The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Month: November 2022 Page 2 of 3

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – November 20, 2022

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – November 20, 2022

by Tony Wikrent

 

Here’s WHY your inbox is a dumpster fire of fundraising spam, and what we can do about it.

Will Easton, November 18, 2022 [DailyKos]

Over the past couple cycles here, certain Democratic consulting firms, candidates & organizations have simply decided that it’s in their best interests to sell, rent, swap & trade your email address around the ecosystem, without bothering to ask you first.  So if you’ve contributed to one campaign … you’re going to be emailed by dozens, perhaps hundreds.

The DCCC condones and encourages this practice; it’s my understanding they REQUIRE their endorsed candidates to share email addresses into the pool.  OTOH, a lot of progressive candidates do NOT engage in these practices — most notably Senator Sanders, whose refusal to just hand his entire email list over to the party in 2016 was the cause of much handwringing …but he made the right call.

 

Global power shift

Ukraine is a ‘Warm Up’ for Fighting China: Why the Head of America’s Nuclear Forces Just Warned of an Imminent ‘Very Long’ War  

[Military Watch Magazine, via Naked Capitalism 11-13-2022]

 

John Mearsheimer on Putin’s Ambitions After Nine Months of War 

Isaac Chotine [The New Yorker, via Naked Capitalism 11-18-2022]

 

What Nigeria Can Teach Us About China’s Belt and Road 

[The Diplomat, via Naked Capitalism 11-15-2022]

…Beijing and Abuja have been strategic partners since 2006, and their economic relationship has blossomed in what both sides would generally consider a “win-win.” In trade and investment, China has become a significant player in Nigeria, and in the case of development assistance, it has grown to be Nigeria’s preferred partner.

In particular, China has been Nigeria’s go-to source of funding to restore its dilapidated infrastructure, with Abuja formally joining the BRI in 2018 during the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) Summit in Beijing. China and its economic actors, especially the China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC), have become the heart and soul of Abuja’s infrastructure reconstruction ambitions. Beijing has played a leading role in the construction of the Kaduna-Kano railway line (at a cost of $1.7 billion), Lagos-Kano railway line ($6.7 billion) and Lagos-Ibadan railway line ($1.5 billion). China’s role is not just limited to railway lines; even in the construction of airports and ICT infrastructure, Chinese companies have assumed a leading position….

Even Nigeria’s national legislature laments the lack of transparency concerning loan agreements signed between the executive and Chinese state banks. This follows a trend outlined by AidData: Chinese loan agreements tend to have “far-reaching confidentiality clauses.” Nigeria’s weak institutional capacity has resulted in BRI projects being mired in secrecy, corruption, and blatant disregard for domestic laws.

As a result, for all the mega-projects China has undertaken in Nigeria, there is a lack of comprehensive links back to the domestic economy. In general, Chinese development assistance is tied to Chinese companies, technology, and capital, which threatens to crowd out indigenous economic actors. Already we see Nigerian construction companies venting that they are ostracized from BRI projects….

 

London loses position as most valuable European stock market 

[BBC, via Naked Capitalism 11-16-2022]

 

America’s leaders are a danger to the world

[Chris Hedges Report, via TheRealNews.com, November 11, 2022]

[Hedges interviews Andrew Bacevich about Bacevich’s new book, After the Apocalypse]

Andrew Bacevich:  …What’s the essence of the view? The essence of the view is that we define the future, that we are called upon to shape the future. And of course, inevitably, to shape it in our own image.

When I state it so baldly, it sounds preposterous. When I state it that way, no significant figure, I think, in our public life is going to say, yeah, that’s what I believe. But regardless of their denials, that is what our elites believe, and their particular reading of history affirms their view that we are the indispensable nation. And that when we use force, it is necessarily pursuant to a righteous cause. And therefore they remain blind to the faults that lead to so much suffering, catastrophe, missed opportunities, that, in my reading, have come to be particularly common over the last 20 or 25 years….

Now, I guess my critique, if we want to call it that, is informed by my own contemporary concerns. I have come to believe, particularly, I think, since the end of the Cold War, that there is no operative definition of the common good to which we as Americans subscribe. And I think that absence is, in many respects, at the root of why our democracy has deteriorated so badly. Again, roughly since the end of the Cold War. And I fear that the interpretation of the 1619 Project of our past simply will reinforce that. I mean, my bottom line is, unless we can recover some shared understanding of the common good, then American democracy may well be doomed. I’m not predicting that. I just fear that….

Chris Hedges:  … you made some really great points in this book, but one of them for me that was particularly interesting was how you write the Trump presidency signified the final demise of what you call “the New Order”. And you talked about the crazy conspiratorial right wing as embracing a heresy that terrified the established elites, the Bidens, the Clintons, the Bushes, and everyone else. Can you explain that?

Andrew Bacevich:  Well, I think in simplest terms, it’s the heresy of America first. This goes back again to World War II, more specifically to the origins of US involvement in World War II, the great debate that occurred over a period of a couple years prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. That debate centered on whether or not the United States should intervene in the European war, specifically on behalf of Great Britain, which, after the fall of France that we alluded to early on, stood alone against Hitler’s Third Reich.

That debate occurred at a pivotal moment of US history and resonated for decades after that. And the prevailing interpretation among historians, within most of the political establishment – There were some individuals on the right and on the left that dissented, but certainly the consensus was that the interventionist camp was correct and the anti-interventionist camp, the America firsters, were profoundly wrong.

And that contention was the basis of post-war American internationalism, formed the cornerstone of the rationale for US policy during the Cold War, and by extension provided the rationale for the creation of the national security state, for the pattern of interventionism that became such an important part of US foreign policy in the 1950s, ’60s, and so on.

And Donald Trump runs for the presidency and he says, that’s all a lie. That’s all wrong. That what ought to be the basis of US policy is America first. This is, in the eyes of the establishment, a profound heresy, denying the truth of US intervention in World War II and of the pattern of so-called global leadership that continued beyond that. So to identify with the anti-interventionists of the pre-World War II period was simply an unforgivable mortal sin. And I think that accounts, at least in part, for the savage response of the establishment to the Trump candidacy. Let me concede, quickly, that he was a liar, a fraud, a scoundrel, corrupt, and should never have been elected president….

Chris Hedges:  … I do have to just touch on Huntington, because I had to live through that as a foreign correspondent, and you nailed him. You said, this is the clash of civilizations, “Professor Huntington published an essay that future scholars are likely to classify among the urtexts signaling the coming demise of American primacy.” You said, “It cast a pernicious spell and underwrote the abandonment of reason.” And as somebody who spent seven years in the Middle East, that is so completely correct, but it did essentially give an ideological veneer to this. It was bought. I can remember diplomats being almost giddy about this….

Andrew Bacevich:  [The Russian invasion of Ukraine] created this rallying cry in the West. The Germans agreeing that they need to spend more on their military. Nations like Sweden and Finland petitioning to join NATO. And so I think we have the appearance of a rejuvenation of the West triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Well, my bet is that when this war ends, and it will end, that that rejuvenation will quickly disappear. And when it does, then I think we can begin, we the United States, can begin to return to the question of what does define the world order in which we must play a part, in which we must be participants?

And I think that the answer is going to be this notion of a West, a Western civilization, of Western values, providing the basis for uniting Western countries into some sort of a bloc that represents liberalism, exalted values. I think we’re going to find that that was already eroding and it’s never going to come back. So what I argue in the book is it’s preposterous to say that we’re part of the West. If you acknowledge the extent to which the United States of America has become a multicultural nation where our people come from Latin America and from Asia and from Africa, the notion that we are somehow still tied to the so-called Mother Country, England, Great Britain, is really preposterous. But it’s just going to take us a while to outgrow that, I think.

