever banned from teaching my beloved Jane Austin?” I would sorely miss Miss Bennett. Would our faculty member from Bombay no longer teach American lit? Would our German only teach Remarque? All would certainly be quiet on the western front if that were the case.

Needless to say bedlam followed. Many were incensed that I would even suggest such a thing. Many of these faculty had long histories of scholarship in just the disciplines I questioned. Several had published in areas that would not be “appropriate.” I was not popular that afternoon.

In the end I said “Errol” might teach the black studies class if he wished. His academic background certainly supported that. But, so could any other faculty with sufficient background. The women continued to teach Shakespeare. Our German was quite good at Twain. Our Indian was a whiz at Dickenson. In some quarters I was even less popular.

Fast forward a few years and I had moved on. I was a president of a college in a small town in the high desert of California. We were in the process of hiring a dean for a unit at the college. Our two finalists were very close in qualification, experience, training and background. One was Anglo and one was Hispanic. One of my two Hispanic board members questioned why I selected the Anglo over the Hispanic. “We do not have enough Hispanics on staff,” he rightly said.

As I pondered his question, I admit I questioned my own judgment. Did I harbor some deep-seated antagonism toward brown people? I did not and do not think so. What turned the decision in favor of the Anglo was not his ethnicity but rather his entrepreneurial spirit. He had come from Alaska and proven himself very adept at grant writing and fund raising. Several years after I made that decision it became clear that he was the right person and he was lured away by a much bigger college.

But as the discussion continued right after the hire I told the board member I was not hiring an Hispanic dean. Or and Anglo dean. Or a Chinese dean. I was hiring a dean, the person I thought would best run the division. He did not know I had promoted into a vice presidency the first black vice president in the history of a small college in a racist community in Georgia. I am pretty sure he just thought he was looking at yet another racist cracker.

He did not know that with a black population of 39 percent in the county my team and I had moved black student enrollment from 23 percent to 51 percent—not totally popular with the genuine crackers in the small Southern town.

Maybe those who see racism under every rock are right. But we, as a society, would be much better if we truly could look to the “quality of our character rather than the color of our skin” (or country of origin, or gender or any other superficial characteristic).

 “Is the world going to hell in a handbasket?” my old student Rosario asked when the oil embargo of 1973 was in full swing.

I think about Rosie a good bit these days. Oil prices are soaring while the United States loses its #1 position as an oil producer. The president begs OPEC to increase production while shutting down Bakken, Keystone and limiting production. World population soars even though Western countries drop below replacement. Governments collapse and states fail while their populations crowd into Europe and the United States. Weather becomes ever more unpredictable as the climate changes.

And change the climate does. Only a fool would suggest otherwise.

Climate has changed for the past 4.5 billion years of the Earth’s existence. And it will continue. To deny that suggests a total lack of knowledge.

President Biden and others have said that today’s climate change represents an “existential threat” to mankind. Pretty serious stuff.

To the Green Movement those who question climate change are “climate deniers,” as though a (+/-) two or three degree change in climate equates to herding men, women and children into rooms and pumping Zyklon in to murder them is equivalent.

Rational people agree the climate changes all the time. Inquiring minds ask the degree of man’s contribution to that change. Bigots and messianic prophets cast those who question into the category of Nazi killers.

And they show a total lack understanding of world event changes.

In 1968 Paul Erlich (and his wife Anne who is seldom credited) published The Population Bomb. It asserted population was outstripping man’s ability to keep up and that would result in mass starvation—worldwide.

As a dutiful undergraduate I read the esteemed Stanford entomology expert’s book and feared for all the planet’s people.

What the famous scientist and naïve undergraduate could not foresee was the “Green Revolution.” The ingenuity of American farmers and agricultural experts meant the United States went from 60+ percent of its workers making their living from farming to fewer than three percent doing so today. We did not have faith in our own technologic and scientific creativity.

For years, a meme has circulated that Time magazine ran a cover of an impending ice age. It was later found to be a hoax. One writer claimed we were entered a new ice age, and media widely reported that as scientific fact.

According to Longreads,

     Does anyone out there think we’re at the dawn of a new ice age?

