Depressing

"Clark Hoyt on election coverage in the New York Times: Through Friday, of 270 news articles published in The Times about the election since the national tickets were formed in late August, only 29, or a little over 10 percent, were primarily about policy substance"

More about Krugman

What does the Krugman prize mean?

Probably not much, but along with the current crisis, the anointment of Krugman, the popularity of Obama, the growth of progressive groups, and the unpopularity of Republican and DLC "Let the market handle it" facile truisms could be a symbolic tipping point. I think we're seeing, finally, a moment of relative honesty about our "system."

Will historians look back at this and see it as a historic shift? Nothing is written in stone, but events are converging...

I'm keeping my eyes open and my fingers crossed. This could be the end of the free market myth birthed and promoted by von Hayek, Friedman et al.

Paul Krugman Wins "Nobel"

It warms my heart that one of the Bush administrations most unrelenting critics has won the "Nobel" Prize in Economoics. He has brought the only other intelligent voice to the Times' besides Bob Herbert.   Alternative history--to counter page 1's Miller's and Bumiller's--was being written as history happened.

Refreshing.

Of course, it's easy to kick the Republicans when they are down, but thanks anyway to the Swedish banking community.

You'll note that I didn't say the Nobel Foundation.  You see, the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is an invention of the extremely conservative Swedish banking community.  For years it was (and probably mostly still is) a mouthpiece of neoliberal policy à la Milton Friedman.  Ironically, Sweden suffered a horrible banking crash in the early 90's.  Ironic because Paul Krugman has been a great opponent of Greenspan's bubble and his allies in the White House, that is, Krugman opposed the Sweden-styled bubble that is now popping all over the U.S. and the world.

Having possibly learned their lesson, do the Swedes know something we don't?

Anomia

Anomia: a disentegration of social bonds.


From Wired:

People turn to terrorism for social solidarity. He theorizes that people join terrorist organizations worldwide in order to be part of a community, much like the reason inner-city youths join gangs in the United States.
The evidence supports this. Individual terrorists often have no prior involvement with a group's political agenda, and often join multiple terrorist groups with incompatible platforms. Individuals who join terrorist groups are frequently not oppressed in any way, and often can't describe the political goals of their organizations. People who join terrorist groups most often have friends or relatives who are members of the group, and the great majority of terrorist are socially isolated: unmarried young men or widowed women who weren't working prior to joining. These things are true for members of terrorist groups as diverse as the IRA and al-Qaida.
For example, several of the 9/11 hijackers planned to fight in Chechnya, but they didn't have the right paperwork so they attacked America instead. The mujahedeen had no idea whom they would attack after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, so they sat around until they came up with a new enemy: America. Pakistani terrorists regularly defect to another terrorist group with a totally different political platform. Many new al-Qaida members say, unconvincingly, that they decided to become a jihadist after reading an extreme, anti-American blog, or after converting to Islam, sometimes just a few weeks before. These people know little about politics or Islam, and they frankly don't even seem to care much about learning more. The blogs they turn to don't have a lot of substance in these areas, even though more informative blogs do exist.
All of this explains the seven habits. It's not that they're ineffective; it's that they have a different goal. They might not be effective politically, but they are effective socially: They all help preserve the group's existence and cohesion.
This kind of analysis isn't just theoretical; it has practical implications for counterterrorism. Not only can we now better understand who is likely to become a terrorist, we can engage in strategies specifically designed to weaken the social bonds within terrorist organizations. Driving a wedge between group members -- commuting prison sentences in exchange for actionable intelligence, planting more double agents within terrorist groups -- will go a long way to weakening the social bonds within those groups.
We also need to pay more attention to the socially marginalized than to the politically downtrodden, like unassimilated communities in Western countries. We need to support vibrant, benign communities and organizations as alternative ways for potential terrorists to get the social cohesion they need. And finally, we need to minimize collateral damage in our counterterrorism operations, as well as clamping down on bigotry and hate crimes, which just creates more dislocation and social isolation, and the inevitable calls for revenge.

The Good Fight and the Pedagogical Moment

Donna Brazile, who appears on our talk shows all too often repeating Washington Conventional Wisdom--you know, the WCW that we should invade Iraq, the sage opion that the smart people of Wall Street know what they're doing and should be trusted, the wisdom that trickle down economics works, you know that conventional wisdom--well, the real Donna broke through today, and she got to the heart of the matter.  She said that she sensed something deeply troubling in the Republican ranks, something truly wicked, something beyond the pale, something truly, deeply, madly racist.