Chris Hedges:  Well, people have to read the book. You’re a great historian and a great writer, and you do a pretty good job of taking down our fascination with the royals and illusions about Great Britain.

 

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-14-2022]

.

 

Strategic Political Economy

Policies for Adapting to the ‘New Normal’ of the Anthropocene

[Behavioral Scientist, via The Big Picture 11-17-2022]

Two sets of value systems that underlie Western society trigger environmental problems. The first is a faith in market capitalism. This faith embraces a free market, property ownership, shareholder rights, limited regulation, and unlimited economic growth to produce socially optimal outcomes such as economic prosperity or a clean environment. This value set leads us to believe in the “win-win” solution to all our problems; that we can, for example, correct climate change by pursuing solutions that also make us money.

 

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-17-2022]

.

 

Democracy Takes Another Hit

James Kwak, November 9, 2022 [Medium, via Avedon’s Sideshow]

Sure, last night was not as bad as some other first-midterm elections (see 1994 and 2010). But think about it. The Republicans have openly revealed themselves to be a systematically dishonest, anti-democratic, misogynist, extreme-fundamentalist party, whose members delight in promoting baseless conspiracy theories, forcing women to give birth no matter the costs, humiliating children because of their sexual identity, and stoking race hatred. In overturning Roe v. Wade — thereby showing themselves to be bald-faced liars as well — the Supreme Court’s theocratic majority gave Democrats what should have been the greatest political gift of the past half century. On hot-button issue after hot-button issue — the 2020 election, abortion, guns — the Republicans are on the wrong side of the American electorate. With every year that passes, our demographic advantage (young people) should be increasing. There is even a fatal disease that disproportionately targets people who hold conservative beliefs about science and the government.

Any visitor from Mars would say that we should have crushed the Republicans. Voters should have decisively rejected a party that inhabits an alternative universe and has no respect for half of the human species. Yet we just lost the House and at best will count ourselves lucky to squeak by in the Senate on a fortunate map (only 14 of the 35 seats up for election were ours). We can’t blame gerrymandering: the aggregate Republican advantage in House races is at its lowest point in decades. How can this be?

The truth is that the Democratic Party has failed — failed to stand for anything that ordinary people care about and failed to deliver basic economic security. We are pretty good at arming Ukraine to fight against a brutal Russian invasion, pretty bad at helping the working- and middle-class people who were once the bedrock of our party.

 

Nouriel Roubini Says More… 

[Project Syndicate, via Naked Capitalism 11-17-2022]

[TW: Roubini basically says the same thing as Michael Hudson, without Hudson’s concise conclusion that “debts that can’t be paid, won’t be paid.”]

Very high debt ratios (both private and public) complicate the dilemma further. Raising interest rates enough to crush inflation causes not only an economic crash, but also a financial crash, with highly leveraged private and public debtors facing severe distress. The resulting financial turmoil that intensifies the recession, creating a vicious cycle of deepening recession and escalating financial pain and debt distress.

 

Liberalism, conservatism and the lack of discussion of civic republicanism

[Avedon’s Sideshow,  November 20, 2022]

I don’t hold out much hope for a third party’s success, especially in the current system, but is it possible to take over the Democratic Party? I don’t feel optimistic about that, either. Here’s one position on that:

The Politicians Who Destroyed Our Democracy Want Us to Vote for Them to Save It [TW-I linked to this last week]: We should have walked out on the Democratic Party and mounted a serious opposition movement while we still had a chance. The bipartisan project of dismantling our democracy, which took place over the last few decades on behalf of corporations and the rich, has left only the outward shell of democracy. The courts, legislative bodies, the executive branch and the media, including public broadcasting, are captive to corporate power. There is no institution left that can be considered authentically democratic. The corporate coup d’état is over. They won. We lost.”

[Avedon continues:] It’s hard to argue with any of that, but if we ever had a chance to simply walk away, that hasn’t been helped by changes in law that make third parties even more difficult to field. And unlike most Americans, I’ve had the experience of living in a country with multiple parties and I can’t honestly say they fare any better. The UK has multiple parties, and yet, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives went on and on and on with only 40% of the vote. We even ended up with Boris Johnson, and then the bizarre autumn antics that led to today. European countries are all watching inroads, if not outright successes, by the right wing breaking through whatever sort of liberalism (social democracy or democratic socialism, however you like to define it) used to create stable governments. Neoliberalism opened the door wide, and the far right has been wriggling through or even marching right in. Today’s so-called “centrist” governments seem more willing to sympathize with avowed fascists than with any kind of social democracy, let alone “the left”.

Firming Up Hierarchy

Blair Fix [Economics from the Top Down, via Mike Norman Economics 11-19-2022]

 I think that the recent rise in US income inequality is being driven by a redistribution of income within firms. In short, I believe that corporate hierarchies have become more despotic. Corporate elites have taken income that once went to the bottom of the hierarchy and redirected it to the top.

To test this idea, we’ll take a meandering route. First, I’ll tell you about my model of corporate hierarchy and how it explains income as a function of ‘hierarchical power’. Then I’ll give you a tour of US income inequality, and show you why it’s plausible that the recent rise in top incomes is being driven by growing ‘hierarchical despotism’. Next, I’ll break out the math and build a model of the US corporate landscape. I’ll use this model to predict the redistribution of income within US firms. Finally, I’ll compare the model’s predictions to the real-world trends reported by Song and colleagues. If all goes well, we’ll get some insight into the machinations of US corporate hierarchy.

My results? I find that to a surprising extent, the redistribution of income within US firms can be explained by a single parameter — a change in the rate that income scales with hierarchical power.…

Mike Norman comments:

Democracy was introduced to recapture some of the consensual organization that had been lost along way when the priestly class became entitled and was characterized by an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Similarly, the warrior class developed into a supreme leader whose reign was passed hereditarily and who had the power to created title subordinates that developed into hereditary aristocracies.

The Age of Enlightenment in 18th century Europe subsequent to the Protestant Revolution give birth to modern liberalism, which was had begun to be instantiated in England with the Magna Carta (sort of). The United States of America was the first modern liberal constitutional democracy modeled on 18th classical liberalism. The US Constitution sought to combine consensual and hierarchical organization practically for governing a populous and diverse nation that was a federation of sovereign states. It was based on a model reflecting the Roman Republic (SPQR and all that).

Conversely, the firm model developed along hierarchical lines as the most practical to the task. The corporate system is quite ancient as a legally based institutional structure.  Like militaries, firms and chartered firms (“corporations”) were organized on hierarchical models. However, the joint-stock company introduced a modicum of consensual organization through the influence of the stockholders on management.

[TW: Norman commits the unfortunate but common error of referencing only liberalism, and ignoring civic republicanism. The major political theory that is developed during the Enlightenment is not liberalism, which focuses almost exclusively on individual liberty, but civic republicanism, which focuses on finding a balance between individual liberty and the needs of the community. Indeed, as Bernard Bailyn details in his 1967 book The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press)—which as awarded the Pulitzer Prize and the Bancroft Prize in 1968—the republicanism developed by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon in their 1720-23 Cato’s Letters: Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious was entirely a response to the ministerial corruption that enabled the South Sea Bubble. As noted in the  Wikipedia entry,

Renowned historian Clinton Rossiter stated “no one can spend any time on the newspapers, library inventories, and pamphlets of colonial America without realizing that Cato’s Letters rather than John Locke‘s Civil Government was the most popular, quotable, esteemed source for political ideas in the colonial period.”

