This is the last Morning Jolt until December 28. Merry Christmas! 2015: The Year Politics Became a Series of Competing Mass Hallucinations Remember how lots of Trump supporters insisted they remembered seeing video of thousands of Muslims cheering on 9/11 in Jersey City? They kept sending me the video of Muslim communities celebrating in East Jerusalem, Israel. (In all likelihood, when Trump insisted he had seen the crowds of celebrating Muslims on television, and that they were "well-covered at the time," he was probably thinking of the Middle Eastern celebrations.) I wonder if we're reaching the point where people will start insisting they remember seeing ISIS videos featuring Donald Trump. Fox News' Eric Bolling sat in for Bill O'Reilly to host The O'Reilly Factor Tuesday night, and welcomed EWTN Chief White House Correspondent Lauren Ashburn who had some interesting comparisons to make during a discussion on GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. Ashburn opened up the discussion saying bluntly, "Donald Trump is a bully. He is a bombastic flame-thrower who divides this country and he does it so he can get attention." However, it was Ashburn's next talking point that most rubbed host Bolling the wrong way. She continued, "[Trump] knows how to manipulate the media, there is no question about it. And, he's a lot like ISIS in that regard. ISIS uses social media to kill people and he uses it to insult them." Oh, come on. Come on. That's like comparing Charles Manson and Don Rickles because they both hurt people's feelings. But here's the bigger point from the exchange: When Bolling pivoted to the still-unverified Hillary Clinton debate claim that Trump is being featured in ISIS propaganda videos, Ashburn declared, "I've seen it! Haven't you? It's been on your network!" "Please send it to me. I've been looking for it," replied Bolling. Wait, does she think ISIS made a video that features Trump and it hasn't been big, across-the-dial, huge news? She seems to be asserting that Fox News showed it once . . . and then suppressed it because Hillary referred to it? If it existed, wouldn't Media Matters and David Brock be screaming from the rooftops about it? MSNBC never bothered to look for it or air it? CNN? The New York Times? Every fact-checker missed this video that aired on Fox News when she was watching? Anybody who wants to see Hillary as truthful couldn't find it? As Kevin Williamson writes today in a different context, "It's easier to traffic in conspiracy theory than to deal with reality." Where Does Demonizing Employers and Cheering Government Lead Us? A thought from Bryan Caplan on why a lengthy recession/economic stagnation in an era of big government has some people clamoring for even more big government: Markets where people trade vaguely-defined products for cash tend to be acrimonious. When products are vague, the side paying cash often feels ripped off, and the side receiving cash often feels insulted. In most markets, sellers strive to standardize products to preempt this acrimony. In labor markets, however, this is inherently difficult because every human is unique. As a result, employers often lash out at workers because they feel cheated, and employees often resent employers because they feel mistreated. These problems are amplified by the fact that our jobs are central to our identities. So when we feel mistreated by a boss (or by co-workers the boss fails to control), we experience it as a serious affront. This in turn leads people to demonize employers as a class. Once you demonize employers, it's natural to (a) look to government for salvation from current ills, and (b) imagine that existing "pro-labor" laws explain why the demons in our lives don't already treat us far worse. This isn't just the root of our secular religion. If you take the demonization of employers and salvation by government literally, you end up with Marxism or something like it . . . A year and a half ago, I wrote . . . Before those of us on the Right commence fuming about "makers" and "takers," we probably ought to think about why swaths of the electorate are so receptive to this message, and so eagerly buy into a narrative where they are the victims of their miserly bosses, and the heroic white knight of Democrat-run big government must come in and give them what they deserve. Throughout the past three decades, without any real national debate or referendum, American workers found themselves in an era of fierce foreign competition. Goods are easily imported, and services increasingly can be handed elsewhere as well. First your telemarketer or help line was serviced from Bangalore, then it became an electronic voice menu. ("I'm sorry. I did not understand your answer. Please try again.") Companies periodically embraced "outsourcing" and "offshoring," utilizing cheaper labor in other countries. Mass illegal immigration increased the supply of labor, particularly manual labor. "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap, a corporate executive who built a notorious reputation for mass layoffs at Scott Paper and then Sunbeam, helped create the modern iconic villain of a corporate executive willing to throw away his own workers in pursuit of a higher stock share price. The perception of callous and greedy corporate executives long outlasted Dunlap, who was tossed out at Sunbeam in 1998. American workers feel that their employers aren't loyal to them, so they feel no need to reciprocate that loyalty. Wage growth is "down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation." There are times when those thriving the most will observe the difficult time that those once considered "middle class" are having, and rather openly say that they don't care or that it reflects some meritocratic punishment for Americans who have grown too entitled: The U.S.-based CEO of one of the world's largest hedge funds told me that his firm's investment committee often discusses the question of who wins and who loses in today's economy. In a recent internal debate, he said, one of his senior colleagues had argued that the hollowing-out of the American middle class didn't really matter. "His point was that if the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade," the CEO recalled. I heard a similar sentiment from the Taiwanese-born, 30-something CFO of a U.S. Internet company. A gentle, unpretentious man who went from public school to Harvard, he's nonetheless not terribly sympathetic to the complaints of the American middle class. "We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world," he told me. "So if you're going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut." Easy for him to say! Obviously, these things are subjective, but maybe Americans really have worse bosses than a generation ago. Mocking the boss has always been a comedy staple -- Office Space, Dilbert, Horrible Bosses -- but maybe people laugh because they relate all too well. They feel like their hopes, dreams, and life's path are blocked, indefinitely, by the pointy-haired micro-manager. No wonder they cheer a Democratic officeholder who pledges to make the boss give you more stuff . . . Companies will argue that no one sets out to hire a bad manager -- true enough -- and that they're giving their workers the best deal that they can, setting their wages at the market rate. Still, some of America's businesses are sitting on piles of cash -- $1.64 trillion among U.S. non-financial companies at the end of 2013. If America's businessmen are worried about the growing atmosphere of resentment, populist anger, demonization of the wealthy, then throwing that money around -- whether it's on higher wages, new hires, new product research and development, or plant expansion -- might persuade frustrated, increasingly cynical Americans that the companies that employ them aren't such bad guys.
'I'm Suing You! You Made Your Video Game Too Enjoyable!' This story, spotlighted by the Fox News Red Eye crew, could be a hoax. Or it could be an extreme example of an addictive video game: A Russian man is reportedly suing the maker of a popular video game, saying he became so addicted that it cost him his marriage and his job. The man, only identified as a 28-year-old from the Siberian city Krasnoyarsk, claims that he played "Fallout 4" nonstop on his computer for about three weeks. He reportedly started to miss work, leading to his firing, and then his wife left him. In his lawsuit, which seeks $7,000 from Bethesda Game Studios and a Russian firm, the man claims his nonstop gaming caused his health to deteriorate because he was missing meals and losing sleep. His lawyer said it's the first case of its kind in Russia. We've heard about Putin having journalists killed; I didn't know he killed personal responsibility, too. How long would it take to translate Heavy Lifting into Russian? ADDENDA: To you and yours, a very Merry Christmas -- and if you don't celebrate it, have a great Friday. It's been one heck of a busy year, and I hope the holidays bring you peace, joy, and a respite, if needed, from the cacophony of politics and the chaotic world we examine together each morning. | 
Comments
Post a Comment