Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Stuff happens

Mark Zuber, a parent of a child at Big Sky High School in Missoula, had a stronger reaction when a teacher showed the video to his daughter last year. “There was not one positive thing about capitalism in the whole thing,” Mr. Zuber said. New York Times
David Seaton's News Links
I stumbled onto this film in yesterday's New York Times and was amazed by it's incredible coherence and power of synthesis. Here, take a look at it.


Annie Leonard presents "The Story of Stuff"

Now, what amazes me and, as a child of 1950s America, pleases me even more, is that this film is a viral hit all over the USA... because the parent in Montana that complained that the message of the film is anticapitalist is absolutely right... it certainly is anticapitalist.

In fact this video is one of the shortest, clearest, encapsulated and most brutally lucid devastations of capitalism since Marx and Engels whipped out the "Communist Manifesto" way back in 1848.

Again, let me emphasize that more than its exceptional brilliance of exposition, I am impressed by its wide success and acceptance.
So far, six million people have viewed the film at its site, storyofstuff.com, and millions more have seen it on YouTube. More than 7,000 schools, churches and others have ordered a DVD version, and hundreds of teachers have written Ms. Leonard to say they have assigned students to view it on the Web. New York Times
You can see why the right wing is constantly making fun of ecology, global warming and the plight of baby seals and polar bears etc. They can see the writing on the wall. Environmentalism is the wedge that is opening people's consciousness and creating a mass movement of a new and oppressed social class, which I would call "the breathing class". Because, yes, breathing has finally come into contradiction with our economic system.

Now, I have no doubt that there are many among the good and the great that manage our affairs and guide our destinies who would rather make money than breathe and I wonder and shudder to think what mischief they are going to come up with to put a stop to all this nonsense. DS

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

It's been a long time coming...

David Seaton's News Links
"We are in trouble today because we have allowed a culture of corruption and dishonesty to permeate our institutions and pollute our public discourse." Stephen M. Walt
Who would expect that such a noted "realist" in foreign affairs as Stephen Walt would say something so innocent. If only it were that simple. In reality the problem is systemic, not a result of individual or collective frailty.

As Daniel Gross wrote in Slate,
In the past few months, we've been riveted and disgusted by the exploits of scamsters like Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford (characters who, if they didn't exist, would have to be invented by Tom Wolfe). It's both easy and convenient to hold them up as the ultimate symbols of the just-ended boom. But we shouldn't. While there was some crime in the mortgage industry, law-abiding, respectable, upstanding citizens caused the overwhelming majority of financial losses suffered thus far. Skeezy money managers and mobbed-up boiler rooms didn't create the economic catastrophe. It was visited on us by firms in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500—companies that trace their origins back to the 1800s, run by graduates of Yale and Harvard. The people who blew up the system weren't anarchists.
That we are surprised and offended by the behavior of these supposedly "law-abiding, respectable, upstanding citizens" is itself a throwback to our pre-industrial past.

One of the most interesting insights of Eric Hobsbawm, perhaps the world's foremost living historian, is that early capitalism inherited from previous phases of civilization such as feudalism and the bourgeois revolution, a wealth of valuable social assets that were fundamental to its initial success.


Social and cultural assets such as thrift, the postponing of gratification, the importance of the family unit and even what the Bible calls "the fear of God" were fundamental in creating the "work ethic" that was essential to the early success of capitalism.


However important these values might have been to our capitalist system in its foundational moment, the system in itself is indifferent to them, for its only focus is on continuous and unlimited growth and profits.


When finally push comes to shove, if something cannot be qualified on a balance sheet it will be seen as irrelevant, often with great and wrenching regret for those involved in taking the decisions, for those among us who must decide are also inheritors of western civilization and its moral and ethical values... but the logic of the system is the master, not they: that logic must take precedence over their feelings of common humanity.

A created reality has become more real than flesh and blood.

If thrift, sacrifice, solidarity, the family or any other value comes into conflict with growth and profit, it is simply left to wither. That is how the lean and lanky, thin lipped, American puritan, with his calloused hands, was inflated to obesity and taught to shake his booty and shop till he dropped.

Thomas Frank's book,
"The Conquest of Cool" , will fill in some of the blanks in this process for my readers.

And unfortunately, the collapse we are living through right now, being systemic, an
organic crisis, has no easy remedy. Trying to stabilize an unstable system is just as likely to destabilize it further.

Intervening
in complex systems without complete knowledge is extremely perilous. It would be wise to be skeptical of stimulus plans and other remedies; unless those who intervene have the skill and knowledge of brain surgeons - economists don't - the cure will often be worse than the disease.

Jeffery Sachs (yes, the same man who once
nearly destroyed Russia while "reforming" it) wrote this in The Scientific American :
The U.S. political-economic system gives evidence of a phenomenon known as “instrument instability.” Policy makers at the Federal Reserve and the White House are attempting to use highly imperfect monetary and fiscal policies to stabilize the national economy. The result, however, has been ever-more desperate swings in economic policies in the attempt to prevent recessions that cannot be fully eliminated. President Barack Obama’s economic team is now calling for an unprecedented stimulus of large budget deficits and zero interest rates to counteract the recession. These policies may work in the short term but they threaten to produce still greater crises within a few years.(...) The lessons of the high inflation of the 1970s had supposedly chastened policy makers against trying to fine-tune the economy. The quest for never-ending full employment had contributed to high inflation in that decade, which required years of economic pain to wring out of the system. Monetary policies thereafter were supposed to be “steady as she goes,” not trying to smooth out every fluctuation and business cycle in the economy. During the decade from 1995 to 2005, then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan over-reacted to several shocks to the economy. When financial turbulence hit in 1997 and 1998—the Asian crisis, the Russian ruble collapse and the failure of Long-Term Capital Management—the Fed increased liquidity and accidentally helped to set off the dot-com bubble. The Fed eased further in 1999 in anticipation of the Y2K computer threat, which of course proved to be a false alarm. When the Fed subsequently tightened credit in 2000 and the dot-com bubble burst, the Fed quickly turned around and lowered interest rates again. The liquidity expansion was greatly amplified following 9/11, when the Fed put interest rates down to 1 percent and thereby helped to set off the housing bubble, which has now collapsed. We need to avoid reckless short-term swings in policy.
Nobody is better qualified than Jeffery Sachs to know how tinkering can turn into tampering and how that tampering can destroy the lives and fortunes of millions.

What we are living today is perhaps history's most complete illustration of our "alienation": we are "strangers" to ourselves... every human being in the world has awakened at the same time to discover that everyone, everywhere lives in a system that we humans have created, but whose chaotic complexity has made it as uncontrollable as the weather and perhaps even less predictable.

Our economic system seems to be even more powerful than the weather, which it also seems to be destroying. It is certainly not our friend.


We are in no way its master, it is ours: we never have controlled it really, but this simultaneous, worldwide collapse brings that truth home and that is what is most unsettling about it. Our helplessness in the face of our "Frankenstein".


Like Gertrude Stein's, "a rose is a rose is rose", I would tell Professor Walt that, "We are in trouble today because we are in trouble today, because we are in trouble today".

That sense of helplessness is what is going to deepen and define this generation's sojourn: putting humanity back into the hands of humanity will be its challenge.
DS

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Party's over: uppity Chinese and Indian workers spur inflation

