Fun fact of the day

An excerpt from "The Chutzpah Caucus:"

... Keynesian economics says not just that you should run deficits in bad times, but that you should pay down debt in good times. And it’s silly to imagine that this will happen, right?

Wrong. The key measure you want to look at is the ratio of debt to G.D.P., which measures the government’s fiscal position better than a simple dollar number. And if you look at United States history since World War II, you find that of the 10 presidents who preceded Barack Obama, seven left office with a debt ratio lower than when they came in. Who were the three exceptions? Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes. So debt increases that didn’t arise either from war or from extraordinary financial crisis are entirely associated with hard-line conservative governments.

"Disaster Economics"

No, it's not actually about the Republicans in Congress. It's a short, smart piece by James Surowiecki from the 3 December 2012 issue of The New Yorker about what it costs to clean up after a hurricane versus what it would cost to build preventative measures.

Spoiler alert ...

... the latter is way cheaper than the former.

Of course the political realities will not change any time soon (for which, okay, it's fair to blame the Republicans, to a large extent), but this is a long-term problem and so it's worth trying to nudge the supertanker onto a slightly different course, as it were, starting now.

(pic. source: NJ.com)

"Clear and Present Safety"

Micah Zenko and Michael Cohen have a longish piece up on Foreign Affairs on the problem of threat inflation. Here's the article summary:

U.S. officials and national security experts chronically exaggerate foreign threats, suggesting that the world is scarier and more dangerous than ever. But that is just not true. From the U.S. perspective, at least, the world today is remarkably secure, and Washington needs a foreign policy that reflects that reality.

If you're not already a subscriber, you'll have to register to read the article. But that's free, and painless.

Of course, given the reality of our political system's utter ownership by the military-industrial complex, it's hard to imagine that this article will do much more than get people like me to nod with approval. But you never know, and you gotta start somewhere, and maybe at least, it'll make it easier to keep at least some pressure on the brakes.

(h/t: Foreign Entanglements)

"Freedom in The Cloud"

[Update] Audio-only files now available for download, if you prefer. See this post.

__________

Sorry to have back to back posts featuring videos that are probably longer than you care to sit still for, but there it is. I guess yesterday was a big teevee day for me.

At any rate, here is something else, a talk given by Eben Moglen, that I wish I could get everyone to watch. I'll say right up front that I don't agree with everything he says, and we can talk about that in the Comments if you'd like, but I think he raises a valuable set of points that everyone who cares about privacy ought to be thinking hard about. You don't need to be a software developer, even though that's who's in the room where the talk was recorded. You only need to care about the long-term consequences of ever more efficient gathering of bits of personal information, be it by government or private industry. And remember, we're not just talking computers here. These concerns apply just as much if you use a phone, a credit, debit, or club card, an E-ZPass, the list goes on and on, and will only get longer. We like our conveniences. And we shouldn't have to suffer for that.

Sometimes I think the door has slammed shut on our ability to do anything about controlling access to our thoughts, tastes, and social connections, but Eben Moglen convinces me that the fight is not yet lost, and that all of us can still be part of that effort.

Following are two videos. The first is the talk itself, the second is the Q&A. For some quick background, you might want to glance first at Moglen's Wikipedia page. Short version: he's a guru and we're lucky to have him on our side.

Also, he is a hugely entertaining speaker. Trust me, after the first couple of minutes of technical glitches at the start of the first video, you're in for a great hour or two.

(alt. video link)

(alt. video link)

Want more? Visit Moglen's personal site and the FreedomBox Foundation.

"Cute Cats and the Arab Spring"

[Update] Audio-only file now available for download, if you prefer. See this post.

__________

"When Social Media Meet Social Change"

Here is the 2011 Vancouver Human Rights Lecture, given by Ethan Zuckerman. Even if you think you can't stand to hear one more word about Facebook and Twitter saving the commoners from the ruling classes, I encourage you to give this a chance. Despite his obvious enthusiasm for new media and what it may afford in bringing about monumental change, Zuckerman is quite realistic about the limitations and the risks. Also, he hates the word "viral."

It's about fifty-four minutes long, plus about thirteen minutes of Q&A at the end. If you'd rather download an MP3 of the highlights, see Cory Doctorow's tweet or right-click and save this directly.

Without further ado ...

(alt. video link)

Related links: Ethan Zuckerman's blog and a cute cat.

