Immigration in 2016

Some thoughts in the context of listening to interviews where folks express their fears and prejudices concerning immigration. I differ with them, but I want to try to give them just the slightest bit of a sympathetic thought:

I believe in diversity as an inherently good thing, and immigration is part of the life blood of our country. However sometimes liberals have failed to adequately acknowledge that when thinking about immigration policy, it is important to keep in mind that we cannot allow certain American values to be diminished. Among those values are freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion (or the lack thereof). If immigrants do not accept these ideals, then perhaps we should not welcome them to America in great quantities. I believe in the free exchange of ideas, and I believe that exposure to American values can change the minds of those who are unaccustomed to them, but we must maintain a balance when seeking to preserve and expand those ideals.

Now I believe the vast majority of immigrants do believe in those ideals whole-heartedly, which is a big reason they want to come to America, but in our discourse sometimes liberals can go too far when combatting what they perceive (rightly, I believe) to be lots of xenophobia and racism here at home. We must acknowledge that certain American ideals are paramount and must be strongly supported by our populace to thrive.

Perhaps a SMALL part of the current Republican candidate's appeal to some has been brought about by the failure of many liberals to be properly nuanced about immigration policy. I should be clear that I support continued immigration as a moral duty and as a good thing, and even a necessary thing, for our country, but there are complexities involved.

The great irony in all this however, is that the greatest current threat to the American ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion is the very person whom those fearing immigration are turning to - this year's Republican nominee. He has continually threatened people for speaking ill of him. He has threatened protesters with violence. He has lashed out at the press when they say anything negative about him, calling them "disgusting" and filing meaningless but costly lawsuits. He has suggested a religious litmus test for entry into the United States, which renders second class status to any current resident of that religion.

And I barely mention his lack of respect for the equal personhood of women, his endorsement of sexual assault, and his dangerous flirtation with challenging America's 240 year old tradition of the peaceful transfer of power after elections.

This guy is the threat to American values. He does not serve American ideals.

How Unmitigated Capitalism Distorts Markets

Sometime folks of my political persuasion wonder why, at times, the populist sentiment in the country seems to favor economic policies that do not help much of the populace.   There are many reasons for it, I am sure, but I believe that one reason is the belief in a “just world”.   This is the idea that everything happens for a reason and that people generally get what they deserve.   It makes sense to believe this if one is economically successful - a doctor, a financially successful business owner or one who has inherited wealth would have it in their interest to believe that they are being justly rewarded.


But why do so many of the working poor believe this?   Perhaps one reason is that believing in a just world is comforting.  Sure, I may not have the economic security that I would like, despite working two jobs, but I’d rather believe that I deserve this than that I am being cheated by the system in some way.   If I believe I deserve it, then I may not have economic security, but I have existential security.  I believe that there is a general order that is operating things correctly.  The alternative is to believe that the current state of affairs is simply made by people just like me - and that is frightening.  It’s easier to believe that things are the way they are because generally people deserve their lot in life.

The great irony here is that the view of “personal responsibility” - that I completely deserve my lot in life through my own actions - is actually an attempt to jettison personal responsibility for the way the world itself actually is.   As long as a minimum of security is met (no one is super hungry perhaps?) it’s easier to believe everything is how it should be already.  Surely things can’t really be super wrong….can they?

One way a person might justify this way of thinking, believing in a just world, in particular how it relates to economic results, is by believing in markets.   If I have a skill or a good to sell, then the principle of supply and demand should control my success.   If I am “unskilled”, then I offer less to society and can’t expect much in return.

This makes some sense.  Obviously a person who invents a great new technology or goes through the enormous amount of hoops to become a doctor should receive economic rewards that are greater than a person who has a high school degree and just wants to work for a living (although surely there is nothing wrong with that!).  I don’t think there is much of anyone these days that believes in equal outcomes in the economy, despite the rhetoric on the right.

But what if markets are not operating in an untouchable vacuum?  What if certain policies affect markets and distort them?   What then happens to the “just world” view?

Capitalism is a pretty darn good system.  By using money, a useful (but complete) fiction, we can spread goods and services across the economy, facilitating trade and investment.   Money is just dead useful that way.   A bartering system creates massive inefficiencies - can you imagine having to construct an elaborate series of trades just to obtain what you need everyday? 

So money is a fantastic idea.  It’s nothing but paper, or blips on a screen more likely these days, but it greases the wheels of the actual trade of goods and services.

But there is a fatal flaw in the system. 

If I make a product and sell it, or work, and accumulate capital (money) but I don't spend it on other goods and services - in other words, if I save - then what happens?   Everyone else in the system of exchange has less money to facilitate trade.  The baker who wants a hat can’t buy a hat - she doesn’t have the money.  And perhaps she works hard and makes excellent bread, but someone else in the chain, who wants bread, doesn’t have the money, because I didn’t spend my money.   A depressing effect begins to occur.   Saving stifles trade.  Keynes called this “the paradox of thrift.”    Financial wealth, which is created through saving, leads directly to financial poverty elsewhere in the system.

But wait! Most people who save do not put the money under the mattress, of course.  They invest it.  And this is great in many ways. They don’t want to spend right now, so they put money somewhere - the bank, stock market, etc. - and someone else ends up with the money who can spend it - on building a business, for instance.

So everything is great, right?  Not really.

The investor isn’t giving away money here.  He wants a return. He’s not trying to facilitate trade, rather he wants more money - so all the money that he invested must quantitatively grow, pulling even more capital away from other parts of the economy.   

But isn’t that money also invested?   Sort of.

When money continues to creep into fewer and fewer hands, which as you can see is an essential aspect of the way capitalism works, then the velocity of money (speed of spending) utilized on real goods and services tends to be depressed.  Imagine I buy a stock instead of spending my money on a tangible good.  I now own a stock and that money sits in someone else’s hands, the person who sold me the stock.  Then she buys a stock and the money goes to someone else’s hands, etc. etc.     The money is being traded back and forth in different savings vehicles.  The cash is sitting temporally in brokerage firms.  Yes, a lot of the money raised in stock sales is sometimes used to buy real goods and services for a company, but once again - returns are expected!   And those returns end up being traded around in savings vehicles which slows down the purchase of real goods and services in the economy. 


So when capitalism is working the way it’s designed to work, there is an upward gravity of money which has a depressing effect on the trade of real goods and services.  And this is when fiscal failures start to happen.

What is a fiscal failure?   It’s a point in the economy where something is needed, and there are people and resources ready to make it happen, but there is simply not enough money present.  But remember, money is a fiction.   The philosopher Alan Watts once made the point that saying we don’t have enough money is like saying builders don’t have enough inches to measure with, so they can’t build.  Today, some economists use the example that saying we don’t have enough money is like saying the NBA doesn’t have enough points to put on the board for the next game.  In other words, money is fiction.  But it’s the way our economy works, and when it becomes lop-sided in one part of the system, through certain policy decisions, then there is trouble.  It’s a (fiscal) failure of the system.

Say a school needs to be rebuilt.  And say there are two dozen construction workers who are unemployed.  And say there are plenty of actual resources - food, gas, building materials, etc. - in the economy for the potential workers to work with and for them to buy with their potential income.  And yet the job is not happening and the construction workers are idle, and the resources are sitting on shelves.  There is zero reason for this in terms of actual resources.  This is a fiscal failure.  It’s a failure of money!   A legitimate market is there, but through a lack of financial resources - NOT real resources (that is key) - we have a distortion to that market and it doesn’t function well.

Then what happens to other workers in the economy when multiples fiscal failure lead to fewer jobs?   The market for labor is depressed, and wages tend to go down.   Not necessarily because workers are “unskilled” and unneeded, but because they are under-valued due to market distortions caused by fiscal failures.   And because employers are having to pay less for labor, the upward gravity of capital is heightened and it creates a negative feedback loop.

So the progression is like this -  The upward gravity of capital leads to fiscal failures, which lead to market distortions, which lead to heightened inequality, which leads to more upward gravity of capital, etc.