David Seaton's News Links
Gee granddad, is this what Marx called, the "contradictions of capitalism"? What does that mean, exactly pops? Well sonny let's' look at this workmanlike definition from the Online Dictionary of Social Science:
CONTRADICTIONS OF CAPITALISM
The term is associated with Karl Marx (1818-1883) who claimed that capitalist societies suffered from two unresolvable problems that would prevent both social harmony and a stable economic life. First, Marx assumed that the competitive processes of a capitalist market society would lead to a concentration of capital ownership in fewer and fewer hands. Marx built this claim on the assumption, which he holds in common with laissez faire economics, that a competitive economy must lead inevitably to the elimination of some producers by others, there must be winners and losers and the winners would grow increasingly large. Capitalism, Marx argued, contrary to the general assumption of laissez faire economics, had an inherent tendency towards concentration of capital in oligopolies and monopolies. The concentration of capital involved, first of all, the displacement of the handworker and the craftsworker and increasing domination of factory-based technology. An industrial proletariat of wage workers emerged, and grew larger, as independent producers were eliminated by factory-based competition. Capitalist corporations grew more concentrated and larger, the number of individuals owning the means of production became fewer. The class structure becomes polarized and the economic and social conditions of the two opposed main classes more strongly contrasted, leading to political activation of the working class and prolonged conflict with the dominant bourgeois class through political and industrial organization. It is this development of social polarization that provides the unsolveable social or relational contradiction of capitalist society. The social organization of a capitalist society also presented an inherent structural contradiction in the economic dynamics of capitalism. While capitalism revolutionized the means of production by promoting the greatest economic development in human history, its class structure focused the capacity to consume in a tiny minority of the population. The mass social scale of production could not remain compatible with the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. As a result, there must be inherent instability, or anarchy, in the whole capitalist system of production. The social effects of such instability in turn must intensify the political struggle of social classes hastening the event of socialist revolution.
You'll notice that it all pretty much makes sense until you get to end bit about, "its class structure focused the capacity to consume in a tiny minority of the population." If you live in a developed country this sounds very strange because the great triumph of the system after WWII was to include ever greater numbers of heretofore working class people into a new, property owning middle class. Probably if you have access to the Internet, you feel yourself a member of this class by 'birthright', don't kid yourself, in the USA it took rivers of blood, but that is another story. I also say "if you live in a developed country". Because if you live in a underdeveloped country, the text makes sense as read.... up till "day before yesterday" and maybe still.

Now, however, this phenomenon of the "new" middle class is hitting China and India and may even be timidly approaching parts of Africa... And that is where the system seems to heading into a brick wall.

On one hand we have global warming... Imagine what we'll have to do for air and water if every Chinese and Indian aspires to the life style of the "average American" and if the Africans even dream of making it to the lifestyle of the average Chinese, they better wake up and apologize because otherwise we go directly to "Soylent Green".

And on the other hand, as this article from the Wall Street Journal shows, "Chinese, Indian Labor Long Damped Prices, But Effect Is Reversing."... They are demanding and getting better wages in order to consume, are consuming and inflation is rising. We are just a hop, skip and a jump away from Marx making sense once more. DS

Years of Global Growth Raise Inflation Worries - Wall Street Journal

Chinese, Indian Labor Long Damped Prices, But Effect Is Reversing

By MARCUS WALKER in Berlin, GREG IP in Washington and ANDREW BATSON in Beijing
June 6, 2007; Page A1

For the past decade, low-priced labor from China, India and Eastern Europe has helped much of the world enjoy economic growth without the sting of inflation. Now that damper on prices is beginning to reverse -- and global inflation pressure is starting to build.

Companies in many countries are operating at close to full capacity, facing shortages of everything from land to equipment. Western workers and their low-cost rivals both are winning higher pay, thanks to rising demand. In some cases, the global links of the economy are increasing costs rather than lowering them, as far-flung businesses compete for the same resources.

Central banks are increasingly worried about spare production capacity running out -- which could force them to raise rates to their highest level in years to stave off inflation. That could puncture the ebullience of stock and bond markets, which have become accustomed to a rare combination of fast growth, low inflation and low interest rates.

Already long-term interest rates are on the rise, in anticipation: U.S. 10-year Treasury bonds hit a nine-month high of nearly 5% yesterday. "Markets have gotten used to the idea that the global economy will keep producing downward pressure on prices," says Ken Rogoff, a Harvard economics professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. "But that phase may be ending."

In remarks to a bankers conference in South Africa yesterday, U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said rising Chinese domestic costs could eventually feed through to U.S. imports, but likely would only have "modest" effect. Still, he reiterated that risks to moderating inflation "remain to the upside" in the U.S. because demand is high relative to capacity.

European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet has warned that European industries have little scope left to raise production, and has asked unions to show restraint in seeking wage increases for the overall health of the economy. The bank is expected to raise rates when it meets today.

Germany's engineering sector, the mainstay of its export-led revival, is operating at 93% of capacity, leaving the lowest amount of slack since the 1960s. Amid falling unemployment, Germany's most powerful union, IG Metall, recently pushed through a pay raise of 4.1% to cover much of the manufacturing sector this year.