Indeed, we have:

Sit down, boy.

Then there are the enlightened souls screaming, at the planned mention of Barack Hussein Obama (emphasis on Hussein), "terrorist," "kill him," and "traitor."

Update, and thanks to youtube, you can see these Republican supporters talking about Obama's "bloodline," his "muslim background," and say that he's a "one-man terror cell": (h/t digby)



Nevermind that Sarah Palin's husband was/is a member of a separatist/secessionist group.  (Though we should remember that abortion clinic bombers and militia members and the various Timothy McVeigh's of the world are never anti-American, they're anti-government.  I repeat: these killers are never anti-American, they're anti-government.)

So we have people like Sarah, people like John conducting, orchestrating events attended entirely or almost entirely by white people and, let's be honest, encouraging their crowds to jeer at the mention of the name Hussein.  This is not about policy or politics.  It's not even about personality, though some in the punditry might use such terminology to gloss over the situation.  This is about hate, this is about wanting to kill, imprison or humiliate someone because they have a different name, a different color skin.  Go ahead, say it--growl it, scream it: "Hussein."  This name, apparently, is supposed to make you mad.

While it is perhaps true that John and Sarah may not hear the remarks from the podium, they have by now heard of them.  They know this is happening.  We thus have what might be called "a teachable moment."  One of these prospective "leaders" of the United States could and should plan on interrupting their speech when they or one of their entourages hears the epithet.  They should interrupt their speech and show themselves to be above this and to signal to these crowds that its wrong, just plain wrong, plain un-Christian to act in such ways.

This won't happen.  As Digby says:

"This is the kind of thing that really makes me fear for Obama. They are already screaming "terrorist" at Palin's rallies and shouting "kill him." The whole "Obama is a muslim" thing is bizarre, but with his name and childhood spent partly in a Muslim country --- and the fact that he's black, which makes everyone flash on Louis Farrakhan --- makes the right wing lizard brain twitch uncontrollably. They will use this, I have no doubt. There is an entire wingnut industry devoted to stirring up tensions in the middle east and another on devoted to character assassination of Democrats. Obama brings them together in serendipitous loathing and paranoia. It's going to be ugly."

Ugly.

Or, as Josh Marshall quips:

"Shorter McCain Campaign: He's definitely black; probably Muslim; and maybe a terrorist."

So, Donna, thanks for the reminder.   Now do this on teevee!

My Fellow Prisoners

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. We're prisoners of debt, militarism, crony capitalism and greed.

Of course, McCain is probably just suffering from dementia and/or fatigue, so this will slip conveniently beneath the radar. Just imagine if Barack Hussein Obama had said that! What if Petain had said it?

Venerate and Despise

A friend sent me this today, it's from the Guardian.

By any normal standard, including the ones applied to male presidential candidates of either party, she did not. Early on, she made the astonishing announcement that she had no intentions of actually answering the queries put to her. "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also," she said.
  
 And so she preceded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity.
  
It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of "average Americans" who they both venerate and despise.

De Tocqueville could not have said it better.

Trust Your Local Psychologist

My friends blog/My friend's Blog

"It’s McCain’s social skills that seems to belie his ability to effectively debate. He could almost pull it off, but as Chris Matthews was saying after the debate, Obama has this sincere smile that feels real and a natural ability to connect. McCain comes across as really creepy and insincere when he laughs/smiles. As a psychologist, I have to say that these social mistakes McCain keeps making get people at a real gut level. They don’t know what it is about McCain that’s rubbing them the wrong way, but people who are savvy socially know something just ain’t right - whether they can say what that thing is or not."

It's not hard to figure me out

If you see a dead bird, it means something innocent has died.  Something innocent died today.




Image: elratondecamp.com

Quote of the day

"It is another privilege of gentlemen that when they commit a crime, they are not punished as rigorously as the common people."

Loyseau: Traité des ordres et simples dignitez, 1610

Educating Millenials

Here's an interesting read from virtualwayfarer.com:

An educated populace is the cornerstone of a successful, affluent culture and a necessity if the United States wants to remain competitive. ...  Education, more than any other factor, is responsible for America’s success. It is for that reason that the current shift in enrollment and completion rates among males in higher education may be seen as a crisis. ...