One of the few scholars who understands that there has been a struggle between the ideas of republicanism and liberalism is Michael J. Thompson, Professor of Political Theory at William Paterson University and author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America (New York, NY, Columbia University Press, 2007). I highly recommend this book. Some excerpts:

“the economic egalitarian tradition that I will present here is so crucial because it is at the heart of the American republican project itself. The American idea of a democratic republic had always been premised on an antipathy toward unequal divisions of property because early American thinkers saw in those unequal shares of economic power echoes of what had been historically overturned: a sociopolitical order of rank and privilege; a static society that sought to crystallize power relationships and hierarchical economic and social relations characterized by corruption and patronage; in short, a feudal order where the exercise of power was arbitrary and the prospect of domination pervaded everyday life. The reason I trace the historical development and inevitable dissolution of the discourse on economic inequality in American political thought is to show that the American republican project was, in fact, deeply tied to the issues of economic inequality as a reaction to feudal social relations. Any political community that suffers from severe imbalances between rich and poor is in danger of losing its democratic character…” p.4.

“As the liberal doctrine of competitive individualism became more dominant, calls for equality of condition were replaced with calls for equality of opportunity. As inequality began to worsen during the later decades of the twentieth century, it was these same liberal ideas that were in effect co-opted by a renewed economic libertarianism, which gave justification to inequality not only on the basis of “fairness” but on the basis of the neoliberal argument that inequalities were the product of an efficiently operating economy that would also produce an enhancement in economic incentives, prodding the economy to continuous growth and prosperity….” p.16.

“When followed historically, this tradition shows a coherent path from classical thought through the modern, even though not all of the various thinkers were of one mind on the problem. The coherence of this tradition lies not in the prescriptions that these various thinkers articulated to diminish economic inequalities but in the way that they all conceptualized inequalities of wealth and property as diminishing the strength of the political community and any kind of democratic or republican political culture. All believed that political life would be threatened by the unequal power relations that the concentration of economic power—wealth and property—created. The discourse also shows a growing response to the emergence and dominance of a market economy, and it shows a consistent concern with the welfare of the public, of society as a whole over its minority interests. Even those thinkers—such as Aristotle, Smith, and Hegel—who argue that there is a “natural inequality” between human beings do not argue that inequalities within society should persist if they lead to the dominance of one class. Indeed, what is consistently argued by both radical and moderate alike is that markets create inequalities that ought not to be tolerated and that require the intervention of society or the state.” p. 55.

“Early American thinkers inherited both liberal and republican ideas, but both traditions were tied to the idea of property. Liberal thought emphasized the nature of work and the idea that the natural right to property was inherent in the capacity to labor. The very notion of property, in Locke’s famous words, was anything with which one mixed one’s labor. Republican ideas were also premised on property, but on the notion that an equal dispersion of property needed to be maintained by some political means to ensure that political power was also evenly dispersed. The republican impulse saw that the institutions of the state had to protect against the formation of blocs of power derived from property in order to prevent the reemergence of feudal relations of mastery and subservience. Republicanism, in this sense, was not simply an “ideology”: it was a political theory which sought to prevent the growth of actual inequalities of power within society, and many radical republican thinkers saw inequalities of property as the source of inequalities of power….” p.58.

…liberalism did become an overriding dimension of American political and economic life, but it is important to see how this was separated over time from a broader concern with a civic republican concern for the public good and the search for the proper balance between individual self-interest and liberty; on the one hand, and the duties individuals must have toward the community and the maintenance of the public good, on the other. p. 208

…end TW]

 

This is plutocracy, not capitalism

Why Didn’t the Government Stop the Crypto Scam? 

Matt Stoller  [BIG, via Naked Capitalism 11-18-2022]

[TW: As usual, it was conservative and libertarian ideologues who screwed the pooch.]

…Today, a lot of people are mad at SBF for stealing. But one of the more bizarre aspects of the crypto meltdown is the deep anger not just at those who perpetrated it, but at those who were trying to stop the scam from going on. For instance, here’s crypto exchange Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, who just a year ago was fighting regulators vehemently, blaming the cops for allowing gambling in the casino he helps run….

And here’s soon-to-be-retiring Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who not only seeks to protect the crypto industry from intrusive rules but owns crypto personally, blaming regulators for the fiasco that he himself had helped foster….

Almost as soon as he took office, [SEC head] Gensler sought to fix this situation, and treat them as securities. He began investigating important players in crypto, like Do Kwon, later revealed as a Ponzi schemer behind the $45 billion Terra/Luna scheme. But the legal wrangling to just get the courts to treat crypto as a set of speculative instruments regulated under securities law made the law moot. First Gensler asked for Kwon’s voluntary cooperation in an investigation. Kwon said no. So the SEC served Kwon with a subpoena, which Kwon refused to honor. Then the Ponzi schemer actually turned around and his powerful legal team at Dentsons sued the SEC for attempting to investigate him.

In May of 2022, a year after Gensler began trying to do something about Terra/Luna, Kwon’s scheme blew up. In a comically-too-late-to-matter gesture, an appeals court then said that the SEC had the right to compel information from Kwon’s now-bankrupt scheme. It is absolute lunacy that well-settled law, like the ability for the SEC to investigate those in the securities business, is now being re-litigated.

And the people who are now saying ‘where were the regulators?!?’ Well they were absolutely cheering for Kwon; organizers at one crypto conference showed Gary Gensler’s face and played Darth Vader’s theme song. At one event, the New York Times noted that many crypto ‘enthusiasts’ watching Gensler discuss regulation with his predecessor “called for their incarceration or worse.”

 

The Latest Digital Token Scheme from Hell: New York Fed Teams Up with Citigroup and Sullivan & Cromwell

Pam Martens and Russ Martens, November 17, 2022 [Wall Street on Parade]

Just two business days after the crypto exchange FTX filed for bankruptcy and headlines swirled around the world suggesting it had used its crypto token to perpetuate a massive fraud reminiscent of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, the New York Fed thought this would be an ideal time to announce it was launching a digital token pilot with the serial fraudster, Citigroup….

 

Big Law Firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, Did Significant Legal Work for Bankrupt Crypto Exchange, FTX

Pam Martens and Russ Martens: November 13, 2022 [Wall Street on Parade]

According to Reuters, Sullivan & Cromwell has been named as one of the advising law firms to the disgraced crypto exchange, FTX, in its bankruptcy proceedings. Sam Bankman-Fried, the co-founder and CEO of FTX, vaporized the high-profile crypto firm from a $32 billion valuation to smoldering ashes last week….

 

The carnage of mainstream neoliberal economics

Wall Street Readies An Avalanche Of Lies 

Matthew Cunningham-Cook, November 17, 2022 [The Lever]

Public pensions with investments in private equity are about to face a reckoning — but they have no way of knowing how bad it might get….

Private equity and other alternative investments were originally peddled as vehicles that could deliver higher returns to investors, no matter the market environment, by taking over and transforming companies — often by loading them up with debt and laying off workers.

Such promises helped inspire public pensions to enter the space. Forty years ago, most public pension funds didn’t invest in private equity or hedge funds at all, instead pursuing far more orthodox investments in stocks and bonds. Now, public pensions have more than a trillion dollars invested in alternatives.

In total, public pensions supply more than a third of the capital to private equity, and they likely provide a similar share of the capital going to hedge funds and private real estate. And they are shoveling ever more money at the alternative investment industry, despite sky-high fees and returns that either meet or trail the broader markets.

 

Farm Bureau Survey Shows Thanksgiving Dinner Cost Up 20%

[American Farm Bureau Federation, November 22, 2022]

 

60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck heading into 2022 holiday 

[CNBC, via Naked Capitalism 11-19-2022]

 

Poverty’s toll on mental health 

[Urban Institute, via Naked Capitalism 11-14-2022]

 

Health care crisis

Universal Benefits Cost Less Than Means-Tested Benefits 

Matt Bruenig [People’s Policy Project, via Naked Capitalism 11-13-2022]

 

The Real Insulin Stock Collapse

Jordan Uhl, November 14, 2022 [The Lever]

While all eyes were on Eli Lilly’s stock price last week, the struggles of an insulin pump manufacturer will have far more troubling implications for diabetics….

However, there’s one important, struggling insulin-related company that didn’t get as much attention last week — but whose troubles might have much wider implications for diabetes patients living in the U.S. Insulin pump manufacturer Tandem Diabetes Care saw its stock plummet more than 20 percent this month — five times the drop suffered by Eli Lilly — after a dismal quarterly earnings report. Overall, the company’s stock is down 66 percent this year.

What makes this development so interesting is the company’s executives are expressly blaming its poor sales on the lack of universal health care in this country.

In August, Tandem CEO John Sheridan said the “evolving economic environment, including inflation and the threat of recession,” is specifically hurting its business in the U.S. “This is primarily a factor in the U.S. as outside the United States, it’s mitigated by predominance of government health care plans,” he said.

Sheridan made similar comments earlier this month, explaining “the impact of the economic environment on customer purchasing behavior is primarily a U.S. phenomenon.”

 

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism 11-13-2022]

.

 

“An unexpected winner in the midterms: public health”

Michelle A. Williams [The Hill, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-16-2022]

Williams is dean of the faculty of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Public health was on the ballot last week — and it won. I’m not talking about specific candidates, as important as those races are. I’m talking about the ethos of public health — the principle that health is a fundamental human right and the understanding that we must look out for one another, to think not just about our own well-being, but about the public good…. The most high-profile examples of public health wins are the abortion referendums…. In another major victory for public health, South Dakota voters decisively chose to expand eligibility for Medicaid, using a ballot measure to extend access to health care to the working poor when their legislators refused to do so…. In Oregon, meanwhile, voters approved a ballot measure that makes the state the first in the U.S. to guarantee residents access to “cost-effective, clinically appropriate and affordable” health care. This measure effectively establishes health care as a human right…. Arizona voters overwhelmingly supported a ballot measure to restructure collection and limit interest rates on medical debt, which has become an enormous burden for far too many families. Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont outlawed forced labor for prison inmates, restoring some measure of their dignity and autonomy. And in California, voters overwhelmingly endorsed a ban on all flavored tobacco products in the state — a move designed to protect young people, who gravitate toward flavored vape products…. The outcomes of these ballot measures suggest that a majority of voters, in both red states and blue, believe the government has an obligation to protect the health and well-being of the most vulnerable among us. That is the essence of public health. It also happens to be the only way to build a resilient economy and a successful civil society.”

 

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism 11-13-2022]

.

 

The End of Vaccines at ‘Warp Speed’ 

[New York Times, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-18-2022]

“But as a third pandemic winter begins in the United States, its vaccine-making effort has lost steam. Efforts to test and produce next-generation Covid vaccines are bogged down by bureaucratic problems and funding shortfalls. Foreign rivals have raced ahead in approving long-awaited nasal-spray vaccines, including one invented in St. Louis, creating a scenario in which Americans would have to travel abroad for the latest in American vaccine technology. The Biden administration has launched a last-ditch effort to restore the country’s edge. In a bid to resurrect Operation Warp Speed, President Biden asked the lame-duck session of Congress this week for $5 billion for next-generation vaccines and therapeutics, as part of a broader $9.25 billion pandemic spending request. But Republicans, having blocked requests for next-generation vaccine funding since the spring amid complaints about how the White House spent earlier pandemic aid allocations, have shown no signs of dropping their resistance. As a result, even with the pandemic still taking a heavy toll, prospects have dimmed for the two most coveted kinds of next-generation vaccines: nasal sprays that can block more infections, and universal coronavirus shots that can defend against a wider array of ever-evolving variants…. China, India, Russia and Iran have all approved vaccines delivered through the nose or the mouth, even though they have not released much data about how the products work. In the United States, nasal sprays have been held back by the same funding constraints and logistical hassles that, before the pandemic, often made developing vaccines a decade-long ordeal. The delay could not only weaken the country’s defenses against a more lethal coronavirus variant but also hurt preparations for a future pandemic, depriving the world of an oven-ready nasal vaccine platform that could be adapted to a new pathogen.”

 

They’re not capitalists — they’re predatory criminals

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism 11-13-2022]

.

 

The Private Equity Guys Trying to Shoplift a Supermarket Chain Before They Sell It

[Slate, via The Big Picture 11-13-2022]

The Albertsons/Kroger merger tells you a lot about our cash-extractive economy.

 

How corporate chiefs dodge lawsuits over sexual abuse and deadly products

[Reuters, via Naked Capitalism 11-13-2022]

Scandals brought down Harvey Weinstein’s movie studio and major opioid supplier Mallinckrodt. But their wealthy owners, directors and executives were granted lifetime immunity from related lawsuits in bankruptcy court — an overwhelmingly common tactic in major U.S. Chapter 11 cases, a Reuters review found.

 

Apple’s business model made Chinese oppression inevitable 

[Pluralistic, via Naked Capitalism 11-13-2022]

 

When destitute small towns mean dangerous tap water

[Associate Press, via The Big Picture 11-13-2022]

While failures of big city water systems attract the attention, it’s small communities like Keystone, West Virginia, that more often are left unprotected by destitute and unmaintained water providers. Small water providers rack up roughly twice as many health violations as big cities on average, an analysis of thousands of records over the last three years by The Associated Press shows. In that time, small water providers violated the Safe Drinking Water Act’s health standards nearly 9,000 times. They were also frequently the very worst performers. Federal law allows authorities to force changes on water utilities, but they rarely do, even for the worst offenders. (AP)

 

Raw deal: discontent is rising as water companies pump sewage into UK waters

[The Guardian, via Naked Capitalism 11-14-2022]

 

Climate and environmental crises

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism 11-14-2022]

.

 

The return of the American bison is an environmental boon — and a logistical mess 

[Grist, via Naked Capitalism 11-13-2022]

 

Uzbekistan: Where the Amu Darya goes to die 

[Eurasianet, via Naked Capitalism 11-13-2022]

A journey down the terminal stretch of a once-mighty river [that used to feed the now dry Aral Sea] highlights how hard it will be to fend off environmental catastrophe.

 

Surveillance capitalism police state

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism 11-13-2022]

.

