Tag Archives: mother

Chart of the Day: The Rich Are Getting Richer, The Poor Are….

Mother Jones

The Federal Reserve’s 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances is out, and guess what? Over the past 25 years, the rich have seen their wealth skyrocket, from 44.8 percent of the total to 54.4 percent of the total. The middle class and the poor, by contrast, have seen their share of national wealth plummet from 33.2 percent to 24.7 percent.

In other words, the rich are getting richer and the poor are….well, you know. Is it any wonder that the rich don’t really want to see a lot of changes to our current economic regime? Why would they?

Continue reading: 

Chart of the Day: The Rich Are Getting Richer, The Poor Are….

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chart of the Day: The Rich Are Getting Richer, The Poor Are….

Colleges Don’t Teach Much, but College Students Don’t Know It

Mother Jones

The Collegiate Learning Assessment is just what it sounds like: a test that measures critical thinking, analytic reasoning, and communications skills in college students. Several years ago, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa reported that most students didn’t improve much on this test after four years of college, and a full third didn’t improve at all. Now they’ve written a follow-up, which concludes, unsurprisingly, that students with high CLA scores do better in the job market than students with low scores. Kevin Carey provides the highlights of the rest of the study:

Remarkably, the students had almost no awareness of this dynamic. When asked during their senior year in 2009, three-quarters reported gaining high levels of critical thinking skills in college, despite strong C.L.A. evidence to the contrary. When asked again two years later, nearly half reported even higher levels of learning in college. This was true across the spectrum of students, including those who had struggled to find and keep good jobs.

Through diplomas, increasingly inflated grades and the drumbeat of college self-promotion, these students had been told they had received a great education. The fact that the typical student spent three times as much time socializing and recreating in college as studying and going to class didn’t change that belief. Nor did unsteady employment outcomes and, for the large majority of those surveyed, continued financial dependence on their parents.

….Mr. Arum and Ms. Roksa’s latest research suggests that within the large population of college graduates, those who were poorly taught are paying an economic price….Yet those same students continue to believe they got a great education, even after two years of struggle. This suggests a fundamental failure in the higher education market — while employers can tell the difference between those who learned in college and those who were left academically adrift, the students themselves cannot.

I suppose this is a specialized case of the Dunning-Kruger effect: incompetent people don’t realize they’re incompetent. There’s probably not much universities can do about that, but it’s disheartening that they’re motivated to actively encourage it.

On the other hand, I suppose you can argue that it doesn’t matter. After all, employers seem to figure out pretty quickly who’s good and who isn’t, so it doesn’t do them much harm. And the kids themselves are better off for having a degree, even if they didn’t learn much. So perhaps this is a Pareto-efficient situation after all.

View original post here: 

Colleges Don’t Teach Much, but College Students Don’t Know It

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Colleges Don’t Teach Much, but College Students Don’t Know It

“I Still Live.” A Remembrance of Charles Bowden

Mother Jones

Charles Bowden at the 2010 Texas Book Festival Photo: Parker Haeg

“Clara, I still live…The story here is simple. The silence is not.”

That he died in his sleep, and not at the hands of the cartels, or the coyotes, or dirty cops on either side of the border, is something. There were times when he’d sit with his back to the door and travel with a former member of the Federales for protection. But in the end, it wasn’t one of the long line of people he pissed off and laid bare that finished him off. A flu likely did, probably with the help of hard living: the chain smoking and the sequential all-nighters and the alternating binges of black coffee and red wine. Charles Bowden was 69.

Chuck—never Charles—didn’t write for money, one reason he wrote for me so often at both Harper’s and Mother Jones. He didn’t write for fame, either, though he’s revered among people who cover the border and crime, and among writers who like voice and metaphor and can forgive occasional romantic excess. He would sometimes take an assignment an editor dreamed up, or one you’d discussed along the way, but just as often he’d dump 20,000 words on you out of the blue. Sure, you had to cut it in half somehow, and ground passages where the jazz got too free. But he was gracious about editing—”Oh hell, do what you want, I trust you”—and fact-checking (no small undertaking). He was a champion of the underdog, which included the migrants and dirt farmers, the maquiladora girls and asylum seekers he wrote about, but also the writers, poets, filmmakers, photographers, or artists whose careers he helped. He respected hard work, which could be work that was dangerous or epic in scope, but also hard in another way: tricky, gutting, soul-baring, a high-wire act.

Classic Chuck Bowden stories from the MoJo archive.


“We Bring Fear”


Exodus: Border-Crossers Forge a New America


Outback Nightmares & Refugee Dreams


Charlie Kernaghan, Keeper of the Fire


Dennis Kucinich: Little Big Man

Chuck was gifted to me by Colin Harrison, then deputy editor of Harper’s. They’d worked on a piece before I came to the magazine in late 1995. “But I think a woman would be a better editor. It’ll be interesting, anyway,” I recall Colin saying. And maybe that’s true—Chuck’s writing was better when a few layers of machismo were pared away—but also Colin warned me that no conversation with Chuck came in under two hours. Once, I finally pulled the old-style receiver from my ear only to find that a vacuum seal had formed around it. “Bowden ear,” I warned the fact-checkers.

But oh! Those calls! He’d range from how the rain sweeps down an arroyo to the works of Weegee to the proper preparation of veal bolognese. Gangsters, classical poets, the Keating Five, Fannie Lou Hamer, Gary Webb, things he’d covered or read or heard about, all coming together in one glorious baritone rumble punctuated by deep drags and sips of coffee or wine, depending on the time of day. If you devoted yourself utterly to following along, you might get about 80 percent of the allusions—wait…Nikola Tesla? Davis, meaning Miles or Angela or…—”Look, you follow? Look, you follow?” It was hard, sometimes, to say, “Uh, not really.”

The first piece we worked on was “While You Were Sleeping.” It begins with him contemplating a picture of a mummified corpse of a maquiladora worker likely raped, certainly killed and dumped in the desert outside Juárez. Chuck was one of the first American writers to document the women hunted by person or persons unknown as they made the long journey from their homes to the US factories brought into being by NAFTA. His writing is heart-wrenching, but it was his decision to tell the story through the eyes of the street photographers—Manuel Saenz, Jamie Bailleres, Gabriel Cardona, and Julian Cardona (who’d later accompany him on other reporting trips)—documenting the carnage ripping through Juárez that gave the piece real power:

Over the past two years, I have become a student of their work, because I think they are capturing something: the look of the future. This future is based on the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and industrial growth producing poverty faster than it distributes wealth. We have models in our heads about growth, development, infrastructure. Juárez doesn’t look like any of these images and so our ability to see this city comes and goes, mostly goes…These photographs literally give people of picture of an economic world they cannot comprehend. Juárez is not a backwater, but the new City on the Hill, beckoning us all to a grisly state of things.

When editors say stuff like “find your Virgil, find the figure that will help you tell the story behind the story,” writers should take a page from Chuck Bowden, who had a novelist’s eye for characters that could stand in for so much more. Take “Ike and Lyndon,” perhaps the most esoteric piece of his I ever edited. In it he somehow used a man institutionalized for murdering his grandmother who spends his days painting portraits of the presidents to tell the story of a doomed president and the ghosts of Vietnam that haunt us all. Well, you’ll just have to read it. (Harper’s pieces are here behind a paywall. These essays and others are also in The Charles Bowden Reader, co-edited by his former partner, Mary Martha Miles.)

If I had to describe Chuck to somebody, not physically, necessarily, but the essence of him, it might be something like: part Bogart, part Sam Elliott in The Big Lebowski, no small dose of Matthew McConaughey in True Detective, the kind of guy who’d regale you with tales in a dive bar, and then walk you to your car—”always walk a woman to her car, no matter the time of day or night”—and then tell you where to get the best tacos before leaving you with a journalistic koan. Long before he’d made the border his life’s work, he’d covered dark, dark things and was scarred by them. In “Torch Song,” which was included in Best American Essays, he wrote of covering sex crimes and murders of little kids (for which he was a 1984 Pulitzer finalist), and how he retreated into a world of sex and drinking and suicide hikes through the desert, and discovered that the line between commonplace betrayals and kinks and those deeper, darker horrors is not as brightly demarcated as you’d thought, knowledge that was something you can never recover from, not really.

Somewhere in those hours my second marriage ends. I know why. I too, tend to say yes. The marriage ends because I do not want to live with her anymore, because she is a good a proper person and this now feels like a cage. I do not want to leave my work at the office. I do not want to leave it at all. I have entered a world that is black, sordid, vicious. And actual. And I do not care what price I must pay to be in this world.

That piece is largely about how people can’t bring themselves to face the realities of rape and abuse, despite them being the hidden back story of so many lives. It was hard to edit; I sometimes dreaded our calls. I didn’t have a child then. I tried to read it through yesterday and couldn’t.

It is, of course, reporting on the border for which Bowden is best known. His book Down by the River (one of many) recalls how two DEA agents search for the truth behind the murder of their brother at the hands of a 13-year-old from Juárez and destroy their family in the process—all while telling the story of Amado Carrillo Fuentes, the (now dead) kingpin of the Juárez cartel who haunts so many of Bowden’s stories. In Exodus, which first appeared in Mother Jones and later became a book, he traveled back and forth across the border to tell the story of the migrants:

Here is the basic script: You get off a bus you have ridden for days from the Mexican interior, increasingly from the largely Indian states far to the south. This is the end of your security. On the bus, you had a seat, your own space. Now you enter a feral zone. With money, you can buy space in a flop ($3 a night) and get a meal of chicken, rice, beans, and tortillas (about $2.50). You stare out on an empty desert unlike any ground you have ever seen. Men with quick eyes look you over, the employees of coyotes, people smugglers. On the bus, you were a man or a woman or a child. Now you are a pollo, a chicken, and you need a pollero, a chicken herder.

You will never be safe, but for the next week or so, you will be in real peril. If you sleep in the plaza to save money, thugs will rob you in the night or, if you are a woman, have their way with you. If you cut a deal with a coyote’s representative (and 80 to 90 percent do), you still must buy all that black clothing and gear, house and feed yourself. Then one day, when you are told to move, you’ll get in a van with 20 to 40 other pollos and ride 60 miles of bumps and dust to la línea. Each passenger pays $25. The vans do not move with fewer than 17, prefer at least 20, and do, at a minimum, three trips a day. A friend of mine recently did the ride and counted 58 vans moving out in two hours…In this sector of the line, the 262-mile-long Tucson Sector, a few hundred will officially die each year. Others will die and rot in the desert and go uncounted. A year ago, a woman from Zacatecas disappeared in late June. Her father came up and searched for weeks to find her body in the desert, a valley of several hundred square miles. He stumbled on three other corpses before finding the remains of his own child.

In “We Bring Fear,” his last piece for Mother Jones, he told the story of Emilio Gutiérrez Soto, a Mexican journalist fleeing north for his life, not from the cartels per se, but the Mexican Army units working with them. In “The Sicario,” his last piece for Harper’s (edited by the amazing John Jeremiah Sullivan Bill Wasik), he told the tale of a former cartel hit man who’d dismember and bathe people in acid while keeping them alive via adrenaline shots just to torture them a bit more. There was the story for Esquire where he attempted to and largely succeeded in redeeming Gary Webb, the journalist who came under attack after claiming the CIA had aided inner-city drug dealers in a ploy to help fund the Contras. (Despite that piece and others vindicating much of his reporting, Webb killed himself, something that Bowden never got over.)

Bowden got all these people to open up to them because he liked a good story, even if it came from a “bad” person, and besides, there’s no good or bad on the border, “there is only this fact: We either find a way to make their world better or they will come to our better world.”

I got the call from Scott Carrier on Saturday, near midnight. Scott, who’s a writer and radio producer—if you’ve ever heard “Running After Antelope” or any of his other This American Life pieces, you’ll remember them—and Chuck had been friends and mutual admirers for years. He’d once interviewed Chuck talking about writing in a short film by Lisa Miller, every writer should watch it (posted below, as are links to other eulogies). I’d seen Scott just a few months before. Had he seen Chuck recently? I’d asked then. Scott hadn’t. He’d been dealing with some hard times, he explained, and didn’t want to burden his friend. I told him I’d heard Chuck was not doing well, and maybe Scott would go see him? I put this to Scott because I knew he’d do it—when my car broke down as I made the cross-country trip moving to California, he drove me from Salt Lake City to San Francisco, took a nap, and turned around to drive the 736 miles back—and because I was still a little angry by proxy for Chuck’s former partner, another “nice and proper” woman who’d been left behind. Mostly, though, I was probably just feeling ashamed that I’d let so much time elapse since the last time I’d enjoyed “Bowden ear.”

Scott did go see Chuck, on assignment from High Country News to write a profile of him (due out next month). And so Molly Malloy, Chuck’s current partner—a journalist behind the border news site Frontera List who’d who’d helped Chuck (and our fact-checkers) with the story of Emilio—called Scott within a few hours of finding Chuck’s body.

There’s a pending autopsy, but does it matter exactly what killed him? There was a lot of hard living, though less of late, Molly says. But Scott believes and I believe that it was the toxic residue of what he saw and reported—which he sometimes claimed he’d quit trying to do, before going on another binge of reporting and writing—that was the underlying cause. “A literary career should be not a career but a passion. A life. Fueled in equal parts by anger and love.” So wrote Edward Abbey in “A Writer’s Credo,” one of Chuck’s touchstones. Chuck kept going because he loved to write. And because he kept hoping his work would lead to change, but it never did, not really, not in a big way, not enough. He’d write about how the migration, the globalization, the forces of addiction and lucre and deviance were as unstoppable as hurricanes. But part of him needed to believe that he’d stop at least some of it. If not him, who?

“He wanted me to do it, he wanted other people to do it, because he didn’t want to be alone out there,” says Scott. “I’d ask: ‘Why do you do this?’ And he was like, ‘Why the fuck don’t you?’ He didn’t say that out loud. He never did. To me or to anyone. But I think he thought that all the time.”

Here’s a collection of eulogies and pieces about Chuck Bowden:

Jim Nelson and other editors at GQ
Molly Molloy, Mary Martha Miles, and former colleagues via the Tucson Sentinel

NPR
Tom Zoellner and Luis Urrea via the Los Angeles Times

Bill Conroy of Narco News

Drawing of Chuck Bowden courtesy of the artist Alice Leora Briggs

Continued:  

“I Still Live.” A Remembrance of Charles Bowden

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Prepara, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on “I Still Live.” A Remembrance of Charles Bowden

No, Obama’s Ukraine Policy Isn’t “Muddled”

Mother Jones

Time’s Michael Scherer writes today about President Obama’s foreign policy:

“NATO must send an unmistakable message in support of Ukraine,” Obama said. “Ukraine needs more than words.”

The rhetoric hit its marks. The message, however, was muddled.

As he finished his speaking engagements, several questions remained about how he intends to deal with the multiple foreign policy crises facing his administration. He again condemned Russian incursions into Ukraine, and promised new U.S. and European help to train, modernize and strengthen the Ukrainian military. But his “unmistakable message” of support stopped short of defining or ruling out any additional U.S. military role should Russian aggression continue.

While he pointedly promised to defend those countries in the region who are signatories to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Obama offered no similar assurances to Ukraine, even as he highlighted that country’s voluntary contributions to NATO military efforts. Instead, Obama asked for a focus on a peace process that seems, for the moment, elusive.

“Since ultimately there’s no military solution to this crisis, we will continue to support Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s efforts to achieve peace because, like all independent nations, Ukraine must be free to decide its own destiny,” he said, minutes after the Kremlin denied reports it had reached a ceasefire with Ukraine. As NATO leaders gather to consider imposing additional economic sanctions on Russia, Obama hailed the success of the U.S.-led sanctions regime, which has hurt the Russian economy but without stopping additional Russian military aggression in Ukraine.

This was not the only issue on which he left gray areas.

For excellent reasons, foreign policy statements nearly always include gray areas, so it would hardly be news if that were the case here. But it’s not. In fact Obama’s statement was unusually straightforward. He said the same thing he’s been saying for months about Ukraine, and it’s really pretty clear:

We are committed to the defense of NATO signatories.
Ukraine is not part of NATO, which means we will not defend them militarily.
However, we will continue to seek a peaceful settlement; we will continue to provide military aid to Ukraine; and we will continue to ratchet up sanctions on Russia if they continue their aggression in eastern Ukraine.

You might not like this policy. And maybe it will change in the future. But for now it’s pretty straightforward and easy to understand. The closest Obama came to a gray area is the precise composition of the sanctions Russia faces, but obviously that depends on negotiations with European leaders. You’re not going to get a unilateral laundry list from Obama at a press conference.

The rest of Scherer’s piece is about ISIS, and it’s at least a little fairer to say that policy in this area is still fuzzy. But Obama has been pretty forthright about that, and also pretty clear that a lot depends on negotiations with allies and commitments from the Iraqi government. That’s going to take some time, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

I should add that nobody on the planet—not even John McCain!—knows how to destroy ISIS. Everybody wants some kind of magic bullet that will put them out of business without committing any ground troops, but nobody knows what that is. So until one of the blowhard hawks comes up with an actual plan that might actually work, I’ll stick with Obama’s more cautious approach. I figure he’ll do something, but only when politics and military strategy align to provide a plausible chance of success. In the meantime, mindlessly demanding more bombs—the only action that most of Washington’s A-list apparently considers worthy of a commander-in-chief—is just stupid.

Excerpt from:

No, Obama’s Ukraine Policy Isn’t “Muddled”

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No, Obama’s Ukraine Policy Isn’t “Muddled”

ISIS is a Problem That Only Iraqis Can Solve

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Christopher Paul and Colin Clarke have studied 71 insurgencies during the post-WWII period and have concluded that every successful counterinsurgency shared several characteristics. They apply the results of their research to the problem of the ISIS insurgency in Iraq:

First, we found that in every case where they succeeded, counterinsurgent forces managed to substantially overmatch the insurgents and force them to fight as guerrillas before getting down to the activities traditionally associated with counterinsurgency….U.S. air power could make a significant contribution toward that end. Airstrikes will help curb Islamic State advances in strategically important parts of Iraq and thus, help bolster the Iraqi government and security forces, at least in the short term.

Second, we concluded from the research that “effective COIN practices tend to run in packs”….Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) techniques identified three COIN concepts critical to success. These three concepts were implemented in each and every COIN win, and no COIN loss implemented all three: Tangible support reduction; commitment and motivation; and flexibility and adaptability.

….U.S. support to an Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy to defeat the Islamic State must focus on reducing tangible support to the insurgents, increasing the commitment and motivation of the Iraqi military and security forces and increasing the government’s legitimacy among Iraqi Sunnis.

It’s been a long time since I spent much time reading about COIN and COIN strategies, but this basically sounds right to me. And it should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who thinks the US should get deeply involved in fighting ISIS.

Here’s why. One of the key factors that I remember identifying during the height of the Iraq insurgency was local commitment. In a nutshell, it turns out that virtually no postwar COIN effort led by a big Western country has been successful. Western help is OK, but the COIN effort has to be led by the local regime. It’s not a sufficient condition for success, but it’s a necessary one.

Paul and Clarke are basically confirming this. Sure, American air strikes might help in terms of the sheer firepower needed to successfully fight ISIS. But of the other three key COIN practices, two are purely local and the third is mostly local. There’s very little the United States can do to help out on these fronts. Only the Iraqi government can increase its legitimacy among the Sunni minority, and only the Iraqi government can properly motivate its military. (The US can provide training and materiel, but it can’t provide commitment and motivation.) Even the problem of reducing tangible support for the ISIS insurgents is mostly something only the Iraqi government can do. The US can help, but only if Iraqis are leading the way.

At the moment, there’s little evidence that the Iraqi government is capable of doing any of these three things. The new government of Haider Al-Abadi might be able to make progress on these fronts, but it hasn’t demonstrated that yet. Until it does, more US help is almost certainly doomed to failure.

Instinctive hawks should think long and hard about this. The record of the United States in counterinsurgencies is dismal. If the conditions are just right, we might be able to do some good in Iraq. At the moment, though, the conditions are appalling. We can put a few fingers in some dikes, but unless and until the Iraqi government steps up to the plate, there’s virtually no chance that deeper US involvement will turn out well.