 If we had asked that question just 40 years ago, an astonishing number of people — including some climatologists — would have answered yes. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek published a provocative article, “The Cooling World,” in which writer and science editor Peter Gwynne described a significant chilling of the world’s climate, with evidence accumulating “so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” He raised the possibility of shorter growing seasons and poor crop yields, famine, and shipping lanes blocked by ice, perhaps to begin as soon as the mid-1980s. Meteorologists, he wrote, were “almost unanimous” in the opinion that our planet was getting colder. Over the years that followed, Gwynne’s article became one of the most-cited stories in Newsweek’s history.

The April 28, 1975, article garnered widespread press coverage and acceptance from some scientists. Publications highly regarded for their coverage picked up the story. They included Time, Science Digest, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, The Chicago Tribune, New York Magazine, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, Popular Science, and National Geographic.

And they were wrong.

But reputable meteorologists who questioned their position were not equated with Nazi murderers. They were respectfully questioned and found to be more credible. And in fact, the climate continued to warm.

In the 1970s, and the oil embargo from OPEC, the great fear was that oil production had reached its peak and would continue to decline. Michael Lynch, writing in Forbes magazine said,

A decade ago, the media was filled with stories about peak oil, numerous books were published on the subject (such as Half Gone and $20 a Gallon!), and even the Simpsons mentioned it in an episode about doomsday preppers.  Now, the topic is largely forgotten and the flavor of the month is peak oil demand.  Anyone concerned about the quality of research that works its way into the public debate should be curious about how so many were so wrong for so long. 

No one could foresee fracking and horizontal drilling in the 1970s. Panic was easier than asking if technology might offer a different future. Now to mention “peak oil” is to be derided (but not called a “denier” one would hope.)

In the 1980s ozone became the great shibboleth. Cancer would skyrocket; people would die. The hole in the atmosphere was huge and growing. Panic ensued. And then it didn’t.

NASA says, “Since the 1990s, surface UV levels have been relatively stable, and ozone hole recovery has contributed to less surface UV than expected.” Governments recognized the problem and acted. Science prevailed over panic.

So we come to the present. COVID ravages the population. But the vast majority of deaths have occurred among the elderly and the frail.

COVID is not largely an illness of the young. The vaccines development process took less than a year rather than the 10-11 years more typical. Yet another case of science moving in ways not foreseen by the panic mongers.

All the above indicate that we tend to overreact to each new crisis. One very liberal friend chided me saying, “The science is settled” with regard to climate change. He obviously does not understand that science is never settled. It is like the climate; it changes continually.

Whether it is food production, oil production, vaccine production, ozone protection or another crisis de jour we need to remember that science, technology, creativity, and human ingenuity has solved these problems time and time again.

The high likelihood is that we will “solve” the effects man has had on the climate in ways that doomsayers, and none of the rest of us, have any inkling. The problem appears to have several components.

1. We simply do not take the time to read and understand the history behind the crises. Our schools are too often involved in polemics rather that critical thinking;
2. We take what we read in the “media” at face value without asking how much sense it makes. The proliferation of media in the last 20 years contributes to this;
3. Too many times our “leaders” are too consumed with politics and do not bother to think through policy;
4. We have in the last few years abandoned the notion that when truth collides with error, truth prevails. John Stuart Mill understood that and outlined it in “On Liberty” written in 18

If we are to regain our national unity we must read more, think more, and allow more. Diversity is a goal to be lauded. But diversity must come not only in race, ethnicity, country of origin, gender and the like. It must come in thought. To stifle diverging opinions is to harm the truth, according to Mill. I concur.

Sources

Freedom of Speech – Battered but Alive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/15/is-the-ozone-hole-causing-climate-change/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2018/06/29/what-ever-happened-to-peak-oil/?sh=154b7df731af

Share this:

Press coverage of abortion

 Today for the first time in several years I watched the PBS NewsHour. I monitored it for a journalist perspective. The coverage was the one-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Don't bother bashing me if you are pro or anti. I don't give a rat's patootie your position. This post is about news coverage, not position.

PBS noted that in the year since the decision, abortion rights have been trammeled. Women now travel nearly 4x further to obtain the procedure. One California professor said women could end up traveling 1000s of miles to obtain abortions. Many young (women mostly) protesters said it was a travesty against women's health rights.