The Quiet Merger Between Online Platforms and the National Security State Continues 

[Jacobin, via Naked Capitalism 11-15-2022]

 

They Want to Kill Libraries: The Last Place in America Where You Are a Person, Not a Customer 

Cory Doctorow [Medium, via Naked Capitalism 11-14-2022]

 

Democrats’ political suicide

“The New York establishment is beating up on AOC. It should be looking in the mirror”

[NBC, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-18-2022]

“Democratic losses in the Empire State appear to be pivotal in the narrow majority in the House of Representatives that Republicans are likely to have starting next year. The icing on this rotten cake is that New York Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.” More: “On a night of many disappointments, the party’s most egregious own goal was the one scored for Republicans by no one less than the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman himself, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney. Maloney, whose DCCC role is to elect as many Democrats to the House as possible, not only presided over the loss of four previously Democratic New York districts, but failed to win his own race after putting his ego above the warnings of party officials and activists. Maloney isn’t the only one to blame for Democrats’ Big Apple bludgeoning, however. The Democratic legislators who control the statehouse fumbled the ball when they were given the task of drawing up new congressional districts to reflect the results of the 2020 census. Their new congressional maps failed to satisfy the courts that they didn’t violate the state constitution’s bar on partisan gerrymandering, leading to the appointment of a nonpartisan election expert as a special master to draw new maps that cut deeply into Democrats’ previously safe districts. But even facing those tough maps, Democrats could have prevailed had their state party — which was busy deflecting progressive criticism of their conduct — marshaled better infrastructure and financial support for swing-district candidates. The maps were a problem; the party’s malpractice was fatal.”

 

AOC: The New York State Democratic Party’s Corruption May Have Cost Democrats the House

[The Intercept, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-14-2022]

I think the choice among certain Democrats to validate Republican narratives and amplify Republican narratives on crime and policing, running ads on it — validating these narratives actually ended up hurting them much more than a different approach….  If we’re going to talk about public safety, you don’t talk about it in the frame of invoking defund or anti-defund, you really talk about it in the frame of what we’ve done on gun violence, what we’ve done to pass the first gun reform bill in 30 years. Our alternatives are actually effective, electorally, without having to lean into Republican narratives. So I think that was one prime mistake.

And I think another prime mistake is that in New York State, I think that — Cuomo may be gone, but his entire infrastructure, much of his infrastructure and much of the political machinery that he put in place is still there. And this is a machinery that is disorganized, it is sycophantic. It relies on lobbyists and big money. And it really undercuts the ability for there to be affirming grassroots and state-level organizing across the state. And so when that languishes and there’s very little organizing happening, yeah, I mean, basically, you’re leaving a void for Republicans to walk into….

Republicans put millions of dollars into defeating the redistricting ballot measure last year that would have protected the map, that would have put us ahead. And so I really believe that we would have won Democratic seats, potentially gained Democratic seats in New York State, but Republicans put millions of dollars against this ballot measure, they organized against it, and the New York State Democratic Party didn’t drop $1 in making sure that we got this thing passed….

But it’s very clear that the New York State Democratic Party was designed under Cuomo to be very reliant on the governor’s seat; the governor very much determines who the state party chair is, etc. And I think that, given how progressives really organized and helped deliver that margin, I think that there very much is room for a conversation to be held here about how we can restructure how the party is selected and established in perhaps a more decentralized way, or perhaps in a more democratic way, that is more representative of communities and more encouraging of engagement across the state — and less meddling, to be frank. Because these little cuts really do build up, whether it was the failure on the ballot initiative, whether it was the refusal to recognize and respect when progressive candidates do win democratic nominations outright that the party doesn’t work against its own nominees, which is what happened at Buffalo.

You know, I can say: I’ve been in Congress for four years, I have never had a conversation with the New York State Democratic Party chair ever. In fact, he’s done nothing but attack progressive Democrats all across the state. What he has done is created an environment where the only, quote unquote, or the main, quote unquote, legitimate Democratic candidates worthy of support are those who fight both progressives and Republicans, which is clearly not a winning strategy… And so when he has invested so much energy into demoralizing the grassroots and making sure that a lot of this grassroots energy gets busted up all across the state, of course we’re going to see these margins swing towards Republicans….

If you look at the difference between Tim Ryan and John Fetterman, as races, some of the preliminary data is suggesting that they had the same turnout in almost every demographic except young people. And as we know, young people skew way progressive within the party. And so when you outwardly antagonize, and outwardly seek to belittle and distance oneself from progressive values, you demoralize your base….

And I think we learned an economic lesson, which is that full employment is politically stronger than inflation, as opposed to when we were in the situation under Obama, where they tried the other tack and unemployment was punished much more severely….

 

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-18-2022]

.

 

“The 2022 Midterms Were One of the Best Elections the Left Has Had in Memory”

[Jacobin, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-15-2022]

“The major top-line success for the Left this election is the addition of several new insurgent candidates who, like “the Squad” of 2018, were backed by progressive outside groups — notably the Working Families Party (WFP) and Justice Democrats — with little or no support from established party networks. The total of such members now rises to twelve, after four such insurgent candidates sailed to victory in safe blue seats for which they won primaries earlier this year. This year’s crop is Summer Lee (PA-12), Greg Casar (TX-35), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), and Maxwell Frost (FL-10). This group is notable, among other things, for its seriousness commitments to left-wing policy.”

 

“How Democrats Can Build a John Fetterman 2.0”

Michael Sokolove [New York Times, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-15-2022]

“I talked to Mr. Fetterman’s campaign manager, Brendan McPhillips, about what lessons can be drawn from the campaign. ‘It’s about embracing candidates for who they are and not trying to nominate the same cookie-cutter people or mold them into something they’re not,’ he said. ‘And you can’t try to slice off entire demographic categories and ignore them. It’s a recipe for failure.’ Ms. [Anat Shenker-Osorio, a Bay Area-based strategist for progressive candidates and organizations] told me that the Democratic establishment in Pennsylvania lined up in the spring primary behind Mr. Fetterman’s opponent, Conor Lamb, a moderate congressman from a family with a deep history in Democratic politics. Mr. Fetterman ‘was deemed too lefty,’ she said. ‘They desperately wanted Lamb. So, as step one, how about we put an ax through ‘electability’ and recall that the middle of the road is where you get run over.’”

 

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-14-2022]

.

 

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-14-2022]

.

NEW YORK DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIR TAKES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELECTIONS. SO WHAT DOES HE DO? 

[The Intercept, via Naked Capitalism 11-13-2022]

 

“The real story of the making of Nancy Pelosi”

Ryan Grim [via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-18-2022]

Well worth a read on Democrats going back to 1980. For those who don’t know this: ” If your knowledge of her comes from Republican attack ads, you know her as a “San Francisco liberal” or even “radical,” but she was raised in Maryland by her father Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., the boss of the Baltimore political machine, who was by turns a congressman and mayor of Charm City. D’Alesandro’s operation, like most big-city machines of the era, was linked in public to local Mafia figures, according to his FBI file.”

 

The Burning of Witches Will Continue 

Matt Taibbi, November 15, 2022 [TKNews]

Americans who once venerated self-reliance are building a church of conformity, whose chief means of worship is destroying heretics….

Musk is the new bête noire of the American consensus. He is the Negative Current Thing, a role mostly played by Donald Trump since summer 2015, with occasional fill-ins (in no particular order, Vladimir Putin, Tucker Carlson, Novak Djokovic, J.K. Rowling, Jeremy Corbyn, Joe Rogan, Dave Chappelle, whatever they call Kanye West these days, and others have manned the slot). The coverage playbook for these heel-of-the-hour stories is rigid. Certain elements are always present.

Criminal investigations are instigated. Advocacy organizations issue denunciations (some combination of the Anti-Defamation League and the ACLU’s Chase Strangio is found in nearly all cases). News organizations demand the person’s muffling. Unions, guilds, and associations threaten walkouts. Even if the villain leans left, he or she begins to be described as “right wing,” a term with little political meaning left, that’s just code for heresy now.

It’s different from cancel culture. Cancelations start with a transgression, or at least an accusation of one. The other story type starts with a broader offense called thinking for yourself, which triggers denouncers to work backward in search of wrongdoing. Musk is the paradigmatic example. He’s achieved round-the-clock denunciation despite total confusion as to his core offense.

