The upcoming Chinese New Year will mark the end of the year of the dragon on the Chinese lunar calendar. As most people who have had much contact with Chinese culture – or who eat frequently at Chinese restaurants in the West – know, twelve years constitutes a cycle in the Chinese calendar, with an animal representing each of the twelve years (the animals are also associated with different months, days and even hours, but these complexities don’t concern me here). Because of the coincidence in number, this cycle and the animals that make it up are often called the “Chinese zodiac”, even though they have nothing to do with constellations or the apparent path of the Sun through the sky. People born in the year of a particular animal are believed to share certain characteristics, a belief that leads to all sorts of absurdities, particularly in a year like the one that is now ending.
Of the twelve animals in this so-called “Chinese zodiac”, the dragon is the only mythical one. More to the point, the dragon is associated with great power and fortune, and was historically the symbol of the Chinese emperors. Because of these positive associations, children born in the year of the dragon have been held by the superstitious to be lucky and destined for greatness. As a result, birth rates skyrocket in years of the dragon. The local media is complicit in perpetuating the idea that children born in these years are special, as in their celebrity gossip news they will report that such and such a celebrity is “pregnant with a dragon fetus”, whereas in other years news of celebrity pregnancies rarely if ever refer to the animal in whose year the baby will be born. This phenomenon seemingly repeated itself in the past year. While I haven’t seen any definitive statistics, I recall reports from during the year that mentioned a dramatic rise in births, and many anecdotal reports (plus the evidence of my own eyes) that there were a lot more pregnancies than usual.
Of course many women who gave birth in the past year got pregnant for reasons unrelated to it being the year of the dragon. At least two women I know who also happened to give birth in the last year themselves told me that they would rather not have given birth in the year of the dragon because of all the other people who were doing so. But one can safely assume that the majority or at least a large number of the “additional” pregnancies, that is the ones over and above the usual average, were due to a desire to have a “dragon baby”. Of course the real result is that children born in this year will face more crowded classrooms and greater competition than children born in other years. And the idea that all “dragon babies” could be destined for great things is laughable, considering that they make up a twelfth (or more) of all people. It’s like the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the Three Wise Men have gone to the wrong stable and mistaken the baby Brian for the baby Jesus:
Mandy (Brian’s mother): So, you're astrologers, eh? Well, what is he?
Wise Man 2: Hmm?
Mandy: What star sign is he?
Wise Man 2: Capricorn.
Mandy: Capricorn, eh? What are they like?
Wise Man 2: He is the son of God, our Messiah.
Wise Man 1: King of the Jews.
Mandy: And that's Capricorn, is it?
Wise Man 2: No, no, that's just him.
Mandy: Oh, I was going to say, otherwise there'd be a lot of them.
This brings up the Western version of superstitions about times of birth and their supposed relationship to personalities, which takes the form of astrology. There are numerous reasons that show astrology has as little to do with reality as the Chinese birth animals (that is to say none at all). Most of them are very well summed up by Phil Plait on his Bad Astronomy blog. In addition to the points he makes in that article, in another entry, he mentions the fact that due to precession of the Earth’s axis, the astrological dates do not match the times the Sun is actually in the constellations of the zodiac, so that most of those who according to the standard astrological dates are Virgos were actually born when the Sun was in Libra.
I would also add that of course the “constellations” are merely the groupings which the Greeks imagined the stars to be in. Different cultures saw entirely different groupings. What’s more, the groupings themselves are just accidents of perspective. The stars in any given constellation are for the most part not at all close to each other; they only appear that way because from our perspective they lie along the same line of sight. For instance, Castor and Pollex, the two chief stars of Gemini (“the Twins”) are not particularly close to each other, as Castor lies 17 light years further away from us than Pollex. The three stars in the belt of Orion are even further apart, with the farthest about 600 light years further from us than the closest. If we travelled to other star systems few or none of Earth’s constellations would be visible. Finally, though to an ordinary observer the constellations don’t change even over many human lifetimes, the stars are all moving and in tens of thousands of years the constellations will all have changed. So claiming that these accidental, non-permanent groupings of stars as imagined by one culture in human history have some sort of influence over the lives of any of us is as silly as saying the same about ephemeral shapes formed by clouds as seen by a random observer.
Unfortunately Chinese birth animals and astrology are not the only ridiculous ideas given wide credence. Another example is the bizarre belief centered in Japan but also seen elsewhere in East Asia that a person’s blood type has something to do with their personality. This idea was ultimately derived from fallacious, racist pseudoscience adopted by the Nazis and then the militarist-era Japanese (who used it to “explain” the difference between the rebellious Taiwanese aborigines and the “submissive” Ainu people) and then revived in the 1970s by a Japanese writer with no scientific background. Despite the lack of any scientific basis, the belief that blood type influences personality is still widespread in Japan.
Several points made by Plait in his essay are relevant to all these irrational ideas about predicting a person’s fate or personality and worth reiterating here. One is that there is absolutely no evidence that any of these claims has any scientific validity. Any perception that there is a correspondence between predictions based on these ideas about people’s personalities or what happens to them and reality is purely a matter of selective perception (people notice the seemingly correct predictions – interpreting events in a manner that fits them – and ignore the incorrect ones). Also, the assertion that these concepts are merely harmless fun is also wrong. People waste large amounts of money and time on such nonsense, and such waste is not harmless. The other day I was eating at a restaurant and a woman at the next table was listening to a long spiel from a fortune teller, from the look of things hanging on his every word. It’s not harmless if people decide whom they should date or hang out with – or even when to give birth to a child – based on completely erroneous ideas. The sooner these inaccurate and outdated notions are abandoned the better off those who still hold to them, and the people around them, will be.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Friday, January 4, 2013
Is the "Fiscal Cliff" Deal a Good One?
In the past few days the US Congress passed legislation to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff”. This came after weeks of tense negotiations between President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats on the one hand and the Republican congressional leadership on the other. The final bill passed by a comfortable margin, with most of the opposition coming from Republicans in the House, almost two-thirds of whom voted against it, including some in leadership positions. On the surface, the deal looks like a victory for bipartisanship (despite Speaker Boehner's petulance toward Majority Leader Reid), but particularly for Obama and the Democrats. After all, taxes were raised on the wealthiest Americans (or more correctly speaking, they went back to the level they were at before they were cut under Bush the Younger), and Social Security and Medicare remained untouched. But a closer look makes me wonder if this deal wasn’t worse than none at all.
First of all, the Bush tax cuts were made permanent for the vast majority of Americans. Of course throughout this process, the Democrats characterized the Republicans as holding the middle class hostage in order to preserve low taxes for the wealthy. This was accurate, but the problem with the Democratic position was the idea that while the rich should pay more, the middle class shouldn’t have to. To be perfectly clear, I should emphasize that I do think the wealthy should have to pay a proportionately higher tax burden than they do now. Not only should the Bush tax cuts have been allowed to expire, but loopholes should have been closed, dividends taxed as income and the capital gains tax raised substantially (then there’s the estate tax, but I’ll get back to that). However, the Bush tax cuts should also have been allowed to expire for everyone else, if not now then at some point not too far in the future. Despite what right-wingers often claim, Americans in general do not pay all that much in taxes, and all but the relatively poor (who unfortunately constitute a larger and larger proportion of the population) can afford to pay a little more. As an aside, let’s keep in mind that while the poorest Americans don’t pay income tax, they do pay all sorts of other taxes, including in most places state sales taxes and of course Social Security payroll taxes (in fact they pay a larger share of their income in payroll taxes than those with high salaries, another point we’ll come back to). But instead of a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250,000 a year (Obama’s original minimum threshold), the cuts have been made permanent for everyone making under $400,000. Admittedly, the Democrats had always advocated making the tax cuts permanent for those earning less than $250,000, but that was a mistake, even if it was politically expedient. What’s more, not only has the capital gains tax rate been set at a too low level of 20%, but dividends are now taxed as capital gains, rather than income as in the 1990s, meaning the wealthiest Americans (who earn most of their money from investments) will still be paying proportionately less in taxes than many of the moderately wealthy.
In addition, while the estate tax was raised slightly, it is still only 40%, with a $5 million exemption, and that indexed to inflation. This one is particularly absurd. Many on the right claim to oppose higher taxes on the principle that people should be able to keep their “hard-earned” money. But while it is possible to argue that a billionaire industrialist or a multimillionaire small businessperson “earned” their money (with plenty of help from their employees and the public infrastructure), their children certainly didn’t earn it. None of these Ayn Rand-type justifications about the superiority of “prime movers” and how they should be allowed to keep the money they make apply in the case of inherited wealth. For that matter, several of the "Founding Fathers" that many on the right claim to be the heirs of (not to mention Adam Smith, the father of capitalism) were critical of the idea of inheriting wealth. While I don’t object to allowing people to leave some of their assets to their children, the heirs can certainly afford to pay considerably more in taxes (50% at the least, with an exemption of no more than $2 million, or better yet several different rates depending on the size of the estate).
What’s more, the sequester that would cut drastically cut spending was merely put off for two months. Of course there is some spending that definitely could and should be cut, particularly defense spending. But despite all the rhetoric about the US government’s unmanageable debt, the problem is not nearly as serious as it’s made out to be. The more immediate issue is transforming America’s economy for the future by promoting new industries such as alternative energy. In any case, there is no justification for drastic cuts to solvent programs like Social Security. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The best step that can be taken to improve the financing of Social Security for the long-term is eliminating the payroll tax cap, which ensures that people who earn salaries above the current cap of around $110,000 actually pay a smaller percentage of their income in payroll tax than minimum-wage workers do. Granted, getting rid of the cap will not eliminate all of the future shortfall, but it will eliminate most of it (if it had been done several years ago, it could have eliminated it entirely), and combined with a slight increase in the rate, it would solve the problem. But of course Republicans are not interested in any solution that makes the rich pay more (what many of them really want is to destroy Social Security entirely), and even many of the Democrats seem far more willing to cut benefits than adjust payroll taxes.
Finally, this deal didn’t even raise the debt ceiling. This wouldn’t have been an issue in the past, as previous Congresses didn’t consider it necessary to debate whether the US government would commit to fulfilling its obligations. But the current crop of Republicans have already shown their willingness to use the debt ceiling as a club to get what they want (the gutting of social programs, continued tax breaks for harmful industries like oil and coal, lower taxes for the rich), and with the Bush tax cuts permanently extended, the Democrats will have less bargaining power next time around. No wonder a fair number of the slightly less short-sighted Republicans were pleased with the deal. With the debt ceiling and the sequester, the can has just been kicked down the road, and it's not clear that the Democrats will be in a stronger position when the next deadline looms.
There are many other provisions in the deal, some absurd (a $9 billion tax break that benefits big banks and multinationals, tax breaks for NASCAR race tracks) and some good (subsidies for taking public transit). Even if I had the time and inclination, it would take hours of study and analysis to find all the pluses and minuses. It's clear that the deal could have been worse. Social Security and Medicare were left alone (but wait till the sequester and debt ceiling rear their ugly heads again). The Republicans’ absolute intransigence on raising taxes for the wealthy finally gave way (though not among all of them – and it was so stupid to begin with that it is hard to celebrate some Republicans finally showing a bare minimum of sense, if only grudgingly). But I am not convinced that this deal is any better than no deal at all would have been.
First of all, the Bush tax cuts were made permanent for the vast majority of Americans. Of course throughout this process, the Democrats characterized the Republicans as holding the middle class hostage in order to preserve low taxes for the wealthy. This was accurate, but the problem with the Democratic position was the idea that while the rich should pay more, the middle class shouldn’t have to. To be perfectly clear, I should emphasize that I do think the wealthy should have to pay a proportionately higher tax burden than they do now. Not only should the Bush tax cuts have been allowed to expire, but loopholes should have been closed, dividends taxed as income and the capital gains tax raised substantially (then there’s the estate tax, but I’ll get back to that). However, the Bush tax cuts should also have been allowed to expire for everyone else, if not now then at some point not too far in the future. Despite what right-wingers often claim, Americans in general do not pay all that much in taxes, and all but the relatively poor (who unfortunately constitute a larger and larger proportion of the population) can afford to pay a little more. As an aside, let’s keep in mind that while the poorest Americans don’t pay income tax, they do pay all sorts of other taxes, including in most places state sales taxes and of course Social Security payroll taxes (in fact they pay a larger share of their income in payroll taxes than those with high salaries, another point we’ll come back to). But instead of a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250,000 a year (Obama’s original minimum threshold), the cuts have been made permanent for everyone making under $400,000. Admittedly, the Democrats had always advocated making the tax cuts permanent for those earning less than $250,000, but that was a mistake, even if it was politically expedient. What’s more, not only has the capital gains tax rate been set at a too low level of 20%, but dividends are now taxed as capital gains, rather than income as in the 1990s, meaning the wealthiest Americans (who earn most of their money from investments) will still be paying proportionately less in taxes than many of the moderately wealthy.