The Bank of England raised interest rates last month in part because "there might be less disinflationary pressure in the global economy," according to the minutes of the meeting. The cost of consumer goods in the United Kingdom has stabilized after falling persistently for many years under pressure from imports, and more U.K. manufacturers plan to raise prices than at any time since the mid-1990s, according to the Confederation of British Industry.


Even the price of Chinese exports such as furniture and clothing is rising, and provincial authorities there raised long-stagnant -- and still tiny -- minimum wages by an average of 21% last year. Indian outsourcing giant Infosys Technologies recently raised entry-level wages 10% and expects to do so again amid increasing competition for its workers.

To be sure, globalization still is helping contain some price pressures, and growth is still strong. Inflation remains moderate, at around 2% in industrialized countries and not much above 5% in many developing countries. The lack of price pressure has allowed central banks to leave their short-term interest rates 1.25 percentage points lower, on average, than at the peak of the world's 1990s economic boom, J.P. Morgan says -- even though the world economy is growing even faster now.

The flood of cheap imports into the U.S. has benefited consumers there and subtracted about one percentage point a year from U.S. inflation for the past decade, says the International Monetary Fund. Goldman Sachs economists said in a report last week, "There are pockets where inflation has risen more than expected, but the most recent evidence ... is that inflation is receding," especially in the U.S. and Japan.

Still, signs are now multiplying that global growth is fueling inflation rather than restraining it, says Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and a nonvoting member of the Fed's policy committee. "More and more, I hear people complain about the rising costs of [hiring] Indian M.B.A.s or the wages paid to Chinese workers," he says. As an inflation-damper, he adds, global capacity has gone from "tailwind to a headwind."

Bruce Kasman, chief economist at J.P. Morgan Chase, warns investors world-wide have been underestimating central banks' willingness to raise rates to avoid a repeat of the spiraling inflation of the 1970s, the last time the world economy grew as strongly as today. It won't require much higher rates, he says, to "cause significant damage in the markets."

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher, who has long championed globalization's influence on U.S. inflation, says that influence has gone from good to bad. "There is a sense things are more expensive," he said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Global crosscurrents from China and India and other fast-growing developing nations are raising some costs in the developed world. U.S. farmers, for instance, are paying more to export grain because the large ships they use are busy serving China's booming domestic market. The price to use the ships has risen to almost $50,000 a day from $17,000 last year, says Oivind Lorentzen III, president Northern Navigation America Inc., a Stamford, Conn.-based shipping company.

The collision between rising demand and tight supply is evident in Germany, which is leading the 13-nation euro currency area to its fastest growth since the tech boom. Hanover-based tire manufacturer Continental AG says it's struggling to meet extra orders of tires from makers of trucks and cargo trailers, many of whom underestimated the surging demand for commercial transport.

"We're basically sold out," says managing director Hans-Joachim Nikolin. This month, Continental raised its tire prices by up to 5%, partly passing on the cost of natural rubber, which has soared amid high demand from Asia.

The shortage of tires poses a problem in turn for companies like Schmitz Cargobull AG, Europe's largest maker of cargo trailers. The company had planned to make around 44,000 trailers in the year through March, up 30% from the previous year. Instead, it ended up making 52,000 as demand for transporting goods and materials around Europe soared, notably in the fast-growing economies of Europe's ex-communist east. Europe's tire makers didn't have enough tires available to cover the extra production, so Schmitz's purchasing manager Josef Buddenkotte flew to China to buy more tires there to hold down the surge in costs. Schmitz expects to make 65,000 trailers in the year ahead, and has just raised its prices by 3.5%.

Schmitz added a third production shift to cover demand, but with Germany's labor market tightening, has had to pay bonuses to attract enough staff. Schmitz also will have to digest a 4.1% rise in wages this year, under German industry's deal with the IG Metall union.

Demand for wood is booming too, including for the specially treated plywood that Schmitz uses in its trailers. Finnish forestry-products company UPM can't get enough birch timber from Russia at the moment: Mild weather and muddy ground impeded logging this winter, and Russian authorities are planning to raise export duties. "We can serve long-time partners, but new customers can't be served at all at the moment," says Joachim Stinsky, German sales manager at UPM. The price of some of UPM's wood products has risen 20% in the past year, he says.