 

The Dark Side

Republicans Have a Symbiotic Relationship With Crime

Ryan Cooper, October 31, 2022 [The American Prospect, via Avedon’s Sideshow]

The striking thing about this messaging strategy is not just the undeniable opportunism—like the supposedly fearsome migrant caravan back in October 2018, it’s a safe bet that Fox’s crime focus will evaporate once the election is over—but also the perverse incentive thus created. Republicans have an objective political interest in increased crime because it allows them to incite a febrile backlash, and many of them are not at all subtle about it. By the same token, their favored policies of total legal impunity for police and making it ever-easier to buy guns will undoubtedly make crime worse, all else equal. In short, if you want more crime, vote Republican.” In fact, conservative policies have always increased crime, which may be why the states where crime is worst are Republican-run states.

 

Rupert Murdoch Knees Trump in the Balls While He’s Doubled Over Coughing Up Blood.

[Vanity Fair, via The Big Picture 11-15-2022]

The message from the Murdoch-owned New York Post, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News is clear: Pack your bags, bitch. You’re done…

Take The Wall Street Journal. On Wednesday, there were no fewer than six anti-Trump op-eds, with one of them literally headlined “Trump Is the Republican Party’s Biggest Loser.” That piece, written by the Journal’s notoriously conservative editorial board, noted that Trump “has now flopped in 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2022,” and has “led Republicans into one political fiasco after another.” It suggests this week’s shellacking should be a wake-up call to the GOP “before 2024” (i.e., the party should oppose his much-teased third run for office).

 

“In Secretary of State Races, Election Deniers (Mostly) Lose”

[Bolts, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-15-2022]

“All election deniers who ran for secretary of state in battleground states—buoyed by endorsements from Trump—lost on Tuesday, blocking major avenues for the former president to manipulate the next election. Jim Marchant, the Republican nominee in Nevada, came closest, losing to Democrat Francisco Aguilar by two percentage points. In Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico, incumbent Democratic secretaries of state crushed their far-right challengers Kristina Karamo, Kim Crockett, and Audrey Trujillo by margins ranging from 9 to 14 percentage points—all far more than Joe Biden’s margins of victory two years ago. Mark Finchem, an Arizona lawmaker who has since 2020 championed proposals to decertify his own state’s presidential results, repeated just this fall that the votes of Arizona’s two most populous counties should be “tossed out.” He lost his bid on Tuesday, trailing in both of these counties decisively. Election deniers also failed to take over secretary of state offices in blue states like Massachusetts and Vermont, lost elections for governor in places where the winner can appoint a secretary of state, and fell short for other offices from which they may have exerted significant if indirect influence on elections, such as Michigan’s attorney general or New Mexico’s supreme court.”

 

“Why the midterms make me optimistic for America”

Noah Smith [Noahpinion, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-15-2022]

“Only recently, Florida was considered a highly competitive purple state. Obama won it in 2012, and gubernatorial races there have usually been very close. But in the 2022 midterms, Ron DeSantis won a crushing 20-point victory, and Republicans won solidly pretty much everywhere on the ballot. Turning Florida into a deep red state is a major coup for Republicans, and they owe a lot of it to DeSantis. And DeSantis did it in part because he won over the state’s Hispanic voters. The much-talked-about Hispanic shift toward the GOP is proceeding only slowly at the national level, but in Florida it has been a major shift (and not just among Cubans either). DeSantis seems to have an almost Reaganesque ability to stake out culture-war positions that drive elite liberals up the wall while failing to scare away the ethnic working class.”

 

“Walker’s campaign tells Republicans to stop ‘deceptive fundraising’ in Georgia runoff”

[NBC, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-16-2022]

“Republican politicians and associated committees are sending out desperate fundraising emails begging the GOP faithful to help save America by getting behind Herschel Walker in his Dec. 6 runoff against Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock in Georgia. But what’s not immediately clear to recipients is how little of that money is going to Walker’s campaign: just a dime for every dollar given by small donors. Walker’s campaign, which has trailed Warnock’s in fundraising throughout the election, is asking fellow Republicans to stop their fundraising practices — or at least to start sharing more with the candidate. ‘We need everyone focused on winning the Georgia Senate race, and deceptive fundraising tactics by teams that just won their races are siphoning money away from Georgia,’ Walker campaign manager Scott Paradise said Monday.”

 

Exclusive: Oath Keepers Leader Stewart Rhodes’ Children Speak

[Southern Poverty Law Center, May 12, 2022]

Elmer Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the antigovernment Oath Keepers organization, was, at the time of publication, in federal custody awaiting trial for his alleged role in orchestrating events at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

 

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

Can Boeing Still Make Planes?

Oh, they can sort of make plane models that already exist. Sort of. They claim it’s just a delay; part of the plan. From LNA:

CEO David Calhoun said there won’t be any new airplane this decade…

“And then there’ll be a moment in time where we’ll pull a rabbit out of the hat and introduce a new airplane sometime in the middle of next decade,” Calhoun said. (Emphasis added.)

A normal program launch-to-EIS is about seven years. One could conclude, then, that the program launch could come around 2027 or 2028 if EIS is 2035. (Boeing wants to shrink the timeline to five years from launch to EIS.)

The implication is that they’re waiting for a new engine design which won’t be available until 2035, but that seems like a weak reason to not start work on a plane for six years.

Meanwhile, about the plane design they actually have, Boeing claims:

Officials said supply chain issues continue to dog steady production and delivery rates of the 737 MAX. Engine deliveries from CFM remain slow. Bringing the production line back from zero to higher rates remains a challenge.

But….

During the pandemic, Boeing encouraged early retirement and offered buyouts to reduce headcounts across the enterprise. On top of normal attrition and scheduled retirements, thousands left the company. Returning to normalcy — a process still underway — required hiring new employees. These employees have a learning curve, which, LNA is told, slows the production of not only the 737s but also the 767-300ERF. (Customers have complained to LNA about quality control on 767s.)

So, they don’t have enough skilled employees, and getting new ones takes time because they have to be trained, and Boeing gutted its cadre, a process which had been going on long before the pandemic. Indeed, Boeing made a point of getting rid of a lot of engineers before this and even replaced the physical wind tunnel used to test plane models with computer modeling. (No, no, computer modeling is not as good.)

So, Boeing isn’t going to design and make any new planes, probably until 2035, and that plan is just a plan — there’s almost certainly no significant resources even dedicated yet. It’s close to plucking a figure out of the air, and the current CEO is unlikely to be at Boeing then, he might not even be there in 2028 or 2030, when the major design work would need to start.

So much for the recent news. Boeing, as Stoller has pointed out, was forced to merge with McDonnell Douglas, the other great aviation firm. Clinton’s administration thought big was better and forced a wave of mergers in the aerospace and defense industries. Less competition, and not keeping separate corporate and engineering cultures, did the rest. Monopolies have to be regulated to hell, nationalized, or broken up, and breaking up a monopoly which is not a public good is generally better. Playing suppliers off against each other is what the government should do, along with having some in-house capacity. Innovation in technology (not so much science) works better with competition between multiple groups; science works best when researchers are given the ability to pursue their interests (which is not quite the same thing — see Bell Labs.) There are exceptions to these rules, I’ll probably touch on them in a later post (for one, some projects need to be centralized, due to equipment requirements — think the Manhattan project or particle accelerators.)

As with car companies, the switch to a management culture rather than an engineering culture has been fatal. Boeing was classically a Seattle firm, but in ’96 they moved their headquarters to Chicago, and now they intend to move them to a suburb of DC, which shows they’ve become completely dependent on government money.

If your executives or engineers aren’t where the planes are made, you lose engineering ability and damage proper feedback. The manufacturing floor, the engineers, and the decision-makers all need to be in the same place, and the culture needs to be, first and foremost, an engineering culture.

This is the great mistake that GE made (and GM as well, though they came through better). They decided their business was to make money, and that the products were secondary. But in the not-very-long-term (a couple decades at most), you make the most money by making good products. For GM, it’s automobiles. For Boeing, it’s planes. GE had a more varied base, but the same principle applied.

As for an analysis of the current circumstances, the union (whose necks are on the line, as their members won’t walk away rich no matter what happens) is fairly clear-sighted:

Failing to launch their next airplane program, effectively handing over dominant market share in the single-aisle and mid-market aircraft to their main competition, is a situation with dire consequences for the future. If market share tips in favor of Airbus at 60/40 or worse 70/30, it puts pricing pressure on Boeing, making it impossible to recover for decades.”

No business, with the possible exception of certain banks, is just in the business of making money. Aim straight at money, and you’ll ensure your decline. Aim at something else, do it well, and the money tends to take care of itself, especially when you’re in a duopoly situation, as is Boeing –for now.

China is working hard on a domestic aviation industry, not least to avoid further sanctions (some aviation-related sanctions are already in place). Once they have it, there will be three competitors, or perhaps 2 1/2 given how pathetic Boeing is becoming.

This is a BIG problem, not just for Boeing, but for the US. People harp about “comparative advantage,” but in some ways what matters more is “absolute advantage” or “you can only get it from us.” DC is acting to keep absolute advantage for the US hegemonic area (which is Taiwan leading in semis is OK except for the military risk, and why Air Bus never got sanctioned), but the smarter ones can see its end. China will break the last technological bastions, and countries outside the hegemonic area will then have two real options: They can get commercial jets from China or the West, just as they will be able to get advanced chips from China or the West.

Once the absolute advantage is gone, you’re reduced to comparative advantage. And in a comparative advantage competition, people get ground into the dust.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

How We Created A Population Incapable Of Radical Change

One of the defining characteristics of our era is that we believe we are free thinkers, and that we are good at making choices, but we’re wrong.

Our education system, as anyone who had gone through it knows, is about sitting down, not talking unless given permission, and giving the teacher the answer they want, the way they want it. Our adult lives are about giving the boss what they want, the way they want it. This is how we spend most of our time from about age five.

In our lives outside of work, we make choices from menus. We create almost nothing ourselves; the possibilities are predetermined. Even if we help create something that is on one of the menus, we usually work on a small part of it, at best. Our society creates, but as individuals, almost none of us create anything, and almost never anything important.

In our political lives, we again choose from a menu. “This politician or that politician.” Even if we are primary voters, few of us choose the politicians available among the primary possibilities, and if we somehow elect a maverick, they are soon defanged. (See “The Squad” for a good example.)

Our actual lives are about doing what we are told, and choosing from a list of choices created by other people.

We’re followers. Unimaginative followers. It’s not our fault, they got us when we were children and spent the rest of our lives conditioning us. Heck, they condition us, then get us to condition others. Those who are conditioned best become the next group in authority, and condition the next generation (though this is more true for bosses and politicians than teachers, still, teachers are given almost no freedom about what or how they teach).

This isn’t as “ancient as the seas” or anything; our particular pattern is about 150 years old, which is when wage slavery and mass schooling started. Oh, previous eras had other methods, but they had at least partially broken down by the 19th century, which is one reason why new methods were required. The other reason is that the old methods weren’t good at creating wage laborers. Say what you will about peasants and free farmers, they weren’t under close supervision, and they made a lot of their own goods and services.

The problem with all this should be obvious: When change is required, people who have been conditioned to choose from a menu created other people who spend their entire lives doing what they’re told in the way they’re told to please boss/teacher (or else live a miserable life, as boss and teacher control access to the good life) are not suited to create new choices, or even to choose something radical, something that isn’t on the usual menus they’ve been seeing all their lives.

The consequence is that for people to take action, en masse, we have to reach the point where it’s obvious, to paraphrase Lenin, that none of the choices on offer are safe and that doing something radical is necessary.

But since we’ve been trained solely for choosing from menus, we often choose stupidly. We Brexit under a Conservative like Boris Johnson. We elect a Trump. We keep selecting from whatever’s on the menu, and our only criterion is “this feels like radical change.” Often it isn’t, and if it is, it’s worse than the usual menu.

We recognize radical change is necessary, but lack the judgment to choose or create the right kind, because we’ve never had to make radical choices or to create anything large during our lives. Having never done either, we’re bad at both.

Creating unimaginative followers may please our elites, but it leads to hell when real change is necessary.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Every Covid Infection Does More Damage & Makes You Less Healthy and More Likely to Die

Okay. From very early on in the plague, I’ve been saying getting infected multiple times was a terrible idea, and a worse plan.

The key to being right in advance is being willing to run before things are completely proven, but when they are obvious. It was obvious that reinfections were terrible for people. Now the firm data is coming in. (Read the entire thing here.

“Compared to those with no reinfection, those who had reinfection exhibited an increased risk of all-cause mortality” of over 2x those with no reinfection. Three times for hospitalization, heart problems, and blood clotting. There was also increased incidence of diabetes, fatigue, kidney problems, mental health disorders, musculoskeletal problems, neurologic disorders, and lung problems.

I mean, one might be tempted to just say, “Reinfection makes you more likely to have all health problems,” and not be too far wrong. It may be that things get better, but this study found increased risks right out to six months, which is as far as it studied.

Bonus! As I’ve said almost right from the start, each reinfection makes things worse.

Every time you get infected by Covid, it has a chance to do even more damage, and if that damage heals after the acute phase, it’s damn slow — if.

Now, let’s talk about “immunity debt.” The way the immune system works isn’t like going to the gym, and slowly getting stronger by lifting heavier weights. Instead, it’s like cops or customs agents with mug shots. “If you see this guy, shoot him.” One thing Covid does to evade immunity is mess up the mug shots so that they aren’t recognized. This means that you get other diseases after Covid, to which you were previously immune — because it’s messed up the recognition system. This is probably a big part of why there are so many auto-immune disorders popping up in Covid survivors; mess up the mug shots enough, and the immune system will start going after innocent civilians, i.e., parts of your own body. (Having had  ulcerative colitis when I was young, I can tell you this can be more not-fun than most of you can imagine.)

Getting Covid is very likely to make your immune system worse, not better, and the above is only one mechanism by which this is true.

Too much of the Covid debate has centered on vaccines, which were not, and are not, a silver-bullet. The best results have been in countries that took public health measure approaches, of which vaccines are only a small part.

But for you individually, the “takeaway” is simple: don’t get multiple infections. Don’t let your kids get multiple infections. No matter how strong the social pressure, short of “lose your job” (and maybe not even then, if you can easily get another), do not stop protecting yourself, whatever level you consider appropriate. (I don’t wear masks outside unless it’s a crowded locale, for example, and I keep my tiny apartment ventilated all times. Most people should have a HEPA air purifier running all the time where they live, and your employer should be doing something similar if you work inside.)

Covid is already causing a permanent reduction in lifespans and an increase in illness. It’s not just Covid infections clogging up hospitals, it’s people with other illnesses getting them at increased rates. Keep protecting yourself.

And remember, with proper public health measures, we probably could have ended this plague in the first four months or so. Our lords and masters chose not to. Stupid? Evil? Why not both? I have suspicions (Covid made them a lot richer), but at the end of the day, they were okay with you and the people you care about dying or having serious health problems, likely for the rest of your lives.

Remember how much they were and are willing to hurt and kill you. Remember, also, this goes for all parties in power or near power in most countries. This certainly isn’t significantly different between Democrats and Republicans in the US.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – November 13, 2022

by Tony Wikrent

 

One point of view, does not show the whole picture!

AQEL Tech [YouTube, 2019]

.

The Pandemic

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 11-9-2022]

.

How to Hide a Plague: How Elite Capture and Individualism Made Covid Normal

[YouTube, via Naked Capitalism 11-11-2022]

The US has experienced among the highest cumulative mortality rates from Covid-19 in the Global North. This lecture will argue that the failures of the US pandemic response were mainly driven by economic elites who used their influence to undermine public health protections. The initial phase of the Covid response was collective, including a massive temporary expansion of the welfare state, but this approach threatened the power of the capitalist class. In response, there was an abandonment of economic interventions followed by a wholesale reframing of the virus as an issue of personal responsibility and individual choice. This lecture will explore how the exertion of elite influence went far beyond lobbying politicians, extending to government bureaucracies and civil society institutions such as news media and schools of public health. This process of constructing a new, deadlier normal holds lessons that can be transferred to climate change and other collective crises of the 21st century.

 

Strategic Political Economy

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism 11-9-2022]

.

Ray Dalio: The Changing World Order Is Approaching Stage 6 (The War Stage)

[LinkedIn, via The Big Picture 11-8-2022]

History shows that the movements to civil and/or international wars that change the domestic and world orders take place via a progression of stages that transpire in big cycles that have occurred for logical reasons throughout history.

 

Israel’s Far Right in New Government Eyes Security Ministries; Who will Stop them from Just Shooting Down Palestinians? 

Juan Cole [via Naked Capitalism 11-12-2022]

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

Losing the Power of the Printing Press

If you look up whether governments can “just print more money,” what you’ll find at most sites is the answer, “No, because it only increases the amount of money, not the amount of economic activity.”

This is not true, and it’s not true in a number of ways.

If there is under-utilization of capacity, you can print. Here’s US capacity:

The US has been running substantially under capacity for a long time.

But, you say, there was a lot of money printing (private and public, most money is created by banks, brokerages, and so on), and capacity utilization didn’t go up. In fact, it went down.

Well, yes, because the money went to other countries like China, where it increased capacity vastly, or it went into assets (the housing bubble, stock bubbles, and so on), or it bought private jets and yachts and so on.

Which is to say, it’s not just about money creation; it’s about who gets the money. Since virtually all the money creation of the past 40+ years has gone to rich people, capacity has been created for what they want. And because it was cheaper and more profitable to build capacity overseas, that’s where the money created went.

In addition, there’s the fact that the US dollar is used to buy oil and is the general medium of exchange in most foreign trade. It’s also the “gold” currency, in that during crises it tends to go up, so people want to hold a store of it against bad times.

All of these factors are contingent. If oil was not sold primarily in dollars, or trade settled in dollars, for example, there’d be a lot less demand for dollars. If the trade regime didn’t allow for vast imports and exports, but the world was more autarchic, then building new industry overseas wouldn’t make any sense, and so on.

This is to say, nothing is eternal. The dollar’s position is a historical artifact, based on specific circumstances which did not, and will not, always exist.

Remember, there was a time when the center of the world economy was Britain (chart from Mike Todd).

What you see in that chart (and it’s going to keep getting worse) is the switch from London to New York; from the pound to the dollar, because the pound wasn’t the primary international currency any more AND (and this is important) the UK kept de-industrializing so there was less and less relative demand for its products, though the City of London retained an important financial role, which kept the pound higher than the economic situation of Britain would otherwise have allowed.

Developing countries, as a rule, cannot run the printing the press because people only want enough of their currency to buy whatever goods and services they produce. In addition, because most Third World countries have vast import requirements (more so as time has gone on), and their agricultural bases have been destroyed, printing money causes inflation very fast. It’s not just an internal matter, more money chasing goods, it’s that people try and use the new money to buy goods produced externally, and their exchange rate collapses.

When the US prints money, a lot of it goes into other countries reserves and the reserves of people and companies. It pools, as it were, uselessly, and to the extent that it is “more money chasing the same goods,” its effect is spread over most of the world and not just internally.

Once this was true of the British pound.

The original conception of comparative advantage was based on the assumption (true at the time) that money mostly pooled inside countries and could not be used to create production in other countries. If Britain produced less widgets because French widgets were cheaper, the money freed up in Britain would go to produce something in which they had a comparative advantage, say woolens, instead of fleeing overseas. (See Ricardo’s Caveat for the long form of why comparative advantage doesn’t work with free capital flows.)

Now, you can also print money if you give it to the useless classes, i.e., the rich. In that case, it drives bubbles (see the SPX chart above or art prices) or creates niche markets, like yachts and private jets. It doesn’t drive general inflation, it only drives inflation for what useless people want.

Unfortunately, that inflation does eventually cause various crises, but for a time, it seems “free” — you make the rich much richer without causing widespread inflation.

What matters, then, is who you give the money to, and what they spend it on. Volcker crushed wages because, in addition to wanting to make useless people richer, he didn’t want ordinary people to have more money because they would spend it on things which lead to buying more oil, and given oil prices at the time, that would lead to more inflation. He needed to smash oil prices, and he did so by smashing wages to smash oil demand.

If you print money and give it to ordinary people, and it just leads to them buying more stuff from overseas, it won’t move that capacity utilization number you see in the chart at the top very much.

But this isn’t to say that printing money doesn’t “work.” It does work. It always does something. Someone benefits. If you print a bunch of money, and make sure it goes to ordinary people in your country, and that your country increases utilization and/or increases how much it produces, then it can produce a general wave of prosperity. After all, when wages rise higher than the cost of goods and services, that’s prosperity, but companies don’t like that unless they’re still making more money because they’re selling more overall.

(That last sentence, by the way, is the secret of the post-war good era. Meditate upon it.)

You lose the power of the printing press when no one wants your currency because you can’t produce enough, or increase production, AND it isn’t necessary for other things (like international trade).

This goes in stages. Britain, outside of the EU and with less and less industry, and with less reason to send money to the City of London, is in danger of losing the power of the printing press in the way Third World countries do. “There’s no reason to buy any more of this than however much you need to buy their goods.”

At that point, you need to figure out how to re-industrialize and under a free trade order like the neoliberal one, that’s hard. Every time you try, money floods out of your country instead of increasing activity inside of it.

As for the US, it’s in an extraordinarily privileged position, but as China and the BRICS move to conduct more and more trade without dollars, and as trust in the US to run the international monetary system drops and drops due to repeated sanctions and thefts of reserves, that privilege will decline, and the US will find more and more that if it wants goods from another country, it will need to provide not dollars (though they may still be exchanged), but actual goods and services itself.

If you can’t pay with goods and services, you pay by selling your patrimony — companies, land, resources, etc.

The power of the printing press is great, but it can be used for ill and good. It can create real economic growth and widespread prosperity under the right conditions, conditions which are partially under a country’s control. But if you become too weak or poor, you can lose even the theoretical ability to create those conditions. There is essentially nothing most African countries can do to restore enough sovereignty to allow them to use the printing press for good, and if you’re a relatively rich country which does still have the freedom of the printing press, there is always the temptation to use it foolishly or venally, as the US mostly has in recent generations.

Money is a social creation. So is how we run the economy. It can be made to work for everyone, for a few people, or as a machine of impoverishment. The choice, on aggregate, is ours.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Page 2 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén