Two stents and you may be out

 

                 Two Stents and You May be Out

 Two days ago, the "unexpected" has become the expected. Bernie Sanders, a contestant for the presidential run for the year 2020, has succumbed to the unexpected, a heart attack, necessitating the implantation of two stents. Such a procedure is not uncommon for those of us who suffered a heart attack, not too serious enough perhaps, to take one out of running for anything or staying wherever we were.
Bernie Sanders had undergone "two stents" implants, which necessitated hospitalization for a couple of days, but for all practical purposes, this event may impact, if not take him out of the presidential run. Unfortunately, although survivability may be assured, this event is likely to cast a shadow on the contender's ability to perform his presidential duties, perhaps more so, the stress for running the campaign for the presidency.
Speaking from experience: four months ago, I had undergone a similar procedure--"two stents" implants following an unanticipated heart attack.Although I am not a candidate for the highest office in the land, I am an academic, "emeritus" professor of economics at Clark University, still quite active in research and publication in my field of study, I would not contemplate running for anything, the presidency notwithstanding.What is relevant here perhaps, is that in my case, the heart attack was triggered by the intense effort I have exerted in going over a "manuscript" in order to meet the publication deadline.
As an academic, I have faced a great deal of stress in meeting deadlines-- at Clark University, I have chaired 53 doctoral theses in economics with deadlines that had to be met for the success of my candidates for the PhD. The stress is what makes our footprints, whether that may be associated with being an academic, or in      asking one's constituents help in seeking the highest office in the land-- the presidency of the United States.
Unlike the senator, I am  a "Two timer".  My first"two stents" happened during my reading of doctoral theses several years ago. That did not give me  a card blanch-- few years later, this year I had a second round--two more stents.
With my second time around, I face a survival problem-- too many medications, less activity, but most of all , at least to my thinking then WHAT, and for HOW LONG the stents will survive.
A saying I have read somewhere, may be in a song: it is better the second time arround-- take my words, DO NOT BELIEVE IT.
My first time, with the stent implants , I did not even "Blink"; I neither knew what a stent was , nor what does it do, and most certainly I did not know that stents DO FAIL.  
Loosing one's ability to function,even for a day necessitated by the recovery process from stents implantation, for me personally, is worth a great deal more than a day or even 30 days worth of subsequent living. I do not know how others who have faced the same surgery have felt, but my experience would defy the "proverb" or "song", about the wonders of the second times around, at least as stent implantation goes-- it could not be more False.  
Mr Sanders is a"hardy" Senator from Vermont. For him  this is a  "first event". No doubt, he shall regain complete functionality in a very short time. He has a message that needs to be heard, not just  during the presidetial run, but for all time to come:
Believe in yourself and in your country's future-- that by getting together and acting our own conscious, we shall always achieve and maintain greatness.
Senator Sanders, I wish you well. Be assured that you shall recover, and, that you shall continue to serve your country and your constituents. 
I wish you a speedy recovery, and if the presidency is in your future, I wish you great luck and good health. 
 

It is my time to remember

                                      It Is My Time To Remember

It is Wednesday, September,11, 2019, a day where American throughout the continent in general and in New York city in Particular, perhaps the world at large, remember a day where hearts stopped, blood spilled, cries of disbelief, answered by the heroic acts of so many: American and many inhabitant of our world.
In remembrance of those who had fallen, and those who have given their lives for the safety and comfort of others, we pray for them and their families, above all we pray for the survival of our beliefs and our way of life.

Siting there around my kitchen table, a wine glass by my side, I looked through the wine glass, I saw an image that I knew sooner or later would be mine- a vision of someone who saw life beyond the present. Perhaps such a vision was seen by those who gave their life for ours.

Further from the kitchen table, in the dinning room, there stood an unopened, chilled bottle of Veuve Cliquot ( Rose), a gourmet Plaza Osetera Caviar, neither opened, just there to remind me of time past, a time where I would celebrate with a group of my PhD students at Clark University, the success  of one of their colleagues of being the recipient of the PhD in Economics, which I had chaired the doctoral theses.
So many years, so many PhD students I had chaired their doctoral theses and brought them to  successful conclusion; so much champayne celebrations that followed..

My own daughter, as was the case was my students, was celebrated along with her professors there at the house; she was celebrated as the recipient of PhD in Political Science from Brown University. There at the same dining room we have gathered with her professors and my own doctoral students to celebrate  another achievment; the award of a political science PhD to my own daughter.

I left the kitchen, with the vision of two events: a sad and unforgettable event,yet, with a heart full of gratitude for those who offered their life to defend our constitutionals values and the freedom the constitution affords us. The second vision is about the knowledge I was lucky enough to accumulate, and, for the qualities I was endowed with which enabled me to be a good thinker and a successful educator.

Passing the dinning room, I went to my study, where I sat wondering about the probability of survival; my own survival was the one I had to contemplate.

I recalled a note I have written to myself following a wonderful and heart worming event: Clark University dedication of the" Attiat F. Ott 'Seminar Room" : the seminar room where I have taught all my PhD students their Macroeconomic Theory, and conducted my Public Economics Seminar.
The dedication, acknowledged my contribution to graduate education at Clark University, and the Chairing  during my tenure of of 53PhD dissertations in the fields of Macro Economics and Public Economics, bringing them all to successful conclusion

I recall coming home after an unforgettable celebration, that I stood there by my desk and subconsciously wrote on  my calendar the following words: "From a Line to a Point".
Today; the September 11, 2019, I revisit what I had put down that far back.

As an educator, seeker of knowledge, I would do no less than search for the probability of ONE specific event, everything else remains the same ,calculating such a probability , all pertinent variables had to onsidered. Unfortunately, we seldom,if ever possess such a knowledge.

After so much reading about the likelihood of the occurrence of that Specific Event, I have decided on the wisdom of a saying I have learned as a child in a french school a long time ago; a saying that was popularized in a song by a very popular American actress: "QUI SERA, SERA".

May be that how one should  look at the future!

It Is My Time to Remmeber

A Reflection on the US presidential Election of 2016

                                         A Reflection on the US Presidential Election of 2016


 Have you ever faced a "Colossal Defeat? If so how did you deal with it?

I ask these questions having witnessed yesterday (November 9), Hillary Rodham Clinton dealing with such a loss, not an ordinary loss, a loss of a national election to the highest office in the land, if not the world-- the Presidency of the United States of America.

Whether you have voted for her or for the other candidate-Donald Trump, her concession speech ought to have touched your soul.

 In her concession speech, she has exhibited both serenity in defeat and uplifting of her countrymen spirit.
I was touched by her eloquence; she exhibited a "real" class. As a female member of the species, I wish her well. I wanted her to win, not necessarily because of her "unsurpassed" qualifications, or better judgment or truthfulness, but because of her "gender", yes her gender.

A woman president would have placed this country among the great, both in ancient history and in modern times for their recognition of "Women". Unfortunately, that would not be.

Hillary Clinton should have won; should have won not because she advocated a vision for America that put it on a par with great "democracies", not because she expounded on the need to embrace people of all nationalities and origin , but to me because she was a" woman"- a candidate representing a gender that was beat down by a system that discounts the qualifications of women, against those of not their betters but for the fact of gender-- being men.

With sadness I view her defeat and accept the judgment of the people. That what democracy is about-- win or lose you must uphold as "sacred" the "will" of the people. In this 2016 election, the people spoke more loudly than ever.

Hillary Clinton has accepted in good grace the "decision" of the people. I salute her and wish her the best. . 

 

A Vexing Problem II: A Follow Up

A gathering of 50 leaders (Presidents and Prime ministers) from the African Continent took place in Washington D. C. USA per invitation from President Obama. The meeting described as the US-Africa leaders Summit (not quite a G-50 Summit), took place on August 3-6, where experts from the US and Africa tackled many issues least of which the form of aid to the African Nations.

Such an unprecedented gathering, by all accounts would result in a myriad of sessions, panels of experts, public policy advisers, as well as invited guests all addressing one or another aspects of development, trade and foreign assistance.
President Obama, the host of the conference, placed emphasis on two issues: that, “investing” in the next generation is at the core of a government responsibility; that a trajectory of African growth requires a shift from a donor mentality to a model of “business networking”. During the following two days, the conferees had the opportunity to discuss ways of:
• Stimulating growth,
• Unlocking opportunities and,
• Creating enabling environment for the next generation.

A tall order to be sure. Nonetheless, planning for the future is what governments do, or ought to do.

Economists, for long have recognized that the individual’s decision regarding consumption, saving and investment is carried out in an inter-temporal setting. That is, the individual in making a choice of what goods to buy, whether to save or invest as well as allocation of time between work and leisure, does so with an eye to the future. The objective is to allocate lifetime income to get maximum satisfaction (utility) over one’s lifetime.

“Good” governments could not afford to do less. The returns to individuals living in a society, depends on a societal allocation of its resources that maximizes returns to its members over their lifetimes.

Achieving such an optimal inter-temporal allocation both at the individual level, and in societal context is “vexing” at best. That does not mean that it should not be sought. Attendees and presenters at the President- Leadership summit made a valiant effort in identifying those pillars on which a society should construct its future. The multitude of sessions that have taking place during the Summit, put forth ideas and recommendations as well as made pledges for funding support for various projects initiated by governments and US business.

The task of stimulating growth, and, creating enabling environment for growth in the 50 African nations, as the saying goes, may be easier said than done. The 50 African countries differ significantly in terms of their natural and human resources, levels of literacy and educational attainments, levels of corruption and legitimacy of their governments- elected or dictatorial. That being said, one needs to add that, one ought not throw one’s hands and give in to a future that perpetuates the status quo. Addressing future needs of society have to go hands in hand with current needs.

One of the specific recommendations/ pledges that came out of the Summit is that the USA pledges, in partnership with business, to continue their efforts for the “Power Africa” initiative. The President announced on August 5th that private companies and government institutions are providing additional $12 billion in aid to the administration’s electrification program in Africa. The federal government would add $30 million to supplement this effort. Conferees at the Summit applauded the effort. Since the US government funding requires Congressional approval, that did not deter the US business community from pledging support to the effort to invest in power, and power infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa (for details on this announcement see Juliet Eliperin, Obama to announce expansion of electrification in Africa, The Washington Post, August 5th ).

This brings me once more to the comment I have made in my August 2nd blog, prior to the US-African leaders Summit. There, I have suggested in response to an announcement by the GDN/Gates foundation asking for proposals that would recommend a way or ways to “reinvent foreign assistance”. My suggestion to whoever cared to listen is that the highest returns an investment would reap are through investing in education. No society in my view can prosper, let alone, compete in tomorrow’s world without a literate population. Once again, I endorse in the recommendation that “education” unlocks the door to prosperity.

My endorsement for education as the “right” approach to the so called “reinventing foreign aid”, elicited a response from one of my formal Doctoral students, currently a professor of economics with a great deal of expertise in development policies. I would like to share with you a brief exert from his note as it is quit enlightening:
“…the biggest bang for the foreign aid/ development assistance dollar may not be education expenditures, whose worthwhile returns are derived from other functional conditions being in place, but an investment in the necessary initial conditions that makes an economy organically and sustainably develop and progress. These include, inter alia, the establishment, enforcement, and education about the culture, of property rights, which includes the opportunity for people getting a competitive return on investing in their own education and human capital development”.

As I stated in my previous blog, I am not a development economist. Yet, I cannot help but wonder how a society in the African continent, with more than one third of its population are illiterate (the definition of literacy is that a person aged 15 and over is able to read and write), can possibly achieve those conditions that make an “economy organically and sustainably develop and progress”. A sustainable development would only prevail in a society whose members are literate.

Hopefully, an expansion of the “power Africa” project would bring the light of literacy to all citizen of the African continent.

A Vexing Problem: How to Fashion Development Assistance

There has been and will always be vexing problems facing the inhabitants of Earth. Every generation faces multitudes of problems some get eventually solved while others fester from one generation to the next. One such problem is “Economic Development”.

Economic textbooks on development economics abound, all claiming their authors offer solutions to the “vexing” problem of developing the “less developed”, or as most often put the “underdeveloped” world. An often cited solution is “development assistance” to give the underdeveloped world a head start towards the so called “Take Off”.
The economic textbooks on development for the most part were successful in putting forth the idea that development is a long term process, that one shoes solution does not fit all. With the preponderance of evidence about the slow pace of development in many regions of the world in general, but in the African continent in particular, it is abundantly clear that development economists have “a long road to hoe” to claim success for the thesis put forth about development strategies.

As I am not a development economist, I cannot claim either success or failure of what the development economist has accomplished or failed to accomplish. Nonetheless, as a macro/public economics specialist, I feel that we economists have failed somewhat in putting forth clear and workable solutions to the vexing problem of economic development, and most significantly the role development assistance should or ought to play.

Development assistance espoused by policy makers, mostly on the advice of political economists and development practitioners, as a policy tool to lift humanity in the less developed world out of the desperate status most face, seems not to have delivered what was hoped for. Yet, not many would advocate that development assistance should be scraped (an exception is the CATO Institute who advocated eliminating US foreign development assistance altogether), or that the plight of humanity in many less developed countries should not be of concern to the many fortune individuals in the developed world.

There is ample evidence that most if not all members of the developed world believe that development assistance, although is only one of the pillars for successful development, has a place to play in the development of the less developed world. One such evidence, indeed one that prompted me to write this essay, is the “continual” search for the most effective means to promote development as parlayed in the following announcement.

Appearing in “The Economist” journal (July 19th-25th ) is the following announcement:
GDN (the Global Development Network) in partnership with the Bill& Malinda Gates Foundation seek suggestions from “any one with ideas” about development assistance. As the announcement indicates what they are seeking is “ideas” which would answer the question of “How to Reinvent Foreign Aid”. Individuals with the winning essays would each receive $20,000 and that their ideas would be promoted by the sponsors.

(I wonder how many students of developments would apply.)
Although I do applaud GDN and the Gates Foundation for seeking ideas as to how to “ reinvent” foreign assistance, I nonetheless find it a bit “ simpleminded” as to believe that simply by offering a sum of money (not significant at that) to the readers of The Economist, they would gain insight that could not have been gained from reading most if not all texts on economic development, and most significantly from the voluminous literature, policy papers, testimonies and other forums on the failure of many well designed publicaly and privately funded programs of foreign assistance. What would have been, perhaps most informative was to provide a focus to the inquiry.

To begin with: The announcement ought to have made it clear that development assistance by NGO that is non-governmental organization accounts for only 15-20% of total development assistance; that the other 80% or so is provided by governments mostly by the United States under the auspices of the Agency of International Development( AID). According to statistics provided by the OECD development aid amounted to $134.8 billion in 2013. Development Aid provided by private voluntary agencies amounted to $29.7 billion in 2012 of which the US contributed $22.1 billion. Hence any effort to enhance such a contribution would be most welcomed. Another issue is that public sector donors as well as private donors have their “own’ agenda in dolling out said assistance. Most importantly is the fact that the host country is friendly toward such largess – that it would accept whatever strings donors are bound to impose. Hence it would have been helpful in shaping up a response— reinventing foreign aid proposal, to know whether or not a donor is likely to withhold assistance to a country based on its political standing.

It is worth noting that two centuries have passed since development assistance was inaugurated. The most successful of course is the “Marshall Plan” which was instrumental for the development of Europe following the destruction of WWII. But this is not the development assistance the solicitation of proposal has in mind. It seeks I believe ideas that would break the cycle of underdevelopment in the less developed world. In some sense, the GDN and the Gates foundation hope to elicit new suggestions as to device and put in place a successful (hopefully) assistance program. But once again: is there a shoe that would fit all. No one is likely to think so.