Wonking out on #Occupy

I thought this diavlog between David Roberts and Julian Sanchez touched on a lot of the thoughts I've had floating around in my mind the past month or two. More precisely, David and Julian, in their disagreements, seem to speak to the contradicting reactions I have been having.

If you're thoroughly fired up by the Occupy movement, this conversation probably won't appeal to you. If you're sympathetic to the emotion but hesitant or skeptical about other aspects, it may. They do not really come to any conclusion, but I think they do a good job of articulating a number of important points.

(alt. video link)

It's a complex world

Highly non-linear, too:

(alt. video link)

(title: vide)

[Added] But you know who doesn't think foreign policy is complex? Thanks to a reference from Dan Drezner later in the diavlog from which the above clip comes, we can confidently state: Republican candidates for president, that's who.

"The Do-Nothing Plan"

How Congress can balance the budget in eight years by literally doing nothing. This is not a joke.

A pretty intriguing article from Annie Lowrey.

(h/t: Don McArthur | x-posted)

"Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%"

A very good article by Joseph Stiglitz in VF.

Some excerpts:

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin.

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride.

In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by the millions to protest political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive societies they inhabit. Governments have been toppled in Egypt and Tunisia. Protests have erupted in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. The ruling families elsewhere in the region look on nervously from their air-conditioned penthouses—will they be next? They are right to worry. These are societies where a minuscule fraction of the population—less than 1 percent—controls the lion’s share of the wealth; where wealth is a main determinant of power; where entrenched corruption of one sort or another is a way of life; and where the wealthiest often stand actively in the way of policies that would improve life for people in general.

As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to America? In important ways, our own country has become like one of these distant, troubled places.

Read the whole thing.

(h/t: Ken Layne | x-posted)

"The Republicans’ Big Lies About Jobs ..."

"... (And Why Obama Must Repudiate Them)." Good piece from last week by Robert Reich, if you haven't already seen it.

(h/t: op. cit.)

Report on "Rampant Child Prostitution" Exposed as Bullshit

You should have a look at Nick Pinto's cover story in The Village Voice, "Women's Funding Network Sex Trafficking Study Is Junk Science."

I'd be the last person to advocate turning a blind eye to the problem of girls being forced into prostitution, but it doesn't help when an advocacy group hires a PR firm to put together a study that is so easily called into question. And it really doesn't help when lazy reporters so uncritically retype press releases.

Thers is right: the rebuttal from The Schapiro Group -- the firm whose study Pinto lambastes -- is a powerful fertilizer such that none may abide its smell.

Grownups in charge! (Of demonizing Elizabeth Warren)

Paul Krugman encourages you to read a fine piece by Joe Nocera on the woman who may (should, by most non-wingnut accounts) become the first director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Basically, she'd be in charge of (1) implementing and enforcing reforms to make sure the banksters couldn't again do what they did leading up to the crash of 2008, and (2) stopping them from doing some of what they've been doing since.

And what does the Party of Fiscal Responsibility™ have to say about this?

To listen to the House Republicans, you’d think the financial crisis of 2008 was like that infamous season of the long-running soap opera “Dallas,” the one that turned out to be a season-long dream. Subprime mortgages? Too-big-to-fail banks? Unregulated derivatives? No problem! With the exception of their bête noire, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Republicans act as if nothing needs to be done to prevent another crisis. Indeed, they act as if the crisis never happened.

So, naturally, they're starting to groom their portrayal of her as the next America-hatin', MoreEvilThanSatanHimself figure to be flogged. Probably going to be a lot of highly-focused hate coming from the RWNM this summer.

I'd recommend starting with Krugman's post as an introduction. And don't fail to follow the other link he offers, to a post by Simon Johnson. Johnson is a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, and he's none too impressed with what he's seeing from some in the White House, particularly Tim Geithner, regarding their lukewarm support for Warren and the need for reform overall.

(pic. source | x-posted)

"The Triumph of Taxophobia"

A good piece recounting the development over the past three decades of this most important of mindsets on the right and in the Republican Party, from Jon Chait in the latest issue of Democracy.

(x-posted)

"Chart of the day: U.S. taxes."

See Felix Salmon's post from yesterday. As he says:

This chart should be ingrained in the mind of anybody who cares about fiscal policy.

Which, despite megatons of hot air emanating from our politicians and pundits, appears to be approximately nobody in power.

(x-posted)

"Seething Over the Economy"

Please read Kevin Drum's righteous post.

(h/t: Don Zeko)

"The Secret Election"

I keep meaning to spend some time gathering up the articles I've been seeing about what we can call, without fear of being hyperbolic, a true threat to our democracy. For the moment, and as a reminder to self, let me just post the beginning of a fine editorial in today's NYT.

But first: For the record, I am strongly sympathetic to the notion that people should be allowed to spend their money, and lots of it, if they wish, to influence the political process. I am also highly dubious about the likelihood that we could design good laws to restrict money flows, even leaving aside the impossibility of getting them passed in the current climate. While in the ideal I'd like nothing finer than 100% publicly-financed campaigns, I think we have to accept that it is a fact of life in America that we will for the foreseeable future spend an insane amount of money on campaigns and issue-mongering.

Therefore, I say, let's concentrate our energy on pushing for complete transparency on who is buying who.

Here is the beginning of the this NYT editorial.

The Secret Election

For all the headlines about the Tea Party and blind voter anger, the most disturbing story of this year’s election is embodied in an odd combination of numbers and letters: 501(c)(4). That is the legal designation for the advocacy committees that are sucking in many millions of anonymous corporate dollars, making this the most secretive election cycle since the Watergate years.

As Michael Luo reported in The Times last week, the battle for Congress is largely being financed by a small corps of wealthy individuals and corporations whose names may never be known to the public. And the full brunt of that spending — most of it going to Republican candidates — has yet to be felt in this campaign.

Corporations got the power to pour anonymous money into elections from Supreme Court and Federal Election Commission decisions in the last two years, culminating in the Citizens United opinion earlier this year. The effect is drastic: In 2004 and 2006, virtually all independent groups receiving electioneering donations revealed their donors. In 2008, less than half of the groups reported their donors, according to a study issued last week by the watchdog group Public Citizen. So far this year, only 32 percent of the groups have done so.

Most of the cash has gone to Republican operatives like Karl Rove who have set up tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations. In theory, these groups, with disingenuously innocuous names like American Crossroads and the American Action Network, are meant to promote social welfare. The value to the political operatives is that they are a funnel for anonymous campaign donations.

Read the rest.

Here's a sidebar graphic from the Michael Luo article linked to above:

Monday Morning McMegan

From the past few days, actually. First, yesterday, from mistermix at Balloon Juice:

How Wrong is She?

McMegan is so wrong, that she’s even wrong when she links to her husband.

(That link is to a long Ezra Klein piece, ripping apart McSuderman point by point.)

And a couple of days before that, the Juicers and TBogg observed that Profs. Krugman and DeLong raised a couple of eyebrows in response to something else she babbled.

For true connoisseurs: McMegan jumped into the comment thread at DeLong's place a few times, as did a couple of her glibertarian fanboys, which means it just keeps getting bloodier funnier and bloodier funnier.

Happy Labor Day. Guess what your Koch brothers were up to this holiday weekend.

If you guessed giving $1 million to back Prop. 23, "an effort to suspend California's global warming law," you're right!

But really. Only a million dollars? Pikers. I mean, compared to …

Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Petroleum Corporation, two Texas refining companies, [who] have together donated more than $4.5 million to the campaign to repeal AB 32, the state’s clean air and energy law.

But! Good news! The AP also reports:

According to the Los Angeles Times, a spokeswoman for Flint Hills Resources said the company "may consider additional support."

And why are the Koch brothers and these other Good Corporate Citizens™ giving so much money to this proposition? Because they care about the little guy! Not about whether he and his kids can breathe or stay out of floods, but his "jobs!"

This proposition to overturn California's Global Warming Act of 2006 is called the "California Jobs Initiative." You know, kind of like the tobacco lobby-backed proposition from 1994, which was spun as an "anti-smoking" proposition that would Protect the Children™. And more recently, like George W. Bush, who gave his environment-killing agenda items names like "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests."

Hurrah for not being bullshitted by billionaires, who only care about Your Best Interests™!

Oh, one other thing: you'll also be delighted to know that despite a concerted effort to avoid getting pinned down about where she stands on this, Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina finally announced -- on the Friday before Labor Day Weekend, but that's probably a coincidence, amirite? -- that she stands with Big Pollution and supports Prop. 23. And we know Carly Cares™ about jobs. After all, when she was running Hewlett-Packard, she added, what, negative ten thousand of them?

If you want to learn more about where the money is coming from and going to, here are some starting points:

• Ballotpedia Prop. 23 page: a good executive summary of the issues and the players, with lots of solid reference links.
  
  
• The Sacramento Bee's CapitolAlert blog, posts tagged "2010 ballot initiatives."
  
  
• Cal-Access: the California Secretary of State's official database of campaign contributions. Layout is a bit clunky, but if you're willing to dig, the information is there. Start here or here, perhaps.
  
  
• OpenSecrets.org's page on the oil and gas industry. This is a national effort, so you'll also be able to find out where, and who, else the likes of Valero, Tesoro, and the Koch brothers are seeking to buy.
  
  
• Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign website, featuring a section called "Get the Facts on Fiorina."
  
  
• LA Times: article on the Koch brothers' donation and a good opinion piece by Steve Lopez.
  
  

One final note: Louise Bedsworth, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, said in back in spring it's likely campaign spending on this ballot measure will set a new record. That means well more than $150 million burned up on buying ads and politicians. I wonder how many jobs we could create for that. With bonus cleaner air thrown in.

(h/t: TC and PF, via email, for the heads-up about the Koch AP story | pic. sources: Wonk Room and Open Salon)

Sometimes there really is an Ivory Tower problem

Or if not an ivory tower, at least an unawareness -- or unwillingness -- on the part of too many smart people to acknowledge the existence of a gutter, and from time to time, to be willing to wallow in it a bit, to see what's really flowing on down there.

Michael Tomasky blogs about a column by the Financial Times's Martin Wolf, in a post titled "If FDR had been elected in 1930." Wolf, like Paul Krugman and distressingly few others, thinks the real problem with the economy is that the stimulus package put together in early 2009 was not big enough. And of course, Wolf, like distressingly too many others, believes this is entirely #obamasfault.

Here's a nice bit: It's so good I now blockquote at length.

But the column completely ignores the fact that there's this thing called Congress. There was simply no way to get a $1 trillion-plus stimulus bill through Congress.

This is a big problem with a lot of economics writing, and a lot of social scientific writing on politics in general: it takes no account of politics. Paul Krugman, in one of his recent books, explained that he spent years ignoring politics because he figured that the political system was basically sort of corrupt and filled with second-raters, but that when politicians were met with empirical economic evidence that said "do X," they by and large accepted it and went out and did X.

He was very slow to learn, in the age of modern conservatism, that empirical evidence isn't worth a postage stamp. And so he recalibrated his polemics accordingly.

Similarly, there was a big book a couple of years ago by a political scientist named Larry Bartels, Unequal Democracy. He showed that growth has been greater under Democratic presidents than Republican ones since World War II. And he did it in an empirical way that (I presume) satisfied the peer-reviewish demands of his trade.

But Bartels too basically acknowledged in his book: I didn't used to think politics was such a big deal. Or he used to think pols were basically rational actors. In other words it took these social scientists a long time to cotton on to something that was obvious to a lot of us who cover politics, which is that while one side may occasionally play fast and loose with numbers to serve its agenda, we had another side that was just making stuff up all time.

So I don't understand how Wolf can write a column like that and not place the blame for the size of the stimulus where it belongs. And maybe he thinks Obama is a failure now, and that's his right. But what kind of failure would Obama have been if he'd tried to pass a $1.3 trillion stimulus and failed, as he almost surely would have, and we'd had nothing, and today faced unemployment of 15%, while Obama would have been tarred just one month into office as "too far left" for even his own party?

Say it again, and this time in boldface, because these truths needs to be shouted:

He was very slow to learn, in the age of modern conservatism, that empirical evidence isn't worth a postage stamp.

In other words it took these social scientists a long time to cotton on to something that was obvious to a lot of us who cover politics, which is that while one side may occasionally play fast and loose with numbers to serve its agenda, we had another side that was just making stuff up all time.

2012: Romney/Ryan or Palin/Bachmann?

Robert Reich on another of the GOP flimflam artists: Willard "Mitt" Romney and his magical underwear fiscal "plan" to simultaneously cut taxes and balance the federal budget.

(previously)

(pic. source)