The rising production costs are passed on to logistics companies that buy or hire trucks and trailers. They too are struggling to meet demand. "The cargo space that's available simply isn't enough," says Heiko Gnam, head of purchasing at Stuttgart-based logistics firm Diehl Spedition. The daily price for chartering a truck has gone up by 10% to 15% in the past year, he says.

In the U.S., central bankers are paying closer attention to the short supply of goods and services around the world. As trade swells, the prices of goods and services are increasingly determined in world markets rather than simply in the U.S. market.

U.S. import prices excluding oil rose 2.9% in the year through April, the fastest clip in 18 months. Employers are boosting wages because despite a slowdown in economic growth, unemployment hovers near a six-year low of 4.5% overall and just 1.9% for professionals. Doug Pruitt, chief executive of Sundt Companies Inc., a Tempe, Ariz., commercial builder, says the long slump following the 2001 recession masked a shortage of skilled professionals that has turned more acute as demand rebounded. He often pays signing bonuses of $10,000 to $20,000 for engineers, project managers, superintendents and estimators.

Labor shortages have constrained Sundt's ability to grow. The company, with annual sales of about $850 million, has turned down $150 million to $200 million of work in the past two years. "I ran this office for 11 years, and we never turned down anything," Mr. Pruitt says. He says he's been charging 12% more than he would have for the same project a year ago.

In China, heavy investment in new factories and infrastructure means the economy is still gaining plenty of new production capacity for the future, a trend that hasn't been stopped by the central bank's modest recent interest-rate increases. Domestic consumer-price inflation there remains low. But labor costs for exporters on the booming coast, who expected to benefit indefinitely from cheap migrant labor to migrate from inland, are going up.

China's export prices rose by 5.3% on average in the year to March, according to China's customs agency, a sharp pickup from a 2.9% gain in the year to last December. Gains are coming both from labor-intensive goods such as textiles and energy-intensive produce like steel. Surveys regularly show that a majority of employers can't fill all of their available jobs, from textile workers in the south to software programmers in the northeast.

At the same time, several hundred million Chinese are still scraping out a living on farms. In theory, they could triple their incomes by taking a job in manufacturing or construction. But the demand for labor and its supply are often not in the same place. In practice, the rural population in the interior can't all move away at once to the coast, where industry and foreign investment are concentrated.

With China's economy looking set to grow by 10% or more for a fifth straight year, employers are aiming to expand their work force by an average of 13%, according to a survey by the labor ministry. That growth is starting to empower workers. Most measures show Chinese wages have been rising by 10% or more annually for several years straight, though rapid gains in productivity have helped contain employers' total labor costs.

Still, migrants from rural areas are getting more assertive: As rising crop prices have boosted farm incomes in the past couple of years, they've also lifted people's expectations of factory life. Prospective migrants are looking for 16% higher wages than a year ago, according to a survey by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. "Migrant workers are getting more advanced in their thinking. They are looking at the factory's environment, living conditions, and different kinds of benefits. Now, the workers are the boss," says Hong Yong, who runs a furniture factory in Shunde, Guangdong province.

China's government, under political pressure to address rising inequality, also wants to see higher wages and better social protections for workers. Zhu Changlin, vice chairman of China's furniture makers association, says employers can no longer get away with not paying unemployment insurance and other benefits to staff.

Many furniture manufacturers estimate their labor bill will rise 20% this year, on top of higher costs for wood and other raw materials. Building new factories also is getting more expensive: Land prices are rising as the rapid growth of industrial parks in crowded coastal provinces starts to hit limits.

China also is gradually dismantling administrative practices that have kept prices for electricity, fuel and water far below market levels. In a report this month, China's central bank said the changes would lead to a "certain increase in the overall price level."

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Rebuilding the left - 3 - back to basics

When we see politics permeate every sector of life, we call it totalitarianism. When religion rules all, we call it theocracy. But when commerce dominates everything, we call it liberty. Benjamin R. Barber - Los Angeles Times
David Seaton's News Links
One of the most interesting things that Howard Dean has been pushing of late is the idea of the Democrats campaigning on "values": Not abandoning that field to the Republicans without a fight. That there could be some common ground between conservatives and liberals on what constitutes an optimum, human experience: A 'decent' life. I think that this is a powerful idea whose time has come.