In addition, while the estate tax was raised slightly, it is still only 40%, with a $5 million exemption, and that indexed to inflation. This one is particularly absurd. Many on the right claim to oppose higher taxes on the principle that people should be able to keep their “hard-earned” money. But while it is possible to argue that a billionaire industrialist or a multimillionaire small businessperson “earned” their money (with plenty of help from their employees and the public infrastructure), their children certainly didn’t earn it. None of these Ayn Rand-type justifications about the superiority of “prime movers” and how they should be allowed to keep the money they make apply in the case of inherited wealth. For that matter, several of the "Founding Fathers" that many on the right claim to be the heirs of (not to mention Adam Smith, the father of capitalism) were critical of the idea of inheriting wealth. While I don’t object to allowing people to leave some of their assets to their children, the heirs can certainly afford to pay considerably more in taxes (50% at the least, with an exemption of no more than $2 million, or better yet several different rates depending on the size of the estate).
What’s more, the sequester that would cut drastically cut spending was merely put off for two months. Of course there is some spending that definitely could and should be cut, particularly defense spending. But despite all the rhetoric about the US government’s unmanageable debt, the problem is not nearly as serious as it’s made out to be. The more immediate issue is transforming America’s economy for the future by promoting new industries such as alternative energy. In any case, there is no justification for drastic cuts to solvent programs like Social Security. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The best step that can be taken to improve the financing of Social Security for the long-term is eliminating the payroll tax cap, which ensures that people who earn salaries above the current cap of around $110,000 actually pay a smaller percentage of their income in payroll tax than minimum-wage workers do. Granted, getting rid of the cap will not eliminate all of the future shortfall, but it will eliminate most of it (if it had been done several years ago, it could have eliminated it entirely), and combined with a slight increase in the rate, it would solve the problem. But of course Republicans are not interested in any solution that makes the rich pay more (what many of them really want is to destroy Social Security entirely), and even many of the Democrats seem far more willing to cut benefits than adjust payroll taxes.
Finally, this deal didn’t even raise the debt ceiling. This wouldn’t have been an issue in the past, as previous Congresses didn’t consider it necessary to debate whether the US government would commit to fulfilling its obligations. But the current crop of Republicans have already shown their willingness to use the debt ceiling as a club to get what they want (the gutting of social programs, continued tax breaks for harmful industries like oil and coal, lower taxes for the rich), and with the Bush tax cuts permanently extended, the Democrats will have less bargaining power next time around. No wonder a fair number of the slightly less short-sighted Republicans were pleased with the deal. With the debt ceiling and the sequester, the can has just been kicked down the road, and it's not clear that the Democrats will be in a stronger position when the next deadline looms.
There are many other provisions in the deal, some absurd (a $9 billion tax break that benefits big banks and multinationals, tax breaks for NASCAR race tracks) and some good (subsidies for taking public transit). Even if I had the time and inclination, it would take hours of study and analysis to find all the pluses and minuses. It's clear that the deal could have been worse. Social Security and Medicare were left alone (but wait till the sequester and debt ceiling rear their ugly heads again). The Republicans’ absolute intransigence on raising taxes for the wealthy finally gave way (though not among all of them – and it was so stupid to begin with that it is hard to celebrate some Republicans finally showing a bare minimum of sense, if only grudgingly). But I am not convinced that this deal is any better than no deal at all would have been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