News coverage. The facts. Prior to Roe, about 1 million abortions were performed in the United States. That number has dropped by ~26,500 That is less than a 2.7 percent drop. Doesn't sound like decimation to me. PBS said the average travel time had increased from
~21.6 minutes to 100 minutes. Big numbers. But, a far cry from the learned professor's "1000s of miles." Instead of 20 minutes, women wanting the procedure now drive an hour and a half. Not a decimation of health care.

Now, all the perspectives above arguing against the end of Roe should be covered by a responsible press. But, so should relevant facts to put the issue in perspective for people.

Therein lies my embarrassment of my graduate degree in journalism.

Again, no position on the issue. Just disgust with press coverage of a contention issue in the United States today.

Americans don't want to stop mass shootings

Let's face it. American do not really want to stop mass shootings. We have consistently said the rights of a few criminals are more important to use than the lives of 100s of innocent Americans. A few simple steps, unpalatable to many of our citizens--particularly those on the left, would go a long way toward ending much of the violence that plagues the country today.

What are those steps?

1.   Take "Three strikes and you're out" seriously. Liberals cry out that this is inhumane. They cite a thrice convicted felon whose third felony was a stolen pizza. The conveniently forget the earlier two armed robberies. I read once that 10 percent of criminals commit 76 percent of crimes. Let's get that 10 percent off the streets. If we saw a 76 percent drop in crime the economic benefits would be tremendous.

2.   Legalize drugs. People should have the right to do with their bodies what they wish. Instead of police chasing a 10-pound bag of pot, let them assist in getting violent criminals off the streets. Keeping "drug offenders" out of jail will make room for those who are violent and commit crimes involving bodily harm.

3.   When the repeat criminals are in jail, reduce the size of the police force--substantially. With so much less crime, fewer police will be needed. Re-train the now redundant cops as counselors, especially mental health counselors. Flood the schools and social service agencies.  Now, we have very low crime rates and very high mental health service rates.

4.   Flood any high crime rate cities or areas with police and counselors. New York City showed that enforcing the little laws prevents breakage of big laws. With fewer crimes to fight, the police can work to reduce what's left.

5.   Police departments and police unions start policing your own. There are not many bad cops, but the ones who are bad have to go. Stop promulgating the solid blue line and start considering your communities. You cause much of the suspicion of police by tolerating a small percentage of your force that should go.

6.   Poor, urban communities. Embrace the cops. Especially in black communities your kids are dying. Defining the cops as the problems means more of your kids will die. When chiefs and unions get rid of the bad ones, the vast majority who want to "protect and service" will be there for you.

7.   Most imprisoned criminals are illiterate or close to it. Use the savings in policing to bring those people to literacy and social contribution.

I will be very interested to see how readers respond to the proposal. Will people acknowledge that "background checks" and "assault rifle bans" will do almost nothing to reduce violence. I am curious to see if there is any support for actions that will reduce violence.

Climate change not a settled subject

This morning's Wall Street Journal FINALLY offers a proposal that makes sense. On the side of those who question the effect man has on the climate is low numbers. They are outnumbered by scientists agree climate change is largely driven by man's activities. But, on the side of those who adhere to the man-caused change, there is a curious intolerance of any questions risen.

This intolerance is frequently seen in those unsure of their positions. Science is never "settled" as true believers assert. Widely held beliefs later changed or debunked include "the Earth is flat," "evolution occurs slowly over millions of years," "people from Africa are inferior to Caucasians."

But, when events like those below happen, they lose my support. The right to question should never be withheld. Examples of true believer intolerance:

1.     Elizabeth Warren. When a 25-year employee of the Brookings Institution wrote questioning a small portion of the man-caused assertion, this ideologue got him fired. That is better suited to the Gestapo than a United States Senator.

2.     Raul Grijalva. This U.S. Representative misused the power of his office to write seven university presidents who had faculty members who questioned man-caused climate change. He demanded to know the source of their funding. Such heavy-handed intolerance and intimidation flies in the face of scientific inquiry.

3.     Sheldon Whitehouse. Here we have a United States Senator who is such a rabid true believer that he sought to use RICO, Racketer Influenced Corrupt Act, to silence any question of his "belief of the day."

I will leave resolution of the question of climate change to those better suited to such questions than I. But, especially this Earth Day, I will vigorously argue for freedom (without government intimidation) of inquiry.

The Wall Street Journal article below seems a reasonable approach to rational inquiry. See Steven Koonin's approach at:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579