Visit site: 

ISIS is a Problem That Only Iraqis Can Solve

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on ISIS is a Problem That Only Iraqis Can Solve

Inflation Is Still the Great Bogeyman of the Rich

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Paul Krugman is trying to figure out why wealthy elites are so damn obsessed with the dangers of moderately higher inflation. After all, in a deep recession, inflation is likely to spur economic growth, and that helps rich folks. Their assets increase in value and they become even richer. So what’s their problem?

In a post yesterday, Krugman refers to my suggestion that it’s mostly a case of septaphobia, or fear of the 70s. The idea here is that inflation really did run out of control in the 70s, and it really did take a massive recession engineered by Paul Volcker to rein it in. If that was one of your seminal experiences of the consequences of loose money, then it’s no surprise that you fear inflation. But Steve Randy Waldman says this is “bass-ackwards”:

Elites love the 1970s. Prior to the 1970s, during panics and depressions, soft money had an overt, populist constituency….The 1970s are trotted out to persuade those who disproportionately bear the burdens of an underperforming or debt-reliant economy that There Is No Alternative, nothing can be done, you wouldn’t want to a return to the 1970s, would you?

Quite right. Because the high inflation of the 70s really was painful for the middle class, the 70s do indeed serve a very useful purpose to elites who want to keep fear of inflation alive. But that begs the question: Why do they want to keep fear of inflation alive? The fact that elites have hated inflation forever isn’t an answer. During the days of the gold standard, high inflation really did hurt the wealthy. But today’s economy is vastly different from the hard-money + financial repression economy of the 70s and before. Inflation is much less threatening to the rich than it used to be. Why haven’t they figured this out?

I’m not sure, but I do want to note that both Krugman and Waldman have at least partly misunderstood me. Although I do think that septaphobia is a real thing, I mainly think it’s a real thing for the non-rich. It’s primarily the middle class that fears a rerun of the 70s. That might have been a bit muddled in my initial post (which Krugman linked to), but I made this clearer in a subsequent post about the roots of inflation phobia:

So what’s the deal? I’d guess that it’s a few things. First, the sad truth is that virtually no one believes that high inflation helps economic growth when the economy is weak….Second, there’s the legitimate fear of accelerating inflation once you let your foot off the brake….Third, there’s the very sensible fear among the middle class that high inflation is just a sneaky way to erode real wages….Fourth, there’s fear of the 70s, which apparently won’t go away until everyone who was alive during the 70s is dead. Which is going to be a while.

Krugman responds to Waldman here, and even though Waldman says my argument is bass-ackwards, I actually think he and I mostly agree. Krugman may be right that higher inflation would help the rich right now, and that they’d support it if they were smart. But Waldman argues there’s more to it. Basically, he thinks the rich are fundamentally conservative: inflation might help them on average, but there are still going to be plenty of losers whenever there’s an engineered change to the economy. Since the rich, by definition, are already doing pretty well, why risk it?

I think that’s probably right, though Waldman probably overstates its importance. Wealthy elites aren’t that conservative, especially when it comes to making money. Still, it’s almost certainly a significant factor. But I also think Krugman is right about false consciousness. In fact, that was #1 on my list above: the fact that virtually no one really, truly believes in Keynesian stimulus. (Waldman makes this point too.) If rich elites really did believe that a bit of high inflation would get the economy booming, I think they’d swallow their innate conservatism and support it. But they don’t. Almost no one really believes it in their guts.

That’s a failure of the economics profession, perhaps, but it’s also a legacy of septaphobia. After all, if you take a look solely at the surface—and that’s what most of us do, rich and poor alike—what’s the lesson of the 70s? That’s easy: Inflation got out of control and the economy went to hell. Then Paul Volcker reined in inflation, and the economy boomed. What’s more, the rich have prospered mightily in the 30 years of low inflation since then. So why mess with a good thing?

So yes: It’s septaphobia, both in a real sense and as a useful morality tale. It’s false consciousness from wealthy elites who don’t really believe that inflation will spur the economy. And it’s the innate conservatism of the rich, who don’t have much incentive to accept change when they’re already doing pretty well. Add to that the fact that inflation phobia is an easy sell to voters because the middle class really does have reason to fear inflation, and you have everything you need to make it nearly impossible to convince people that a bit of higher inflation would be a good thing right now. And so we stagnate.

