The View from Right Field

Where Do We Get Our Purposes From? Business, Government – Or Ourselves

The following letter to the editor, which appears in the Financial Times on May 16, 2022, relates to a column by Brooke Masters in the FT of May 12, 2022, entitled “Profits not purpose still dominate at Volkswagen”:

Brooke Masters notes that Herbert Diess, Volkswagen chief executive, has called for a quick end to the Russian war against Ukraine (not that he calls it that), in order to “get back to trying to open up the world again”.  As Ms. Masters says, “[p]rofit not purpose is his priority”.

We Don’t Just Need New Leaders in Washington. We Need a New Generation of Leaders.

Back in November, I wrote a post I titled “Other Countries Can Get Competent Leaders. Why Can’t We?”  I wrote after listening to an interview with Sir John Key, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, on “Walking the path to the next global financial crisis.”  His comments were on point and he explained things so well, I was depressed looking at our president and his predecessor.

Then on Wednesday, I watched an interview with Kaja Kallas, the Prime Minister of Estonia:

Covid Vaccine Mandates: Let’s Not Do More Harm Than the Good We Can Actually Achieve

When the Covid vaccines first came out, I got my shots as soon as I could.  When the booster was authorized, I was there.  If a fourth shot is approved, as Israel is doing, I’ll be in line right away. 

Still, I’m beginning to worry the continuing efforts to force people to get vaccinated are not helpful.  I understand the logic of the mandates, and I wish everybody would get their shots.  But clearly, there is some group of people isn’t going to. 

President Biden: Just Because I Disagree With You Doesn’t Mean I Am on Jefferson Davis’s Side.

In a speech in Atlanta on Tuesday, Joe Biden said, in urging the passage of various election law bills in the Senate: “Do you want to be the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?" 

I have news for President Biden.  Just because I don’t agree with him on those bills, doesn’t mean I am on Jefferson Davis’s side.  When I was taking American history classes in high school in the mid-1960s, my heroes were Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.  When I toured Tennessee in 1977, I went to the Shiloh and Chattanooga battlefields.  In Virginia in 1997, I went to the Wilderness and Appomattox.  When I returned to Virginia in 2002, I was appalled that streets and roads were still named after Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee.  When other people were telling me how noble Robert E. Lee was, I saw a man who had abandoned his country and committed treason.

“Build Back Better” and Responsible Governance

Following up on a post from October, I wrote this letter to the editor to the Financial Times, which was published today (because of the FT’s paywall, I am setting it out below¹):

"Ensuring spending lasts is key to Build Back Better

In “Trade-offs are needed to rescue ‘Build Back Better’” (FT View, December 22), you say “the legislation is mostly funded (though ‘temporary’ expenditures often find a way of becoming permanent)”.  Which is exactly the problem.

Right to Choose; Right to Life. Again.

The big deal in Washington on Wednesday, in addition to Covid, was the Supreme Court argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case involving the Mississippi law generally prohibiting abortion after fifteen weeks.  Among others things, the question in the case is whether Roe v. Wade (1973), along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), should be overturned.

I had several thoughts.  I’m going to just list them, maybe not in the right order, but as I think of them.

1. First, I think Roe v. Wade is a poor decision from a legal reasoning point of view. The Court created the three-trimester test out of thin air. It didn’t really justify it; it just stated it.  Without commenting on whether abortion ought to be legal, Roe v. Wade is just poorly done.

Other Countries Can Get Competent Leaders. Why Can’t We?

You would think that a country as big as the United States, with as many people as we have, could have really good people at the top of its government.  But look at our current president and his predecessor.  They are both embarrassing.

Compare them, either of them, with Sir John Key, former Prime Minister of New Zealand (from 2008-2016), who spoke on “Walking the path to the next global financial crisis” in this panel discussion hosted by The New Zealand Initiative:

Irresponsible Governance – Chicago and Washington

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about how the Democrats in Congress were trying to pass a package of new social programs.  Obviously, they have been having a bit of a problem getting the bill passed.  Some Democrats only want to set up programs they can pay for.  A lot of others want to set up as many programs as possible, even if it is just for a year or two.  They are willing to spend all the money required to set up lots of new programs, even if the programs have to shut down after a couple of years because there’s no future money to continue them.  In other words, irresponsible governance.

But it’s not only Washington where you see this kind of irresponsible governance.  It’s happening in Chicago, too. For example, for a moment last week, I thought that Chicago had not only solved its huge pension liability¹ but also figured out a way to replace its hundreds of thousands of lead water pipes.² 

How Many New Government Programs Do You Want – And How Many Are You Willing to Pay For?

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that polls showed broad support among Democrats for Joe Biden’s big spending proposals.  According to two different polls, 75% of Democrats favored President Biden’s original $3.5 trillion plan.  Of course, we really don’t know how the question was asked.  If it was just: “Do you support spending $3.5 trillion on new social programs and have it paid for by rich people and big corporations?”, of course, Democrats would say yes.  Maybe independents and even Republicans would, too.  After all, most people like something for free.

But I wonder what the response(s) would have been, even among Democrats, if several different formulations of the question would have been asked.  For example:

“Treat Them Mean, Keep Them Lean” Is Terrible Advice for Any Situation – Political, Economic, or Personal

A week ago, Chris Giles wrote in the Financial Times about the belief, fashionable in both politics and economics, “that companies respond best to a ‘treat them mean, keep them lean’ approach.”¹  Mr. Giles concluded his piece:

“While there are some exceptions, making life difficult for business does not improve corporate performance.  ‘Treat them mean, keep them lean’ is terrible advice for healthy relationships.  It is just as bad in economic policy.”

Which I agreed with in a letter than was published in Tuesday’s FT, making a point I have made before (since FT has a very high paywall, here is the letter, as published):