How do we fix this?  It seems a fatal flaw in capitalism that will eventually disrupt markets completely.

Luckily there are ways to mitigate for the upward gravity of capital. 

One - a progressive tax system.  As one takes more financial resources for oneself through income, we tax that income progressively higher.

Two - We try to keep a steady rate of modest inflation in the economy, which somewhat punishes a lack of spending.  If your savings are losing value, then spending becomes more attractive.  The opposite is deflation, which tends to cripple spending.

Three - We create a minimum wage.

What else we should do:

We should raise taxes on the higher income brackets.   Remember, every person pays the same taxes on income - a lawyer earning $250,000 a year pays the same amount of taxes on her first $10,000 as a checker at Wal-Mart.  But she pays more on the amounts earned over certain thresholds.

We should raise the capital gains tax.  This is so low it’s silly.  We tax invested capital at a lower rate than labor much of the time.  The idea is that if I give you money to buy a taxi cab, I get taxed 15% on all the income.  But If I buy a taxi cab myself and drive it, I am possibly taxed much higher. 

We should get rid of the upper limit on payroll taxes (Socials Security, Medicare, etc. taxes).   A worker at McDonald’s pays a higher percentage of his income to payroll taxes than the wealthy lawyer, because one doesn’t pay payroll taxes on income over a certain amount.  This is unjust.

We should raise the minimum wage.  It should be done slowly, to mitigate for sudden shocks, but it should be done steadily.   Putting more money in the hands of spenders - and those making close to minimum wage cannot afford to save much - will increase the velocity of money in the economy.


Note that none of these issues are presented specifically in moral terms.  They are presented as economic necessities to create a capitalism that rewards hard work and creativity and that does not distort markets to the detriment of the working and middle classes.

As evidence for the points presented here, look at the Great Depression and the Great Recession.   Were either of these terrible periods of extreme economic hardship because of a problem with actual resources?  Was there a massive famine?  Did we run out of energy?  No.  It was the direct result of out of control savings vehicles increasing the upward gravity of capital, decreasing investment in the production of actual goods and resources, and eventually leading to the distortion of markets through massive fiscal failures. 

Capitalism simply must be regulated well in order for it to serve markets.  Or else markets will end up the slave to capital, and working families will suffer.   To regulate capitalism is not “anti-capitalist”, rather it is an essential aspect of preserving the innovation, hard work and freedom that quality capitalism can enhance.

Two Premieres on Tuesday, May 17!

I am thrilled that next Tuesday evening, May 17, I have the privilege of hearing two incredible orchestras premier my pieces.

At around 7:15, Belle Isle Middle School will premier Classical Rag - it's a light-hearted, jazz-oriented piece. It's my first foray into this style and definitely not my last. In fact, I think working on this piece is going to inform all my future attempts. And the kids are absolutely NAILING it! They are so good. I can't believe it's an 8th grade orchestra. They can swing, baby! Thanks to Jeremy Scott!

Then, sometime around 8:00-8:30, the Edmond Memorial High School Philharmonic will premier Wovensong No. 2 "Dust Storm". It's a longer piece drawing inspiration from the Dust Bowl and how our predecessors dealt with this terrible time. It's a tribute to the power of nature and our responsibilities to care for each other and the natural world. And once again, the young men and women playing this piece are so in tune, and so vibrant in their playing. It's phenomenal! The choir sat in and listened to them play it yesterday, and it was truly inspiring to see how well they responded to the efforts of their musical colleagues. Thanks to David Koehn

I submit that there is NOTHING more essential in education than music and arts education. In these young orchestral players, I see personal discipline, the ability to work together and support each other, and the raw appreciation of beauty that is surely the very point of life. The quality of their education hinges on developing these qualities and carrying them forward past their graduation.
My personal heroes are the music directors, but to all who support student development in this way, I salute you in these challenging times. Let's all work together to make sure that no one takes away these vital opportunities from our kids ever again.

Are Free Markets "Natural"? What Does That Even Mean?

The term “free market” has always made me feel very strange.  I suppose the reason is that, for many people, the word “free” implies a lack of regulation.  And yet without regulations, a good market cannot even exist.

There is this idea that a free market is something natural and that rules encumber the natural “invisible hand” of that market.   While I think there is some truth to the law of supply and demand, I would argue that what is “natural” encompasses a wide range of behaviors that we do not associate with desirable markets.

Stealing is a natural behavior, unfortunately.  Creating monopolies by using power to crush competition is natural.  Working together in symbiotic ways is also natural.

Most of us find monopolies and theft as unacceptable types of markets.   And they are markets.  If a person threatens my life unless I give him my car, then I have just made an exchange.  We don’t have to see it as legitimate, but it is a market exchange.  If Wal-Mart can undercut every other business because of their preexisting infrastructure advantages, this is still certainly a type of market even if we find it undesirable.

Most of us have decided that outlawing theft and outlawing monopolistic business practices are parts of a healthy market.  A market is, by definition, a system of exchange, and we choose what type of market we want to have by the rules we choose.

So what market rules are good and what rules are not?  Why do we choose to create certain markets?

I would argue that a desirable market is based on merit, morality and economic benefit. The merit comes from rules that reward creativity and hard work.  The morality comes from a safety net that provides basic human rights for folks regardless of their situation and makes sure economic rewards are not too lop-sided.  And the economic benefit comes from rules which stimulate economic growth and technological advancement.

Patents are a great example of a rule which forms a part of a desirable market.  First of all, they are complete fiction.  There is nothing inherently “natural” about saying that only a certain person can use an invention of some type for several years. Perhaps it would be more natural for everyone to market a new invention as quickly as possible in order to make money.  So why do we have patents?  Because we think the inventor deserves a reward for her invention (merit), and we think that those rewards will stimulate others to invent, creating economic growth  (economic benefit).

How about rules breaking up monopolies?  Once again, complete fiction.  But we have decided that competition is good for economic benefit and morality, so we break up big companies.

What about compound interest?  Talk about fiction!  There is nothing natural about increasing someone’s money when it sits around in a savings account of some kind.   Yet we use those returns in various ways to stimulate the allocation of resources (economic benefit.)

And of course the biggest fiction of all - capital.  There is nothing natural about someone giving someone else a piece of paper, or blips on a computer screen, having other people do the work, and then the original person receiving more money (while possibly doing very little).   And yet it tends to make our investment of real resources (materials, labor, planning, etc.) fairly efficient throughout the economy (economic benefit).

So a good market is something that is created through rules.  By its nature, that’s what it is.  Even on a simple level of bartering, there are invented rules which make it work to satisfy the conditions of merit, morality and economic benefit.

So what about the word “free” often placed in front of market?   Personally, I think it’s somewhat irrelevant, perhaps even a bit of an oxymoron.  “Free” implies choice and “market” implies rules which often restrict choices - at least in the short-term.  However a quality market, with rules to support merit, morality and economic viability, can create greater personal freedom, a greater amount of choice in the long-term, for people.

 Most people agree that patents, however “natural” they are, are a good idea for our economy.  However sometimes people will argue that a minimum wage or a progressive income tax is unnatural, encumbering the “free market.”   The truth is that these ideas are no more or less natural than a patent.  They should be judged according to merit, morality and economic benefit as we create desirable markets.

Here is one argument for a minimum wage, progressive taxation and other associated policies being an essential part of a good market:

Capitalism is designed to isolate financial wealth into fewer and fewer hands. That's what happens when it is working properly. If I have excess capital, then I either hide it under the mattress (which hurts the economy - I am not re-spending the money so I am depressing trade) or I invest it. Sure, that investment is sometimes spent elsewhere creating income elsewhere in the short-term, but I expect a return on my investment. So eventually more financial resources are isolated into my hands as I make a profit. In the aggregate economy this has a depressing effect on economic transactions, because financial assets begin to drift away from those who spend the most quickly - the working and middle classes - and they accumulate in the hands of the rich.

So there is an upward gravity of capital in our system that is destructive to the velocity of money. We can mitigate for this by keeping a decent tax rate on hoarded wealth (particularly the estate tax, keeping investment income taxed at the same rate as earned income and a progressive tax rate), maintaining a healthy minimum wage, planning quality deficit spending from the federal government to maintain a decent level of income, infrastructure, and inflation (which devalues hoarded financial wealth) and a variety of other ways etc.

And yet, once again, these rules are often called “anti-free market”.  But these rules seek to serve the same purpose as patents and antitrust legislation - to enhance merit, morality and economic benefit - so they are not inherently any different.

So “free market” is an unhelpful term.  The real question is - what rules best enhance merit, morality and economic viability?  That’s the standard by which we have created invented rules such as patents, compound interest, antitrust rules, laws preventing theft, etc. etc.  And other rules, such as minimum wages, environmental standards, progressive taxation, etc. have the same goals and should be judged along the same lines. Let’s not pretend that certain rules are “free” or “natural” and others are not.  These terms are poorly defined in the context of markets.  Rather, let’s judge all rules according to merit, morality and economic benefit.

Tomato Plant Sale 2016!

I am pleased to announce ten tomato varieties for sale in 2016!

Each organically grown seedling will be ready around the middle of March to the first of April.  Each is an open-pollinated variety - meaning you can save seeds and they will produce the same variety when planted.  The exception is Sungold, which is a hybrid and will most likely not produce the same tomato if seeds are saved.   But they are so tasty, so who cares?

I am asking $5 per plant.  I personally think that’s a bit expensive, but it’s because the proceeds (after buying a bag of potting soil) will be donated to The Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma.    Just send me an email at sestark19@gmail.com, and let me know what you want.  I may also have some pepper varieties - different sizes of bell, jalapenos, banana and habanero types.  Ask if interested!


Yellow/Orange Tomatoes

Sungold - Delicious cherry tomatoes.  These are the “gold” standard - a wonderful mix of sweet and tangy.

Azoychka - I am excited to try this one.  It’s a yellow tomato with great reviews, and it matures earlier than most.

Dwarf Sweet Sue - This was my best producer last year.  The “Dwarf” refers to the plant size, which is supposed to be smaller than most.  Mine got pretty big though…..The medium/small tomatoes were deliciously sweet, with a bit of zing to them.  And they tend to be beautiful fruits without blemishes.   It produced all right in the summer and then went crazy in September and October.


Red/Pink Tomatoes

Brandywine OTV (Off The Vine)  - This red variety of Brandywine is supposed to set fruit in heat better than other strains.  And it features the amazing flavor of the most famous name in heirloom tomatoes.

Traveler 76 - The University of Arkansas bred this pink tomato in the 70’s for heat resistance.  I am looking forward to trying it!


Purple/Dark  Tomatoes

Black Cherry  - After reading the reviews of this one, I was very intrigued.  Delicious, dark cherry tomatoes.  Probably huge vines.

Black Krim - This was my all-around favorite last year.  The fruits were beautiful, and, despite my over-watering, they were delicious with a fruity/slightly salty flavor.

Cherokee Purple - This is another candidate for the most famous name in heirloom tomatoes.   I recently read a list of “must plant” tomatoes, written by users on the website tomatovile.com,  and this was by far the most referenced variety.


Multicolor Tomatoes

Tiger Tom - a smaller, striped tomato.  Zingy.  I hope it’s a bit early, being small.

Big Rainbow - A big multi-colored tomato.  It should come on pretty late in the season.  The pictures of this one are of big yellow fruits with orange and red streaks.

Letter to James Lankford

Dear Mr. Lankford,                                              December 4, 2015


I recently heard your comments criticizing "high" government spending and tying it to high levels of unemployment.  I wish I had the information on when and where you delivered this speech.  I heard it on the radio within the last couple of weeks.

Your comments concerned me, because they didn’t seem to reflect a good knowledge of how our economy works.  It is fairly nonsensical to tie unemployment directly to spending of any kind.  Whoever is doing the spending, - be it government, corporation or individual - that entity is directly creating income for another person.

In short, every cent that is spent is received as income by someone else.   Saying that spending is decreasing jobs is like saying that pushing the accelerator on your car makes it slow down.

