The damaging legacy of Donald Trump's presidency will endure for decades beyond his tenure at the helm of the US. Photo / Getty
The damaging legacy of Donald Trump's presidency will endure for decades beyond his tenure at the helm of the US. Photo / Getty
The word is mightier than the sword
The damaging legacy of Donald Trump's presidency will endure for decades beyond his tenure at the helm of the US.
He has empowered, given leverage and sanction to what we see gathering momentum throughout the world in the proliferation of voices of bigotry,racism and misogyny. All this via a variety of platforms including social media, what we witness in the news media and amidst a right wing underbelly giving energy to all that sort of behaviour.
His utterances have been shameless and the fact he still retains the presidency despite such rhetoric on a regular basis, has set precedents and modelling by which those of like minds, previously it seems in slumber regarding their orientations, are now awakened, and probably henceforth given the green light for their hateful deliveries.
These like-minded throughout the world often expound freedoms and freedoms of speech as a mantra.
The truth is, the word is actually mightier than the sword and the kinds of verbal inflictions as outlined above, now commonplace, help oppress the freedoms of those who don't fit the approved mould and contribute to their sense of imprisonment along with the subjugation of their rights.
Your letters
Possibly we could equate the question of freedom of speech to that of freedom of behaviour so that as we understand the laws governing common physical assault, then a similar judicial stance could be enacted to deal with the on-person assaults of racist, misogynist and bigoted statements where the harm is just as great and more far reaching.
PAUL BABER Whanganui
The Goldilocks principle
Lately I've heard and read two young economists declare: "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
They are Brad Olsen of Infometrics and (Chronicle, August 15) Yuong Ha, Reserve Bank chief economist.
They are both correct when it comes to resource use, but wrong when it comes to our means of exchange – money.
Students of economics are expected to understand a basic principle called "Opportunity Cost". What other thing could we do with X to achieve Y instead of using Z?
We do this in our daily lives with objects and time. That's assuming we have choice.
Sadly, a new "principle" was coined a few decades ago called the Principle of Intergenerational Equity. Object? To validate the limiting of choice when the cost of interest determines our decisions and to load future debt-servicing on to our mokopuna.
Too often the need to "pay down" debt (mostly to foreign creditors) takes precedence over providing ourselves with amenities for our present welfare - just when the Covid-19 crisis is revealing that we have a sovereign central bank legally equipped to actually cancel or reduce public debt.
Today's money is initially digital and free! It can be issued or cancelled, given the political will. Provided, of course, that another principle is observed – I call it the "Goldilocks Principle". It is to ensure that our money supply must never be too much for available resources - nor should it be kept scarce when labour and resources ought to be employed.
My plea to our economic gurus – define your assumptions!
