A+ A A-

Growth concentrated at top is suppressing overall economic growth

To The Daily Sun,

Apparently, The Laconia Daily Sun has opened up a restaurant in the Lakes Region featuring a Friday night special of "pasta boutineska."
The only problem with this dish (named after one of the loud-mouth bass in the lake) is that it's all carbs and no protein — much like the thinking of its namesake. I'm referring of course to a recent simplistic article claiming that income inequality is less in red states than in blue states. Without referencing any of his sources, the author is obviously referring to the analysis of Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder, paid gun-slingers of the Heritage Foundation entitled: "The blue-state path to inequality." This article appeared recently in the Wall Street Journal.

Their analysis is based on the Gini Index (named after the Italian statistician, Corrado Gini in 1912 which purported to measure inequality of a distribution). It should be noted that this index is over 100 years old and no serious economist would remotely suggest that it is without flaws — the first of which is that the index does not count the effects of taxes or government transfers. Second, the authors refuse to admit the relationship between inequality and population density choosing either to deliberately misunderstand it or at the very least ignore it.

Quoting from the authors: "John F. Kennedy had it right that a rising tide lifts all boats." This may have been correct when Kennedy said it, but changed shortly after his presidency. The gap between average wages and productivity gains started to widen after 1970 and continued for the next four decades. If wages did keep pace with economic growth and if the "rising tide" did lift all boats, then growth would be much stronger overall. The problem is that growth is concentrated at the top which in fact is suppressing growth because it is suppressing consumer spending everywhere except at the top.

The authors conclude with this: "It would be better for lower and middle income Americans if growth and not equality became the driving policy goal in the states and Washington, D.C."

Refusing to admit that growth and equality are inextricably entwined the authors will never admit that we haven't had more of the first because we've had less and less of the second.

As for the article in The Daily Sun, perhaps a quote from Alexander Pope's "Essay on Criticism" will suffice: "A little learning is a dangerous thing: Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

George Maloof
Plymouth

Last Updated on Monday, 16 June 2014 09:03

Hits: 141

Imbalance between faculty & staff big reason for high cost of college

To The Daily Sun,

It isn't often I agree with Lynn Rudmin Chong, but this time I do. Ms. Chong rightfully slammed the rising costs of education in our institutions of higher learning in her June 12 letter. The cost of college has increased well above the rate of inflation, pricing it out of the reach of students unless they and their families take out student loans that leave them deeply in debt when they graduate. However, I must disagree with one point she brought up as the cause, not because she's in error but because it is not the main driver of rising tuition costs.

There are two factors that have worked to make college less affordable: An increasingly skewed administrator to faculty ratio, and too darned much money available for student loans.

As to the first, it used to be that faculty outnumbered administration by a decent ratio. Today administrators — and by this I mean upper- and middle-level administrators — outnumber faculty by 2 to 1 or more, depending upon the college. What makes this even worse is that too many of them are earning six-figure salaries way above their actual worth. Some even earn seven-figure salaries.

Why so many administrators? Does any college really need to have that many administrators, or is it the Rule of Bureaucracies ("A bureaucracy's sole purpose is to expand itself beyond its original purpose") driving this need to have an ever increasing number of administrators?

Have you noticed that when colleges announce layoffs because of money problems it's almost always faculty being laid off and not administrators? The administrators aren't the ones generating revenue, it's the faculty. After all students attend college to be taught, not to be administered.

Addressing the second cause, it's a straightforward economic principle: the more money that is available to pay for a college education, the higher the cost of a college education will be. With a seemingly endless supply of student loans available, is it any wonder colleges have raised their tuitions? All that money is out there for the taking, so of course they want more of it. All they have to do is raise their prices and they can have it, knowing students and their families will be more than willing to pay it. But as happens every time when the money supply is too big, reality eventually reasserts itself and people will come to realize the cost of the product — in this case a college degree — is too high. I'd say we've just about reached that point and the so-called higher education bubble is starting to collapse.

Unless the colleges and universities change their ways and do away with the imbalance between faculty and administrators, and the government stops subsidizing unaffordable student loans, this problem will continue.

Dale Channing Eddy

Gilford

Last Updated on Monday, 16 June 2014 08:58

Hits: 47

The gentleman came over & said our meals had been paid for

To The Daily Sun,

There are still angels in our midst!

On Saturday, July 7 our daughter, my husband and I went to T-Bones for dinner. As we drove in, all handicapped spaces were occupied, so we proceeded to the end of the driveway. There were two gentlemen doing valet parking but I decided to try to walk with my walker. A gentleman came up and told my husband he could just park the car and the valets would take care of it. I did manage to walk to the door — we had a bit of a wait, and when we were called the hostess said the party before us wanted us to be seated first. As we were just finishing dinner, the gentleman of the party came over and told us that our meals had been paid for! We were just speechless as things like that do not happen everyday.

We want to express out deep gratitude, and thanks for what he did. May God give him a special blessing with grateful thanks!

Allan, Catherine & Diane Partridge

Gilford

Last Updated on Monday, 16 June 2014 08:53

Hits: 356

Unfunded future entitlements make our kids creditors, not debtors

To The Daily Sun,

New Hampshire, like other states, is required by law to balance its budget. The federal government is not restricted from deficit spending. Here's why that's a good idea which does not force our grandchildren to pay back the debt.

After the Revolutionary War, New Hampshire, like the other 12 states, was bankrupt. Even though we were the first to establish a state Constitution, our returning soldiers had to be paid, as well as massive bills for materiel, or war supplies. State taxes doubled and then tripled.

Even worse, all the states, as well as their businesses, could not secure any credit to operate in the fledgling economy. Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, had a plan. He asked Congress to assume the outstanding debts of all the states, establish one federal currency and give the Central Bank power to print money and issue bonds. Through Federalism, the states' debts made the federal government a creditor.

Just like today, the Federalism of Hamilton drove the ruling classes in the Southern states crazy. The South was an agricultural society and its businesses not dependent on credit or a central currency. Luckily, the Federalists won the day and President Washington signed the legislation. Meanwhile, Thomas Jefferson, a staunch advocate for states' rights, was so upset, he formed what would become the Democratic Party in 1792.

This history from 1790 is important because it forms the current fiscal relationship between state and federal governments. In a strange twist of fate, today's Democratic Party is fine with Hamilton's idea. On the other hand, Republicans began falsely claiming around 1916 that federal debt is an evil thing that all of us will have to pay back. In reality, credit worthiness is backed by the ability of the federal government to levy taxes, print money and issue bonds. In accounting terms, unfunded future entitlements make our grandchildren creditors not debtors.

Nick Vazzana
Sandwich

Last Updated on Monday, 16 June 2014 08:50

Hits: 140

Liberal men were responsible for the domestification of cats

To The Daily Sun,

This is just a thought that I wish to share with your readers. It is a condensed version of the early history of man.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. During the summer months they lived in the mountains and dined on deer meat, and when winter came they migrated south toward the coast where they thrived on fish and lobster.

Most would agree that two very important events lead to the birth of our modern civilization. The first was beer and the second was the wheel, which as it turned out was an invention of necessity so as to transport man to the beer or the beer to the man.

While these inventions were instrumental in founding the contemporary civilization they were also the catalyst for splitting humanity into two very distinct subcategories: liberals and the conservatives.

The production of beer required grain and that lead to the beginning of agriculture (work). The glass bottle and aluminum can had not been invented so our early ancestors remained close to the brewery. Hence villages were formed where the non-productive members congregated, much like today. (Inner city people.)

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to barbecue at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the fconservative movement....

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly barbecues.  The weaker, less-skilled men made themselves useful by fetching, washing, cleaning, sewing and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. They became known as girlie-men. However we mustn't forget the noteworthy achievements and contributions of liberal girlie-men.

They were responsible for the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that the conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant while the liberals are symbolized by the jackass for obvious reasons.
The modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water and they eat raw fish but like their beef well done and sushi, tofu, and French food are still the standard liberal gastronomical treats.

Another interesting evolutionary side-note regarding liberals; most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists of the "lame stream" media, dreamers in Hollywood, window dressers, interior decorators, and group therapy participants and anyone who works at or watches CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC are your everyday liberals. To be fair, liberals are not without merit, they invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives on the other hand, drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller while eating red meat and providing for their families. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers ,corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works for a living. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living and produces viable commodities for their community.

Liberals produce little other than rhetoric, debt, dissension and crises. They prefer to govern the producers while deciding what and how to divide the products produced by conservatives.

Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe while the conservatives carved out a new world from the wilderness in America. Unfortunately after the Wild West was tamed the liberals slithered over and created a business called entitlements where by the lazy get something for nothing.

So, here ends today's history lesson:

It should be noted that a liberal will, after reading the above, respond angrily which is by nature their standard response when someone doesn't agree with their agenda. Then they will contact their group therapist and the (PC) politically correct police to share their outrage at this history lesson. After all folks, "What differences does it make?"

A conservative on the other hand will merely laugh and applaud at being enlightened by the absolute truth of this condensed version of historical events and then like me, have another beer before starting up the barbecue, and oh yes, No Liberals Allowed at my barbecue!

George Dengel

Hebron

Last Updated on Monday, 16 June 2014 08:46

Hits: 176

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN