The Problem With Financial Experts

The problem with financial experts is that, to the one, they have tremendous influence over people's outlooks on wealth security. To the other, they are utterly useless to people who don't have wealth security.

Or, as Mark Steel offers the view from across the Pond:

One of the most touchingly innocent lines of thought you hear is from financial experts when they're giving advice about the need to provide for our pensions, now the state pension is unreliable. "The earlier you start, the better," they say. And: "It's best to top up your contributions to £400 a month."

I never get further than that but I presume they continue: "Because all of us have several hundred pounds spare at the end of each month that we can't think what to do with. Some of us spend it on crack, or buy antique furniture and set fire to it, or have our pets gold-plated or take out a super-injunction but it makes much more sense to put that annoying leftover cash in a pension fund."

Now, in response to the disturbing news that more of us are living longer, selfishly placing an unbearable strain on the nation's finances, the Association of British Insurers has been public spirited enough to find a solution. They suggest "workers should be forced to pay towards the cost of their long-term care in old age", adding "almost two-thirds of adults have given no thought to how they would afford a place at a residential home".

They might not be exactly right, as most people have given it a thought, but the thought has been: "I'm buggered if I know HOW to pay for it, I just hope I keel over in one go". In any case what sort of 23-year-old says: "Ooh no, you go to Glastonbury if you like, but I'm putting that revenue into my care home fund. You might think you're enjoying yourself but you'll regret it in 73 years when I'm the one getting sponged down regular."

And then there are those of us who don't give it a thought because there is no point to it. Winning the lottery, writing a bestseller, or maybe dealing drugs.

Or I could hope for American socialism.

No, seriously though. There are a lot of people in our society who do important, or, at least, gainful work that just won't see the point of putting whatever pittance they have beyond necessity—or, I suppose, whatever pittance they have, period, regardless of whether it meets necessity—toward retirement.

It sort of reminds me of the lectures we used to get from our parents about financial responsibility. Sometimes it seemed as if the calculations about money presumed human beings need no substantial recreation in order to maintain their sanity. Of course, if we all took up meditation, we wouldn't be spending much at all in our recreation.

Maybe that is the key: We should all live like monks in order that we can give that excess income to the financial experts; after all, it's rightly their money, anyway. Right?

Mississippi GOP: Less than half support interracial marriage

Who: Public Policy Polling
What: "MS GOP: Bryant for Gov., Barbour or Huckabee for Pres."
When: April 7, 2011

46% of these hardcore Republican voters believe interracial marriage should be illegal, while 40% think it should be legal.

You read that correctly: Six of ten Mississippi Republicans polled in late March are unable to accept or agree that interracial marriage should be legal.

Of the four hundred "usual Mississippi Republican primary voters" surveyed, that means about 186 gave the straithgforward answer that miscegenating marriages should be illegal. In truth, it is a simple enough argument to understand, even if one disagrees with it to the point of mockery.

Perhaps a bit more confusing, though, are the 56 or so respondents who said they didn't know if interracial marriage should be legal. How, exactly, does that opinion work? What is the underlying question?

The statistical breakdown is an interesting dynamic for the wonkish, too. The strongest opposition to miscegenating marriages is found among Governor Haley Barbour's supporters; they account for thirty-seven percent of the opinion against interracial marriage, and thirty-five percent of the uncertain. Without Barbour in the race, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee led the poll result, as well as held the biggest share of those opposed to interracial marriage. Without Barbour in the race, Huckabee (33%), former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (27%), and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (21%) draw over eighty percent of those opposed to interracial marriage.

None of that, of course, surprises liberals. Though they should note that Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-6) did not seem to draw much for racists. Among the five percent of respondents who preferred her as the Republican 2012 presidential candidate, only one in six oppose interracial marriage. Technically, that's a better number than her state-mate, Gov. Tim Palwenty's supporters; the Minnesota governor drew only three percent of the respondents, one in five of whom oppose interracial marriage.

I think. They are rough enough numbers; with Pawlenty supporters, you are talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of two people who oppose interracial marriage. And it is Mississippi, after all.