In a previous post I had a clipping about a grade school in Louisiana where the dear little 5th graders fornicate on the classroom floor when teacher is absent. Here, for example is something people of both conservative and liberal views might find equally troubling and have a common, human, "catcher in the rye" impulse to do something to change. The welfare of children is a theme that unites and where there isn't a huge amount of daylight between parents of the entire political spectrum. Let's develop that theme in more detail:

Here is an interesting "values-driven" piece by Benjamin R. Barber from the Los Angeles Times, which gives a concentrated critique of today's capitalism.
The crises in subprime mortgages betrays a deeper predicament facing consumer capitalism triumphant: The "Protestant ethos" of hard work and deferred gratification has been replaced by an infantilist ethos of easy credit and impulsive consumption that puts democracy and the market system at risk.(...) Capitalism's success, however, has meant that core wants in the developed world are now mostly met and that too many goods are now chasing too few needs. Yet capitalism requires us to "need" all that it produces in order to survive. So it busies itself manufacturing needs for the wealthy while ignoring the wants of the truly needy. Global inequality means that while the wealthy have too few needs, the needy have too little wealth. Capitalism is stymied, courting long-term disaster. We still work hard, but only so that we can pay and play. In order to turn reluctant consumers with few unsatisfied core needs into permanent shoppers, producers must dumb down consumers, shape their wants, take over their life worlds, encourage impulse buying, cultivate shopoholism and invent new needs. At the same time, they empower kids as shoppers by legitimizing their unformed tastes and mercurial wants and detaching them from their gatekeeper mothers and fathers and teachers and pastors. The kids include toddlers who recognize brand logos before they can talk and commodity-minded baby Einsteins who learn to shop before they can walk. Consumerism needs this infantilist ethos because it favors laxity and leisure over discipline and denial, values childish impetuosity and juvenile narcissism over adult order and enlightened self-interest, and prefers consumption-directed play to spontaneous recreation. The ethos feeds a private-market logic ("What I want is what society needs!") and combats the public logic fashioned by democracy ("What society needs is what I want to want!").(...) Compare any traditional town square with a modern suburban mall. In the square, you'll find a school, town hall, library, general store, park, movie house, church, art gallery and homes — a true neighborhood exhibiting our human diversity as beings who do more than simply consume. But our new town malls are all shopping, all the time. When we see politics permeate every sector of life, we call it totalitarianism. When religion rules all, we call it theocracy. But when commerce dominates everything, we call it liberty. Can we redirect capitalism to its proper end: the satisfaction of real human needs? Well, why not? The world teems with elemental wants and is peopled by billions who are needy. They do not need iPods, but they do need potable water, not colas but inexpensive medicines, not MTV but their ABCs. They need mortgages they can afford, not funny-money easy credit. READ IT ALL
Barbour is basically saying that "all that is solid melts into air". The latest build of our economic system is destroying individuals, families, cultures, the environment and communities. We are living in a self-inflicted hell. In Barbour's article we can see that the issue of child welfare is linked to issues as diverse as public space and the Protestant ethos. He also points out the Achilles heel of our economic system, perhaps its principal contradiction: its over-productivity. The system just produces too much stuff and if it can't sell it all we suffer and if it does manage to sell it all we suffer even more. In producing so much useless stuff it destroys the environment too.