While there are a lot of theories as to the cause, no one has been able to accurately explain why young male Millennials are abandoning the education system and especially, higher ed. The lion’s share of the discourse on the subject has focused on the increased presence of females in higher education, the shifting nature of male’s roles in society, and other similar concepts. While these may be factors, I believe they overlook the true cause and scope of the issue.

The Cause
The infusion of brilliant young female minds into higher education is a wonderful thing and there is without question some validity to the observations made that womens’ aptitudes are better suited to the standard classroom format. That said, I don’t believe the introduction of women to higher education is what’s causing men to drop out.  Rather, we are seeing a surge in the individual student’s ability to learn and comprehend in a more complex reality. The issue stems from the way members of the Millennial generation are developing and their use of complex, multi-tasking skill sets that have been honed in the daily practice of video gaming, internet access, chatting, and involvement in online social networks.  Simply put, tech savvy Millennials are not being engaged or challenged by the one-dimensional delivery systems in a majority of today’s classrooms. They are not interested in sitting passively and having information spoon fed to them. Much of this information is not interdisciplinary or connected to the real world. They can do better on their own in this new, comprehensive ‘digital classroom’. If we don’t reevaluate the way we educate Millennials, I expect female enrollment numbers to peak and begin to decline as they become more engaged in technology which follows the trend we are currently seeing among males.

Click here to keep reading...

Beloit's Mindset List

Every year for the past 11 years, Beloit college has released a list that, in words of its authors, "provides a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college."

Here's the beginning of this years list:

1. Harry Potter could be a classmate, playing on their Quidditch team.
2. Since they were in diapers, karaoke machines have been annoying people at parties.
3. They have always been looking for Carmen Sandiego.
4. GPS satellite navigation systems have always been available.
5. Coke and Pepsi have always used recycled plastic bottles.
6. Shampoo and conditioner have always been available in the same bottle.
7. Gas stations have never fixed flats, but most serve cappuccino.
8. Their parents may have dropped them in shock when they heard George Bush announce “tax revenue increases.”
9. Electronic filing of tax returns has always been an option.
10. (Click here to see the rest of the list)

Of course I get the usual chuckle when I see this. It is funny to be reminded that events that are so clear in my memory that they could have happened yesterday were never part of the cultural landscape of our incoming students. It is fun to be reminded about life circa 1990 when I was already an adult.

Something has always bothered me about the list, though. For starters, the list is more about us teachers than the students since the cultural markers it references are mostly for adults (i.e., Martha Stewart). Secondly, the list is mostly about pop culture, which is fine and sometimes extremely important, but it limits the scope of what the authors mean when they say "Mindset List." Does knowing who Rosanne Barr is determine one's mindset? Somewhat perhaps, but to me it would be much more interesting to say that these children probably didn't benefit from welfare because Bill Clinton "ended Welfare as we know it." It would be more interesting and revealing to say that these children have only known Defense budgets that increased and education budgets that mostly decreased. It would be more telling to note that today's youth are more likely to have grown up poor than their parents. You get my drift, right?

Finally, look at the list. It is really from a White middle-class perspective. That does not come close to representing the ever more diverse U.S.

Yes, I know, my "list" would a bit heavy, but there could be some good things to it too: Today's students have always known an openly gay character on TV. Today's students are not scared by terms like "cold war" (just GWOT!).

My point is that if we're going to talk about mindsets, let's talk about the institutions and structures that have as deep or deeper connection to the existences of everyone rather than sticking to the cultural references like TV and shampoo. Let's also try to make our list a little more culturally informed with references to people other than, say, Martha Stewart.

Maybe I should make my own list. Hmmm.

Nah. I'll just be a curmudgeon.

Excuse me,

I've got an rss to feed.

How to Collaborate Without Even trying

Luckily I work in a place that is generally friendly and collaborative.  In fact, we collaborate in our teaching, our research and our committees more than most places I've had the opportunity to observe.  That said, we don't always succeed, that is, we fail miserably.  As the new school year approaches, this post from the folks at lifehacker, might serve as a reminder that a little civility can go a long way.

