The Great Recession? Or Third Depression?

The great mystery of the great depression of the 1930's was: how could the economy achieve apparent stability at low levels of use of economic resources?

Classical economic theory held that, unfettered by government interference, the market would naturally establish equilibrium at full employment. Periods of reduced economic activity were held to be unstable, leading to a return of stability at full employment.

But from 1929 on, the world economy was stubbornly stable at very low levels of activity. John Maynard Keynes researched the problem with a sense of urgency, publishing his magnum opus, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, in 1936. He demonstrated that in times of massive unemployment and economic stagnation, only government spending could get the economy moving again. Under such circumstances, budget deficits were not important. Keynes was unimpressed with arguments that "in the long run" things would get better. "In the long run," he responded, "we'll all be dead." Over the following quarter century, his theories were adopted by nations all over the world, with great success.

Why would countries abandon a set of insights that worked so well? That is the question economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman examines in today's newspaper. Although he doesn't come out and say so, he seems to fear that once again (as in the 1930's) the world economy is in the hands of fools.

If we hope to avoid a third depression and put people back to work, it is not yet time for Congress to worry about deficits.

Dump the Runoff

The June 22 runoff or second primary cost the citizens of North Carolina between four and five million dollars.

Few voters turned out.

The outcome, at least in the statewide democratic party primary would have been the same without the runoff, had we accepted the vote by plurality.

Only eight states, all in the South, hold runoff primaries. In recent years, Kentucky and Florida have abandoned the runoff.

The runoff primary is a relic of an earlier time, when winning the Democratic Party Primary was tantamount to winning election in the states of the "Solid South."

It's time for the NC legislature to join Kentucky and Florida in abandoning the runoff.

General McChrystal and Military Professionalism

In earlier times, there was a close relationship between the military and our elected officials. In fact, ten of the twenty-two US presidents elected in the nineteenth century had been generals. All Republican presidents between the Civil War and 1900 were former Union generals, except for McKinley. He was too young and had only been a major.

Our founders admired the Roman Republic, especially that citizens answered the call to arms, unlike the standing armies of the Empire. They opposed standing armies and extolled the use of militias. That is really what the Second Amendment was about. We would have no redcoats.

Article 17 of the North Carolina Constitution adopted December 18, 1776, made the idea perfectly clear:

"17. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

By the late nineteenth century, however, the country was moving away from the militia model and increasingly in the direction of military professionalism. By the time the leading generals and admirals of World War II received their professional training at the US Service Academies, the dominant idea was that a force led by professionals trained in the science of warfare but subordinate to elected and appointed civilian leaders offered the best approach to civilian control. Perhaps the extreme example of such subordination was the case of George C. Marshall, who never voted, even after he was appointed to the position of Secretary of State.

Fortunately, many of our senior military leaders still understand the concept:

“We do not have the right, nor should we ever assume the prerogative, to cast doubt upon the ability or mock the motives of our civilian leaders, elected or appointed,” Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observed about General McChrystal. “We are and must remain a neutral instrument of the state, accountable to and respectful of those leaders, no matter which party holds sway or which person holds a given office.”

Amen!

Indispensability

"The graveyards are full of indispensable men."

Charles DeGaulle

General McChrystal

So General Stanley McChrystal has apologized for his remarks demeaning Vice President Biden and senior defense officials. Secretary of Defense Gates characterized McChrystal's remarks as a "mistake" and "poor judgment."

It was more than that. McChrystal violated Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the legal regime that applies to members of the military.

"ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Second Primary - June 22

Tomorrow, June 22, is the last day to vote in the second primary. This is a democratic party runoff primary to choose the party's candidate for United States Senate this fall.

Who can vote?
a. Registered Democrats;
b. Registered Unaffiliated voters who voted in the Democratic Party Primary May 4;
c. Registered Unaffiliated Voters who have not yet voted.

Voter turnout at One Stop and Absentee by Mail has been very low.

Return of the Masked Marvel

I'm always genuinely pleased when Tony Tharp, (Former) editor of Pamlico Today, makes a reappearance.

Mr. Tharp isn't really masked, though from time to time he seems to wear different guises. And, as I have said before, he frequently raises issues that need raising.

While I disagree with his conclusions from time to time and am often uncomfortable with his personal invective, I agree with him on substance more often than he seems to believe.

Take the case of the letter from Heidi Artley to Oriental's Town Commissioners (or at least to some of them) last February. The entire letter is currently being withheld from the public on the grounds it is a personnel matter. Mr. Tharp wants the entire letter made public. I agree in part and disagree in part.

I just reread Charlie Hall's article in the Sun Journal February 11, 2010. It sounds to me like portions of the letter (which I have never seen) legitimately constitute a personal grievance letter conveying allegations about Mr. Cahoon's treatment of her. Those portions probably must be handled as a personnel matter and may not be made public, even though person(s) unknown who were privy to the letter did release it to the press. This is apparently the basis for allegation number three of the Town Attorney's letter of February 25 to the District Attorney.

The bulk of the letter, judging from Mr. Hall's account, seems to deal with allegations of financial irregularities involving the Town's books. Those allegations deserved serious attention.

A major problem with the allegations is that, as our auditor pointed out last December, the Town has no effective computer software controls. At the time of Ms. Artley's letter, at least four individuals had access to the Town's Peachtree Accounting System software. I believe all four had unrestricted rights to change entries in the system.

So far as I know, that is still the case. There is no integrity to the Town's books.

That's why I recommended to three of the current commissioners as early as last January that they get to the bottom of the matter by causing a forensic accountant to take a close look at the accounting system to uncover what actually happened.

I think it was irresponsible not to do so.

Voter List Maintenance II

A funny thing happened on the way to the hearing.

Yesterday the State Board of Elections (SBOE) advised the Pamlico County Board of Elections and the Director of Elections to remove two of the challenged voters administratively (they had registered in other states) and to continue the hearing on the other two challenged voters until later, in expectation that surviving family members will confirm their deaths, allowing them also to be removed administratively.

In addition, the SBOE General Counsel provided clarification that if a County Director of Elections is presented with some evidence of death or a move that may not be sufficient in itself to meet administrative removal requirements, the Director will make some investigation to verify the information. If the information is verified through official or family sources, the voter can be removed. That is new guidance.

So maybe we won't have "hundreds" of challenge hearings.