One can have political opinions about what the government should spend on - roads?  education?  war? healthcare? - but one cannot say that spending is causing unemployment, since the exact opposite is the case.  In fact, we have a word for what happens when spending decreases in our country too much - recession.

One argument I read is that too much government spending may “crowd out” the private sector.  But this is nonsensical when accompanied by complaints of high unemployment.  If that percentage is too high, then there are workers to be had by whoever would like to spend to hire them.  The government is certainly not “hoarding” all available workers. 

The other argument is that businesses are too nervous to hire because of “high” government spending.   This is also nonsense, as businesses tend to spend according to their current level of business (spending on their products by others) and projections about future levels of business.    If the government decreased spending, unemployment would rise and businesses would certainly not gather more confidence, or more business, from this.

I urge you not to dress up political arguments about government spending as economic arguments.

However, I congratulate you on seeking out redundancies in government spending - your so-called “Federal Fumbles” list. Unnecessary spending is a wasted opportunity, which should be redirected towards a more worthy cause.  But I ask that you please remember that the problem is not necessarily the spending - rather, it’s what we spend our money on.   And that is true of the private sector as well.

All spending, public and private, is someone else’s income.


Thanks for your time!

Steven Stark
OKC
sestark19@gmail.com

Living With The Tension

The older I get, the less I seek resolution and the more I seek to live sustainably with the tension.

There are many examples of this in my life.  My neighbor, a wonderful man of 68 years, passed away suddenly earlier this week.  On the one hand, it is so unfair.  He was fit, energetic, kind, fun, and - having just retired - ready for more adventures with his friends and family.  But on the other hand, he lived life very fully and had a lot of great years and experiences.  On the one hand I am angry, feeling that he and his family were short-changed.  But on the other hand, his 68 years were wonderful.  My father passed away at a much younger age, when he was 55.  He didn’t get to meet his grandchildren.  That is unfair.  But others have passed away after only 30 years of life.  15 years of life.  A month of life.

As opposed to my younger thinking, I no longer think there is a clear resolution to be found here.  I can be angry and grateful at the same time.   That is OK.  Perhaps even good.

There are other questions in life that don’t have clear resolutions.  My Sunday morning discussion group has dealt with the question “How much is too much?” in regards to possessions and wealth.   (Ha, this makes us sound like we are all rich - a relative term, I suppose).   When do possessions and financial wealth work for owners and society?  When do they perpetuate injustice towards neighbors and isolate those who have them?  Is there a certain line, contextual to a culture, where this difference becomes apparent?   I don’t know for sure.

I can’t have resolution on this.  And perhaps this is good. Living with this tension may help me maintain awareness towards myself and others.  I can’t find a perfect solution, but I can be open to my role in injustice, while also living life.

 If I ignored the tension, then I would be living a fantasy, decreasing the depth of my life by isolating myself.  If I found some “solution”, then perhaps I would also stop thinking about economic injustice, thinking I had resolved the issue. Rather, I think this tension requires tending - frequent check-ins concerning balance and how we and our neighbors are doing.  

None of this is to suggest that we shouldn’t seek conflict resolution when possible.  Some conflicts may be resolved and moved firmly into the past.  But others are never going to be completely fixed and forgotten.  And again, perhaps that can be a good thing if our goal is to increase awareness. I suppose I see “resolution” more as creating a life where the conflict can fit into my days without dominating them.  Too much resolution seeking could lead me to distraction from life.

I have read that in Hindu thinking, the goal is not to overcome emotion.  Rather the goal is to nurture an underlying flow of serenity that acts as a baseline during our emotional experiences.  In other words, don’t look to rid yourself of anger or sadness. Experience them fully, but seek to live with them as partners - to walk the razor’s edge of salvation, where an underlying, even sneaky, serenity may help you navigate your experiences.  Tend the serenity. Relax the tightness in your chest.  Breathe.  Live with the tension through awareness, not through stress.

As the book title says - “Wherever you go, there you are.”  In this life, we’ll never be conflict free.   So live with the tension.