Memorize the names of those with whom you work. Sounds so simple but many of us don’t even know the people in our department or division. Learning their names makes them seem somehow, more human.
Learn from those around you. No one person has the monopoly on the truth so learn from those around you. Is there an application that someone could help you use more effectively? Is there a policy or protocol that you are rusty with but the next guy is an expert?
Be likable. No surprise here- nice people get results. This is not to have you be a pushover at work but an ounce of niceness goes a long way.
Walk the hall. This is not a diversion to help you avoid your own work but an easy way to get to know people is just to pop by and ask them how they’re doing. You’ll also learn something from them by seeing how they work. You might also find that you have something in common with them simply by seeing their workspace.
Compliment with tact. A quality compliment can earn mileage long after the comment is made. During a meeting, in casual conversation or in an email, a quick one liner can build up your collaborative bank account.
The best thing about all of these suggestions is that they’re all free. Being collaborative doesn’t have to be difficult but it does take intentionality. Don’t get me wrong- I’m still competitive but now I see it as one lens of many that can be used at an appropriate time. It’s not necessarily the default for everyday life at home and at work.

Again, these are frequently employed by the good folks at Whittier, so maybe this is just a note to myself...

A Fairly Significant List:

 Here's a nice list of all the films that cross-promoted through snack foods.  Remember, when kids are screaming at you to buy something, it's not their voice that speaking, it's the corporate mind-cloud.

H/t to AS.  Go read the full article here.

The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius•• (canned pastas and soups,snack chips)
American Idol•• (candy, cookies, toaster pastries)
The Ant Bully•• (QSR children’s meals, non-carbonated beverages)
Avatar•• (QSR children’s meals, fruit snacks)
The Backyardigans•• (fruit snacks, fruit)
Barbie: Fairytopia•• (breakfast cereals, toaster pastries)
Batman•• (canned pastas and soups, fruit snacks)
Blue’s Clues•• (breakfast cereals, fruit snacks, fruit, yogurt)
Care Bears•• (fruit snacks)
Cars ••(QSR children’s meals, fruit snacks, snack bars, breakfast cereals, toaster pastries, frozen waffles, canned pasta, pudding, cookies, snack crackers, popcorn, yogurt, non-carbonated beverages)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory•• (candy)
Charlotte’s Web•• (QSR children’s meals)
The Cheetah Girls•• (macaroni and cheese)
Chicken Little ••(fruit snacks)
The Chronicles of Narnia•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, cereal bars, snack chips, fruit snacks, toaster pastries, packaged salads)
Clifford the Big Red Dog•• (QSR children’s meals, fruit juice, snack crackers, breakfast cereal)
Curious George•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, snack cakes, fruit juice, bananas)
Danny Phantom•• (canned pastas and soups, children’s frozen meals, frozen desserts)
Disney Princesses (breakfast cereals, fruit snacks, yogurt, frozen waffles, toaster pastries)
Doogal•• (QSR children’s meals)
Dora the Explorer•• (breakfast cereals, canned pastas and soups, snack crackers, fruit snacks, cookies, fruit, yogurt)
Dragon Booster•• (QSR children’s meals)
El Chavo animated series (cookies)
Elmo•• and other Sesame Street characters (fruits and vegetables)
The Fairly OddParents•• (snack chips, macaroni and cheese, fruit snacks, frozen desserts)
Finding Nemo•• (fruit snacks)
Flushed Away•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, snack bars, snack crackers)
Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends•• (QSR children’s meals)
Go, Diego, Go!•• (fruit snacks, yogurt)
Goosebumps•• (QSR children’s meals)
Happy Feet•• (QSR children’s meals, snack crackers, breakfast cereals, yogurt, fruit snacks, baked goods, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages)
Hello Kitty•• (fruit snacks)
Holly Hobbie and Friends•• (QSR children’s meals)
I Spy•• (QSR children’s meals, fruit juice)
Ice Age 2 ••(QSR children’s meals, yogurt, fruit snacks, cereal bars, breakfast cereals, toaster pastries, frozen waffles, children’s frozen meals, canned pasta, pudding, cookies, snack crackers, popcorn, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages)
King Kong ••(fruit snacks, snack cakes, cookies, carbonated beverages)
Klutz•• (QSR children’s meals)
Lady and the Tramp•• (carbonated beverages, snack cakes)
Leroy & Stitch•• (fruits and vegetables)
The Lion King ••(fruit snacks)
Little Einsteins•• (breakfast cereals)
The Little Mermaid•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, candy)
The Littlest Pet Shop•• (QSR children’s meals)
Looney Tunes•• (QSR children’s meals, fruit snacks, fruits and vegetables)
Madagascar•• (fruit snacks)
Mickey Mouse Clubhouse•• (breakfast cereals)
Monster House•• (frozen pizza)
Monsters, Inc. ••(fruit snacks)
My Little Pony•• (fruit snacks)
¡Mucha Lucha!•• (fruit snacks, frozen desserts)
Nanny McPhee•• (food service pizza and burritos served in schools)
Nintendo characters such as Mario and Donkey Kong (QSR children’s meals)
One Tree Hill•• (carbonated beverages)
Open Season•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, children’s frozen meals, popcorn)
Over the Hedge•• (QSR children’s meals, yogurt, snack chips, snack cakes, popcorn, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages)
Paz the Penguin•• (fruits and vegetables)
Peanuts•• (QSR children’s meals)
Pirates of the Caribbean•• (QSR children’s meals, candy, frozen waffles, fruit snacks, breakfast cereals, lunch kits, popcorn, non-carbonated beverages, fruits and vegetables)
Polar Express•• (popcorn)
Robots the Movie ••(fruit snacks)
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer•• (breakfast cereals, snack cakes)
Rugrats•• (fruit snacks)
Scooby-Doo•• (breakfast cereals, snack crackers, macaroni and cheese, fruit snacks, yogurt)
Shrek•• (breakfast cereals, macaroni and cheese, yogurt, fruit snacks, snack crackers, cookies)
Sony PlayStation characters Spyro the Dragon and Crash Bandicoot (popcorn)
Spider-Man ••(QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, cereal bars, cookies, pancakes, fruit snacks, snack crackers, snack chips, sliced cheese, macaroni and cheese, frozen desserts, non-carbonated beverages)
SpongeBob SquarePants•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, snack crackers, macaroni and cheese, lunch kits, fruit snacks, cookies, yogurt, fruits and vegetables)
Star Wars Episode III•• (fruit snacks)
Strawberry Shortcake•• (QSR children’s meals)
Stuart Little 3•• (QSR children’s meals)
Superman Returns•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, milk, cereal bars, snack chips, snack crackers, fruit snacks, packaged pasta, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages)
Surf’s Up•• (popcorn snack)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles•• (fruit snacks, fruit juice)
Trollz•• (QSR children’s meals)
The Wiggles•• (fruit juice)
The Wild•• (QSR children’s meals)
Winnie the Pooh•• (fruit snacks)
Winx•• (fruit snacks, fruit juice)
Xiaolin Showdown•• (breakfast cereals)
Yu-Gi-Oh!•• (QSR children’s meals)
Zoom•• (QSR children’s meals) 