Something About Today

Who: Gail Collins
What: "Sacred Cows, Angry Birds", The New York Times
When: February 19, 2011

The House of Representatives has been cutting like crazy! Down with Planned Parenthood and PBS! We can't afford to worry about mercury contamination! Safety nets are too expensive!

But keep your hands off the Defense Department's budget to sponsor Nascar racers.

"It's a great public/private partnership," said Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen, a New Jersey Republican.

The Defense Department claims racecar sponsorships are an important recruiting tool for the Army. The House agreed — although this might be news to the Navy and Marines, which decided a while back that a Nascar presence wasn't worth the money.

"What makes U.S. Army's motorsports initiatives successful?" Ryan Newman, driver of No. 39 U.S. Army Chevrolet asked his Facebook readers as he urged a show of support for the program. "In a 2009 study among fans nationwide, 37% feel more positive about the Army due to its involvement in motorsports."

I know. I know ... I know, I know, I know, IknowIknow ... I know!

Just ... let it go. Look, it's easy to pick on Gail Collins, but just ask yourself this:

A Fundamental Question: What, exactly, are we doing?

Who: Paul Krugman
What: "Eat the Future", The New York Times
When: February 14, 2011

Republican leaders like to claim that the midterms gave them a mandate for sharp cuts in government spending. Some of us believe that the elections were less about spending than they were about persistent high unemployment, but whatever. The key point to understand is that while many voters say that they want lower spending, press the issue a bit further and it turns out that they only want to cut spending on other people.

That's the lesson from a new survey by the Pew Research Center, in which Americans were asked whether they favored higher or lower spending in a variety of areas. It turns out that they want more, not less, spending on most things, including education and Medicare. They're evenly divided about spending on aid to the unemployed and—surprise—defense.

The only thing they clearly want to cut is foreign aid, which most Americans believe, wrongly, accounts for a large share of the federal budget.

Pew also asked people how they would like to see states close their budget deficits. Do they favor cuts in either education or health care, the main expenses states face? No. Do they favor tax increases? No. The only deficit-reduction measure with significant support was cuts in public-employee pensions—and even there the public was evenly divided.

The moral is clear. Republicans don't have a mandate to cut spending; they have a mandate to repeal the laws of arithmetic.

Strange times.

One For the Long, Long Road A-Windin'

Who: Charles Mudede and Dominic Holden
What: "Meeting the Main Man of Maker's Mark", The Stranger
When: December 21, 2010

That's all I wanted: to drink my favorite bourbon with this Bill Samuels Jr. And what does Dominic do? He tells this known Republican (and known fan of horse racing and college basketball) that I'm a Marxist, and that I have been in the habit of calling my brand of Marxism "Maker's Marxism": a political program seeking to end capitalist exploitation, strengthen social safety nets, liberate knowledge, and make higher learning accessible to all—and yet a program that's not unaware of the humanness of humans, of the fact that the pursuit of truth sometimes gets boring and tiresome, and of the fact that a few strong drinks can do a world of good.

I did not expect Samuels to grasp these and other subtleties of my program. And besides, I didn't want to talk politics. I just wanted to drink and hear yarns about the tradition of distilling this excellent stuff up in them there hills of Kentucky (Kentucky has hills, right?). I have always had a cosmopolitan weakness for pastorals. I had watched The Dukes of Hazzard as a boy and loved it—the corrupt cops, the car chases on dusty roads, the good old boys, the General Lee, and so on. I was happy to have these fantasies entertained as I sipped Maker's Mark.

But right off the bat, Dominic makes sure the jig is up: Samuels knows I'm a Marxist. This is a man who grew up in the 1950s! The height of the red scare. Those dark "duck and cover" days. For him, the fall of the Berlin Wall probably meant the death of all that red stuff and a real victory of liberty and freedom. And after all that—after the Sputnik, the Bay of Pigs, the Tet Offensive—here he was sitting next to a fucking commie!

And why not open with an ode to bourbon?

And what more can I say?

Welcome to Digest Left. Pour yourself a round; 'tis a long search on which we are about to embark.