Few months ago I watched a couple of televised hearings by a “Congressional Committee” on foreign assistance. Appearing before the committee was an administrator from AID, as well as representatives from private agencies that are engaged in providing development assistance. Obviously the Congressional Committee in scheduling such hearings is acting as the “Watch Dog” guarding our interests as US taxpayers in that, it needs to insure for us that money taking out of our pockets yields a higher rate of return than if left there (not all obviously would agree, but then in a democracy one ought to believe that it is so). One of the issues that came up in one of those hearing was in relation to a program called “Power Africa”. Before the hearing started, and before hearing AID’s administrator makes his statement, I wondered what such a program is about. What “power” are we US citizens want to impair to Africa. Thankfully, the administrator did not keep me guessing for long. He was reporting on an initiative with a public- private partnership to double the number of people with access to “Electricity” in six focus countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria and Tanzania. The program engages both the African governments and the private partners—the World Bank, the African Development Bank as well as other private partners in such effort.
As a taxpayer I applauded such effort, not only because electric power is an enabler but also because it conveys a message that we should always adhere to in our life: “let there be light”.

There are a host of private-public partnerships in Africa and other developing countries that aim to fill a gap in knowledge about resource use or supplement existing resources through access to resources not available at home. Physical and human capital is needed to be combined to produce output, whether such output is for consumption or to augment the productive capacity of a country. This in essence is what development assistance is all about. Unfortunately good intentions may not always yield good outcomes.

I have read and participated in conferences as well as written papers on some aspects of developments, in particular that which deals with the role of the public sector. On August 19-21, 2008, The Institute for Economic Policy Studies, Worcester, MA, USA sponsored a conference that was held in Gaborone, Botswana with a theme: “Developing the African Continent: Who is in charge”, papers from that conference appears in a special Issue of the journal; International Advances in Economic Research, August 2009.The conferees were academician as well as policy makers in the field of development. The most striking facts arising from the conference sessions are: first, an overwhelming level of corruption still persists in many sub-Saharan African countries, hence impacting the use of foreign assistance; secondly, that aid should be channeled into activities that not only complement and enhance current investment, but also provide the environment to attract further investment and thirdly, perhaps most significantly is that a “better understanding” of human development and its impact on growth is imperative for the development of a successful development assistance program.
Now I offer my “two cents” and not a “$20,000” suggestion:

An Integrated Approach to Development no matter in which Area, or for which Country.

In the “Power Africa” initiative, for example, it is not enough to build cables to supply electricity. It does not do much for a country where the majority of its inhabitants have no decent housing to make use of electricity, nor for education attainments if there are no schools that can make use of electric power to deliver education to students throughout the year. Perhaps that was the reason for the pilot project of the “Power Africa” program to limit the program to six sub-Saharan African countries.

A final word: Education should be the Road on which Development Assistance Ought to Travel.

My Anonymous Readers: Thanks

Once in a while most if not all of us get down in the “dump”. Thankfully we pull ourselves up and as the “Brit” would put it “get on with it”.

A couple of days ago, I was there—down in the dump. The unending snow storms, the unsavory cold weather, the wind, the pile after pile of dirty snow finally got to me. When we contemplated a move from D.C. to New England, so many years ago (it seems now like eternity), I was so delighted to see a city blanketed in snow. The sun cast a lovely spell on the City, I basked in the beauty of New England, and hence we stayed. That was ages ago.

Today, like many others in my city I find myself surrounded with “mountains of dirty snow”. And, if you had to depend on someone to plow the driveway for you, you see the money disappearing faster than the ice melting on your roof or on your front door. Mind you, I did not mind then, neither the snow, nor the dirty roads. Once I got to my classrooms, the sun shined on me, my graduate students made my day.

During my carrier as a professor of Economics, I had the good fortune to graduate so many doctoral students (50 PhD), and as their doctoral thesis chairman, I had successfully placed most, if not all in very rewarding positions, a feat that even today I remain thankful for.

A couple of days ago, as the snow kept mounting on the roof, the ice accumulating on windows and glass doors, the water spilling into the house through the glass frames, I felt perhaps for the first time the chill of winter. I asked myself “had I came to the end of the road?”

My Blog “The End of the Road” posted few weeks ago, perhaps articulated how one feels when one reaches the end of the road. As one gets older, as one’s formal supply of labor is depleted, one cannot help but delve in such thoughts. I wondered: “Had I truly reached the end of the road?” Then, I opened my e-mail. There, I found a lovely note from an anonymous reader commenting on my Blog: “Marvelous, what a wonderful site. Keep it up”.

My anonymous reader reminded me of the task that I have dedicated myself to- Economic Education. This simple line lifted the “fog” that had engulfed me for a few days. I knew then, that I have yet to reach the “end of the road”. It is a road that we must travel nonetheless. So to whomever, wrote that short note my sincere thanks. Tomorrow, I start working on a new blog: “Tax Reform: the elusive dream”. Till next week then.

The End of the Road: A Reflection on Value

There was a song I have heard a long-long time ago which had started or ended, I am not quite sure with the following words: “the king of the road”. Sitting on my desk pondering whether or not I should begin work on my next book, about the state of the Federal Budget and the unsustainable levels of debts in the US and most EU member countries, I found myself recalling this particular tune. The mind works in mysterious ways, as so many believe.

Why this tune, and at this point in time. I am sure psychologists can answer this question. For me, a trigger prompted me to recall it. I have just published a paper on the “Rate of Return to Aging: A capital Stock Approach” (International Advances in Economic Research, November 2013, vol.19, pp.355-366), where I came up with the finding that the rate of return to aging if not negative is close to zero. Another and perhaps a more subtle reminder about the implications of aging is the relationship between old age and work, especially the value of work. On reflection I knew why I associated the song with age.

I am fond of watching a program on PBS called “Window to the Wild”. There the host of the program, perhaps in his 60’s or early 70’s takes his viewers into the “wild”. A day or two ago, I saw an episode where the host of the program took his viewers into a place in Massachusetts quite deserted called “Dog Town”. What prompted me to think, I believe about the song and the title of this blog is a most interesting statement carved on one of the town boulders that stated: “When Work Stops Value Diminishes”. Whoever thought of it did well to carve it in stone.

Not every one, I am sure will realize or envisage how this small, yet a most powerful sentence pricks the mind. For an economist, value is a very important concept in the economist’s repertoire. Value has two characteristics: Value in “use”, and value in “exchange”. An inquiry into the history of economic thought leads you to the question of what determines value.

Value defines a good or service. A good such as bread or water have a value to the user but may not have a value in exchange. For example, water in a river can be obtained free of charge, and if the water is available to all, it will have no exchange value. On the other hand, if water is not available to all, and it is useful to users, then it will have a value in exchange. Whoever possesses the water can exchange it for other commodities or for money.

Determining a good's value in exchange has been at the foundation of economics from Adam Smith’s the Wealth of Nations (1776) to Leon Walras Elements of Pure Economics (1873) and Alfred Marshall (1890) to name a few. Through the history of economic thought one of the issues that have occupied the classical and neo- classical economists has been the determination of value in exchange. Although the analysis differed, one thing they have settled on was that “LABOR” determines the value in exchange (For a review of the history of economic thought on this issue see Attiat F. Ott with Sheila Vegarie: What Economists Do: A Journey Through the History of Economic Thought i Universe LLC, 2013, ch.4).
If “Labor” as our forefathers put it is the source of value in exchange, then the statement carved in stone in the Dog Town is quite remarkable.

As a professor of Economics who spent all my academic life teaching and writing about economic issues and principles, my value to my profession was determined by my labor. When dispensing labor services stops—comes to an end with retirement, value unquestionably diminishes. A person who has retired from the work force, his/her labor clearly has value in use but little in exchange in a monetary economy.

Everyone knows that, if a good has an exchange value, and if such a good has a limited life span, (an exhaustible resource) from instantaneous to a relatively longer duration, at some point in time it will cease to command a value in exchange. Labor is such a good, its services fall under the label of exhaustible resource. By labor, it is meant not only physical existence, but also the embodiment of said labor in value in exchange. When labor diminishes, or erodes through the passage of time, so does its value.

The law of Economics, since Adam Smith still holds. Labor is the source of value in exchange, and when work stops, as it happens sooner or later, “VALUE DIMINISHES” and that is the end of the road.

Shutting down the Federal Government: It is Time for a Nationwide Recall of Our Representatives in Congress

“Here we go again”. These four words were uttered by former president Ronald Reagan during a televised debate in New Hampshire back in the late 1970’s during the primary. Frustrated over a repetitive question raised by his fellow contestants for the White House, Reagan admonished his fellow contenders for such behavior so that they move on to address issues of national priorities. The admonishment seems to have worked—they moved on and Reagan won the presidency in 1980.

President Obama should do no less. He should remind the Republicans of the futility of hanging on the one issue that is holding the government and the people hostage to “ideology. President Obama articulated such behavior best in stating (October 1) that “”holding the function of government hostage to ideology is “‘unseemly”.

The American public should be indignant about the shutdown of the Federal government. True, the Republican minority that are holding the functioning of the Federal government over the Affordable Care Act—Known best as the Obama’s care plan are acting on behalf of their constituents who share their ideology. This is how democracy functions. They were sent there to represent their constituents, their votes offered or withheld should reflect those of their constituents. But in this instance, they are not acting the way they should in a representative democracy where a vote up or down is governed by a simple majority. The issue on which government shutdown rests is irrelevant. The Affordable Care Act or the so called Obama’s care plan is the law of the land. It has been challenged, and the challenge was defeated as the US Supreme Court affirmed its legality. The ideology was put to test and in the case of the Obama’s care plan was defeated. In a representative democracy, this how a democracy functions. Our representatives have to either accept the outcome of a single majority vote, or insist in cases that divide their constituents according to ideology, that the issue should be determined by a 2/3 majority.

The American public should not let the government shut down go by the wayside. Our representatives are sent to Washington (their accountants only know how much they spend to get there) to serve the public and not the private interest. That may be an old fashion concept but that what democratic institutions are about. The segment of the Republican Party in the House of Representative that are holding the government functioning hostage to their unsuccessful effort to defeat the Obama care law, when they had the opportunity to do so, should reserve their fight for another day. Win or lose they must honor a system that allowed them to be there. A democratic system of government built on simple majority rule. Failure to achieve simple majority on any issue should be hammered out to insure the survival of democracy. The blame game should be beneath men and women in both houses of Congress. It is unworthy of representatives who pride themselves in living and serving in a democracy.

This is not the time or place to argue for against the Obama care law. Those who failed to stop it from becoming the law of the land, if they adamantly believe it to be injurious to their constituents should, in a democracy, garner the support of a majority to repeal it. That is how a democracy survives and avoids the pitfalls of autocracy.

The current ideological battle is not one that it ought to be fought by shutting down the government. Just look at what the battle is about: not to repeal the law, that battle was fought and lost, but to delay the funding for one year. You should ask: then what? Will the government be threatened with a shutdown next year, or the year that follows? Will the delay impede the implementation of the law? Just listen to what president Obama said in his televised speech: “The government is shutdown but the health care act is alive and well--the uninsured are ready to get insurance; to bail themselves out of a burden for long has been on their shoulders”.

Yesterday an American citizen reacting to the President speech put it to the Network carrying the speech: “do you know a country in either the Eastern or the Western Hemisphere where they shutdown the government because of differences in ideology?” The question was left hanging there.

The last shut down of the Federal government that took place 17 years ago lasted 21 days. How many days will it last this time around? Placing the responsibility of the shutdown on the shoulders’ of either Senator Reid or Representative Boehner does not help matters much. The American people should hold members of Congress; Democrats and Republicans hostage for their votes.
It is time for a “Nationwide recall of our representatives in Congress”. If they cannot discharge their obligations to govern, they should be sent home. The country will not be worse off than it is today.

A Time to Remember: a Memorial to a Nobel Laureate, James M. Buchanan (1919-2013)

Nobel laureate James M. Buchanan passed away January 2013. His death, to his family, colleagues, friends and students, was heart retching. For me, personally, it was devastating as I was looking forwards to see professor Buchanan at least one more time at the Public Choice Society meeting in March celebrating the 50th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work (with Gordon Tullock): “The Calculus of Consent”. One knows that death is always waiting at the doorstep, but never realizes it until it comes.

Today, I find myself in remembrance of Jim Buchanan looking back at the history of public Economics. In remembrance one accepts death as a continuation of life. Today, like so many others of Jim’s colleagues and friends, I face his passing through remembrance of what his life’s accomplishments have meant to us, colleges, friends, students, but most of all to our discipline—the discipline of public economics.

Professor James Buchanan together with professor Gordon Tullock have revolutionized our thinking about the role of the individual in a free society, and how he/she interacts (or should) interact with the sovereign. Their Philosophy embodied in the Calculus of Consent will forever light our way as we seek to forge a relation tempered with good will with the representatives of the public sector—the sovereign.

The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (1962) was published by the University of Michigan Press. At the time of publication I was a PhD student in Economics at the University of Michigan. One of my fields of specialization was Public Economics, known then as Public Finance. I studied with Professor Richard Musgrave, known then as well as today as the father of public economics. I felt so fortunate to be one of his students and since my graduation; I have remained faithful to the discipline of public Economics.

As a student of Richard Musgrave, I have espoused a positive role for the public sector. The individual, to be sure had a role to play in setting budget allocation and distribution, but the framework of analyses left no room to think about an alternative arrangement—arrangement where the individual in a democratic setting sets the rules by which the “sovereign” is to interact with the individual in a “public choice” setting.

Not until I met Professors James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock at VPI in 1975 at the campus of the University (where I was invited to join the Public Choice group housed in the so called “white House” of the university) that I have realized that an alternative view of the public economy should complement the traditional study of the public economy. Although at that time I could not accept the invitation to join, it has given me an entrée to the field of public choice. Listening to Professors Buchanan and Tullock discussing the shortcomings of our knowledge about the role of the individual in the sphere of public economics I appreciated the force of the arguments presented in the Calculus of Consent. Reading it over and again I realized the enormous task and the burden the Calculus of Consent has placed on students of public economics. It was a path breaking for all of us students of public economics to understand what public choice is about and how individuals’ choice has to be effected in a democratic setting. The rest is history.

The Nobel Prize Committee in awarding the Nobel Prize to James Buchanan in 1986 has cited his contribution for: “the Development of the Contractual and Constitutional Bases for the Theory of Economic and Political Decision Making”. Not quite adequate a description of the colossal impacts of the contribution of Buchanan to the study of the public economy. Students of the public Economy have found in the Calculus of Consent a blue print, a guide to the complex and intricate relationship that has existed and remain so between the rights and aspirations of the individual in a democratic setting against the power of a sovereign motivated by self interest or the so-called the public interest.

For those of us whose task was, perhaps still is, the search for those institutions that would meet the Buchanan ideal of the Contractual and Constitutional bases for a theory of the public economy, need look no further than a second reading of the Calculus of Consent.

The public choice school, the brainchild of Buchanan and Tullock enriched the economist’s knowledge of the process of decision making when the collectivity replaces the individual as the decision maker. The contribution of the public choice school, when put in the frame of reference of our forefathers; the political economists dating back to the 17th century, clearly changed the landscape for the study of the public economy.

But, there is a softer side to Professor Buchanan. When I first met the great Economist, Professor Buchanan, I did not think that I could talk with him about other life undertakings. I found out how easy and wonderful it was to listen to Jim talking about his home in Blacksburg, Virginia, the pecan trees he had where he spent a relaxing time shelling those pecans, and to my delight found out that we shared the love of one author; Nevil Shute. One particular novel we both felt it to be a great novel was: “In The Wet”. I told Jim that I have gone to Torquay, England to see the place where Nevil Shute wrote his novels. At that time I was given the task to put together a conference sponsored by the Liberty Fund, and we thought perhaps it would be nice to have the conference there. Unfortunately, that was not done; I guess the expenses would have exceeded the grant.

Many of Jim colleagues, students and friends, I am sure, would have a great deal of soft memories of the Jim Buchanan, the great economist and the wonderful thoughtful human being. In his presence, you felt his greatness flow over and engulf you with warmth and appreciation of being there. Those of us who knew him, personally or through his writings, will always carry with us the soft glow imparted on us in knowing him and been rewarded with a glimpse of his inner thought. The economic profession has lost one of its pillars, but he lives on through his contributions to the economics discipline and the many students who followed in his footsteps.

Professor Buchanan: We shall miss you, but your thoughts will forever live on.