Why Ayn Rand Was/Is Wrong...

Dear 18-year-old nerds and Alan Greenspan:

Here's a little article on why excessive individualism (aka, a purely "ownership society") can lead to bad results.  I know it probably won't change your mind.  After all, you say, libertarianism (or conservatism) never fails, people only fail libertarianism.  Well, just think about it, ok?

The Permission Problem, by James Surowiecki: In the second decade of the twentieth century, it was almost impossible to build an airplane in the United States. That was the result of a chaotic legal battle among the dozens of companies—including one owned by Orville Wright—that held patents on the various components that made a plane go. No one could manufacture aircraft without fear of being hauled into court. The First World War got the industry started again, because Congress realized that something needed to be done to get planes in the air. It created a “patent pool,” putting all the aircraft patents under the control of a new association and letting manufacturers license them for a fee. Had Congress not stepped in, we might still be flying around in blimps.
The situation that grounded the U.S. aircraft industry is an example of what the Columbia law professor Michael Heller, in his new book, “The Gridlock Economy,” calls the “anticommons.” We hear a lot about the “tragedy of the commons”: if a valuable asset (a grazing field, say) is held in common, each individual will try to exploit as much of it as possible. Villagers will send all their cows out to graze at the same time, and soon the field will be useless. When there’s no ownership, the pursuit of individual self-interest can make everyone worse off. But Heller shows that having too much ownership creates its own problems. If too many people own individual parts of a valuable asset, it’s easy to end up with gridlock, since any one person can simply veto the use of the asset.
The commons leads to overuse and destruction; the anticommons leads to underuse and waste. ... Even divided land ownership can have unforeseen consequences. Wind power, for instance, could reliably supply up to twenty per cent of America’s energy needs—but only if new transmission lines were built, allowing the efficient movement of power... Don’t count on that happening anytime soon. Most of the land that the grid would pass through is owned by individuals, and nobody wants power lines running through his back yard.
The point isn’t that private property is a bad thing, or that the state should be able to run roughshod over the rights of individual owners. Property rights (including patents) are essential... But property rights need to be limited to be effective. The more we divide common resources like science and culture into small, fenced-off lots, Heller shows, the more difficult we make it for people to do business and to build something new. Innovation, investment, and growth end up being stifled. ...
In theory, one should be able to break a gridlock by striking a deal that would leave all sides better off. Sometimes that happens. ... [But...] One reason deals founder is that there are simply too many interested parties. If, in order to create a new drug, you have to strike bargains with thirty or forty other companies... often things go awry because owners won’t make a deal at a reasonable price...
Recent experimental work by the psychologist Sven Vanneste and the legal scholar Ben Depoorter helps explain why. When something you own is necessary to the success of a venture, even if its contribution is small, you’ll tend to ask for an amount close to the full value of the venture. And since everyone in your position also thinks he deserves a huge sum, the venture quickly becomes unviable. So the next time we start handing out new ownership rights—whether via patents or copyright or privatization schemes—we’d better try to weigh all the good things that won’t happen as a result. Otherwise, we won’t know what we’ve been missing. (h/t: Economist's View)