Read original article:

Inflation Is Still the Great Bogeyman of the Rich

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Inflation Is Still the Great Bogeyman of the Rich

Putin Brags About How Fast He Could Take Ukraine

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s the latest from Russia:

Vladimir Putin has said Russian forces could conquer the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, in two weeks if he so ordered, the Kremlin has confirmed.

Moscow declined to deny that the president had spoken of taking Kiev in a phone conversation on Friday with José Manuel Barroso, the outgoing president of the European commission….Barroso asked Putin about the presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Nato says there are at least 1,000 Russian forces on the wrong side of the border. The Ukrainians put the figure at 1,600.

“The problem is not this, but that if I want I’ll take Kiev in two weeks,” Putin said, according to La Repubblica.

The Kremlin did not deny Putin had spoken of taking Kiev, but instead complained about the leak of the Barroso remarks.

Yes, the leak is the real problem here. Invading Ukraine is a mere piffle.

See the article here:  

Putin Brags About How Fast He Could Take Ukraine

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Putin Brags About How Fast He Could Take Ukraine

In the Restaurant Biz, It Pays To Be a Man

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Via Wonkblog, here’s a chart showing the pay gap between men and women in the restaurant industry. It comes from a recently released EPI report, and as you can see, not only are men better paid in virtually every category, but the premium goes up for the highest paying jobs. Bussers and cashiers are paid nearly the same regardless of gender. But when you move up to cooks, bartenders, and managers, the premium ranges from 10-20 percent.

This data isn’t conclusive. There are other reasons besides gender for pay gaps, and the EPI report lists several of them. Whites make more than blacks. High school grads make more than dropouts. Older workers make more than younger ones. You’d need to control for all this and more to get a more accurate picture of the gender gap.

But in a way, that misses the point. There are lots of reasons for the gender gap in pay. Some is just plain discrimination. Some is because women take off more time to raise children. Some is because women are encouraged to take different kinds of jobs. But all of these are symptoms of the same thing. In a myriad of ways, women still don’t get a fair shake.

View post:  

In the Restaurant Biz, It Pays To Be a Man

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In the Restaurant Biz, It Pays To Be a Man

White Privilege? What White Privilege?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s the latest from the annals of criminal justice in America:

Beverly Hills police officials said Tuesday that it was “extremely unfortunate” that officers handcuffed and detained an African American film producer who was in the city to attend a pre-Emmy party.

Producer Charles Belk “matched the clothing and physical characteristics” of a suspected bank robber when he was pulled over by officers on Friday evening….“Hey, I was ‘tall,’ ‘bald,’ a ‘male’ and ‘black,’ so I fit the description.”

Come on, Charles! Buck up. Mistakes can happen. I’m sure the Beverly Hills PD would have treated a white guy who fit the description of a bank robber exactly the same way. In fact, I’ll bet this happens all the time to Bill O’Reilly.

See more here:  

White Privilege? What White Privilege?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on White Privilege? What White Privilege?

Chart of the Day: The Federal Deficit Is In Pretty Good Shape These Days

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

You already know this—don’t you?—but just to refresh your memories, here’s the latest projection of the federal deficit from the Congressional Budget Office. As you can see, for the entire next decade CBO figures that the deficit will be running at a very manageable 3 percent of GDP, right in line with historical averages. Be sure to show this to all your friends who are consumed with deficit hysteria. There’s really not much reason to panic about this.

Now, CBO’s forecast doesn’t take into account future booms or busts in the economy, since they can’t predict those. And as the chart makes crystal clear, that’s what causes big changes in the deficit. It’s the economy, stupid, not runaway spending. When times are good, the deficit shrinks. When times are bad, it gets worse. If you really want to avoid big deficits in the future, stop obsessing about cutting spending on the poor, and instead spend some time obsessing about economic policies that will help grow the economy.

Continue reading: 

Chart of the Day: The Federal Deficit Is In Pretty Good Shape These Days

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chart of the Day: The Federal Deficit Is In Pretty Good Shape These Days