BLS

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, as Atrios points out (and as Kevin ... also discussed in Harper's), keeps an array of data of unemployment.  For some reason, which I'll say is probably political expediency,  the "U3," which is basically all those who are out of work AND seeking work, is our official rate.  But the U3 does not count people who have given up after months of trying and who still want to work.  The U6, " Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.." Has a different and more comprehensive look at unemployment.  Click on the graph to see full size.  You'll note that U3 is 5.7 and U6 is 10.3.

As Kevin Phillips points out, the "truth," or at least a better picture of the various truths that one can glean about an economy, could set us free for some real discussion:

"The corruption has tainted the very measures that most shape public perception of the economy—the monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI), which serves as the chief bellwether of inflation; the quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which tracks the U.S. economy’s overall growth; and the monthly unemployment figure, which for the general public is perhaps the most vivid indicator of economic health or infirmity. Not only do governments, businesses, and individuals use these yardsticks in their decision-making but minor revisions in the data can mean major changes in household circumstances—inflation measurements help determine interest rates, federal interest payments on the national debt, and cost-of-living increases for wages, pensions, and Social Security benefits. And, of course, our statistics have political consequences too. An administration is helped when it can mouth banalities about price levels being “anchored” as food and energy costs begin to soar.

The truth, though it would not exactly set Americans free, would at least open a window to wider economic and political understanding. Readers should ask themselves how much angrier the electorate might be if the media, over the past five years, had been citing 8 percent unemployment (instead of 5 percent), 5 percent inflation (instead of 2 percent), and average annual growth in the 1 percent range (instead of the 3–4 percent range). We might ponder as well who profits from a low-growth U.S. economy hidden under statistical camouflage. Might it be Washington politicos and affluent elites, anxious to mislead voters, coddle the financial markets, and tamp down expensive cost-of-living increases for wages and pensions?" [Number's Racket, Harpers, May 2008]

The South

Hailing from the South, as I do, I'm always on the lookout for interesting interpretations of its development. My father, who became a sociologist and studied the effects of bringing electricity to the southern Appalachians, of noted the importance of having just a single electric light dangling from the ceiling--it changes everything. Children can study, farmers can work on record-keeping, all setting of a chain reaction of personal and public development. Mark Thoma points out this study today:

A novel contribution of this paper is that it appears to provide a real-world example of the 'Big Push' theory. Never heard of the 'Big Push' theory? Well, here is how the authors describe it:

According to the “big push” theory of economic development, publicly coordinated investment can break the underdevelopment trap by helping economies overcome deficiencies in private incentives that prevent firms from adopting modern production techniques and achieving scale economies. These scale economies, in turn, create demand spillovers, increase market size, and theoretically generate a self-sustaining growth path that allows the economy to move to a Pareto preferred Nash equilibrium where it is a mutual best response for economic actors to choose large-scale industrialization over agriculture and small-scale production. The big push literature, originated by Rosenstein-Rodan [1943, 1961], was initially motivated by the postwar reconstruction of Eastern Europe. The theory subsequently appeared to have had limited empirical application... [S]cholars have found few real-world examples of such an infusion of investment helping to “push” an economy to high-level industrialization equilibrium.

Until this paper, that is. The authors continue:

We argue here that the “Great Rebound” of the American South, which followed large public capital investments during the Great Depression and World War II, is one such application. Although 1930s New Deal programs are typically presented in the context of their attempt to bring relief and recovery to the U.S. economy through demand-stimulating public expenditures, the long-term economic effects of these and subsequent wartime expenditures were profound for the South. Specifically, and consistent with big push theoretical literature, the infusion of public capital—roads, schools, waterworks, power plants, dams, airfields, and hospitals, among other infrastructural improvements—fundamentally reshaped the Southern economy, expanded markets, generated significant external economies, increased rates of return to large scale manufacturing, and encouraged a subsequent investment stream. These improvements helped create the conditions that allowed the region to break free from its low-income, low-productivity trap and embark on its rapid postwar industrialization.

This paper deals with the break from the South's poverty trap. The sustained nature of the South's postwar economic recovery has been covered by other studies: Connolly (2004) looks to improved human capital formation, Cobb (1982) points to industrial policy, Beasley, Persson, and Sturm (2005) finger increased political competition, and Glaeser and Tobio (2008) discuss the merits of the climate or Sunbelt effect. (I will also note I have seen somewhere the advent of air conditioning did wonders for development in the South).

New Deal socialism spurred the development of the "New" South. My parents knew that because the saw it first hand, my father even wrote about it. I'm glad to see the dismal science is now joining in with a "Big Push" Theory. What's interesting to me, of course, is the degree to which the South has forgotten that the roots of its 20th-century growth were planted by FDR, instead opting to side with the neoliberal "conservative" faction. This is in no way surprising, since surplus labor in the South is still regarded as a story of race and not class, which has allowed for the divisive politics of the last 40 years. Division represents politics and economics in the South, where a vibrant middle-class has yet to arise, and where income disparity remains the greatest. I made up the following (hard to read) graph to show this. D.C., NY and CA all have great income disparity for their own reasons--NY and CA both have extremely large concentrations of wealth, for example. Of the next 10 states that follow them in income disparity, 8 are in the south: Lousiana, Texas, Mississippi, Florida, Connecticut, New Mexico, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee. (I apologize for the chart being so hard to read. Click on it for the full size.)

While the "New South" is in some ways only following the line of increased division between the rich and poor, it tends to be leading the way. By the way, you can find the data for the chart here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/state/state4.html

"Free Markets"

Joseph Stiglitz sayz:

"Fannie’s and Freddie’s free lunch, by Joseph Stiglitz, Commentary, Financial Times: ...The US government is about to embark on ... a partnership, in which the private sector takes the profits and the public sector bears the risk. The proposed bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entails the socialisation of risk – with all the long-term adverse implications for moral hazard – from an administration supposedly committed to free-market principles.
Defenders of the bail-out argue that these institutions are too big to be allowed to fail. If that is the case, the government had a responsibility to regulate them so that they would not fail. No insurance company would provide fire insurance without demanding adequate sprinklers; none would leave it to “self-regulation”. But that is what we have done with the financial system."
 [h/t economists view]

I heard some "left wing" talk show host yesterday on AM 1150 who kept going on and on about free markets and how if we just let them do their job everything would be ok.  Well, no.  Free markets, as an idea, may be perfect, but the truth is that they are a utopian concept, a shadow on the wall.  Power (as seen above) will always intervene, and, indeed, power structures (lobbyists, politicians, Wall Street) were present in the first place as Fannie Mae was massaged into a corporate model (with benefits for shareholders).  Until we have an open discussion about who is wielding this influence and whether such influence is undue and subject to corruption and failure, then our conversations will also remain in a "utopian" netherworld that fails to account for what is really happening.

Capitalism, the marketplace are incredibly dynamic systems, but they can be a threat to democracy when they become a corporatocracy.  It's funny, someboday was telling me how much China was becoming like us; I looked around and thought: "No, we're becoming like them."

(Death) March of the Penguins

Why global warming might not be good if you're a penguin:

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) -- Hundreds of baby penguins swept from the icy shores of Antarctica and Patagonia are washing up dead on Rio de Janeiro's tropical beaches, rescuers and penguin experts said Friday.

More than 400 penguins, most of them young, have been found dead on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro state over the past two months, according to Eduardo Pimenta, superintendent for the state coastal protection and environment agency in the resort city of Cabo Frio.

While it is common here to find some penguins - both dead and alive - swept by strong ocean currents from the Strait of Magellan, Pimenta said there have been more this year than at any time in recent memory.