Howard Meyerson in the Washington Post writes about the great American multinational corporation's campaign to prevent the creation of labor unions in their Chinese workplaces. It is obvious that capitalism and political freedom are in no way connected and may well be arch antagonists.
Listen to the apostles of free trade, and you'll learn that once consumer choice comes to authoritarian regimes, democracy is sure to follow. Call it the Starbucks rule: Situate enough Starbucks around Shanghai, and the Communist Party's control will crumble like dunked biscotti. As a theory of revolution, the Starbucks rule leaves a lot to be desired. Shanghai is swimming in Starbucks, yet, as James Mann notes in "The China Fantasy," his new book on the non-democratization of China, the regime soldiers on. Conversely, the American farmers who made our revolution didn't have much in the way of consumer choice, yet they managed to free themselves from the British. In New England, however, they did have town meetings, which may be a surer guide to the coming of democratic change. It's a growing civil society -- a sphere where people can deliberate and decide on more than their coffee -- that more characteristically sounds the death knell of dictatorships. Which is why the conduct of America's corporate titans in China is so disquieting. There, since March of last year, the government has been considering a labor law that promises a smidgen of increase in workers' rights. And since March of last year, the American businesses so mightily invested in China have mightily fought it.(...) It's not as if Chinese unions would use these laws to run roughshod over employers. Chinese unions are not, strictly speaking, unions at all. They remain controlled by the Communist Party. Their locals can be and frequently are headed by plant managers, whether the workers want them or not. And yet, these changes proved too radical for America's leading corporations.(...) Andreas Lauff, a Hong Kong-based corporate attorney, wrote in the Jan. 30 Financial Times, "comments from the business community appear to have had an impact." The new draft "scaled back protections for employees and sharply curtailed the role of unions."(...) Admittedly, a few nettlesome issues remain. First, about one-fourth of the global labor force is in China. Opposing steps toward the formation of unions there suppresses the wages of so many workers that its effect is felt worldwide. Second, since authoritarian China remains an adversary of the United States and a backer of some genuinely dangerous authoritarian regimes, blocking even the most modest steps toward the development of a civil society and democratic rights there poses a threat to U.S. security interests. READ IT ALL
Some hoary old Marxist lounging on the ash heap of history might raise himself up on an elbow and be heard to croak something to the effect that the system had "entered into contradiction". Community, civil society, the family, the air and the water... and even or especially, independent thought are enemies of this version of "prosperity". Margaret Thatcher maintained that "society" doesn't "exist". Perhaps she was a prophetess. Certainly that is the direction we are taking.

Returning to the opening idea of common ground between progressives and the devout Christians. Certainly both have more in common with each other than with the economic system that we have been discussing.

The left as it was explained to me by word and example (unfortunately more of the former than the latter) is about, equality, austerity and the value of work and most of all about the brotherhood of those who work. The Catholic, "Blessed" (official title) Mother Teresa of Calcutta spoke of "the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God" and so, using the exact same words, do the thoroughly un-Catholic Freemasons. Even Confucius say, "The man of human-heartedness is one who desiring to sustain himself, sustains others, and desiring to develop himself, develops others; that may be called the way to practice human-heartedness."

So we might begin by dividing up people between the "human-hearted" and those who, while belonging to the species and living from it, are unconcerned for its welfare. The Spanish writer Ramón María del Valle Inclán, had a character named the "Marqués de Bradomin", who divided everything and everyone in the universe into two major categories:
the Marqués de Bradomin and everything else. How does this sort of personality develop? Richard Conniff writing in the New York Times has this to offer on the subject:
Let’s begin with what I call the “Cookie Monster Experiment,” devised to test the hypothesis that power makes people stupid and insensitive — or, as the scientists at the University of California at Berkeley put it, “disinhibited.” Researchers led by the psychologist Dacher Keltner took groups of three ordinary volunteers and randomly put one of them in charge. Each trio had a half-hour to work through a boring social survey. Then a researcher came in and left a plateful of precisely five cookies. Care to guess which volunteer typically grabbed an extra cookie? The volunteer who had randomly been assigned the power role was also more likely to eat it with his mouth open, spew crumbs on partners and get cookie detritus on his face and on the table. It reminded the researchers of powerful people they had known in real life. One of them, for instance, had attended meetings with a magazine mogul who ate raw onions and slugged vodka from the bottle, but failed to share these amuse-bouches with his guests. Another had been through an oral exam for his doctorate at which one faculty member not only picked his ear wax, but held it up to dandle lovingly in the light.(...) The researchers went on to theorize that getting power causes people to focus so keenly on the potential rewards, like money, sex, public acclaim or an extra chocolate-chip cookie — not necessarily in that order, or frankly, any order at all, but preferably all at once — that they become oblivious to the people around them. Indeed, the people around them may abet this process, since they are often subordinates intent on keeping the boss happy. So for the boss, it starts to look like a world in which the traffic lights are always green (and damn the pedestrians). Professor Keltner and his fellow researchers describe it as an instance of “approach/inhibition theory” in action: As power increases, it fires up the behavioral approach system and shuts down behavioral inhibition.(...) The bottom line: Without power, people tend to play it safe. Given power, even you and I would soon end up living large and acting like idiots. READ IT ALL
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity are the basic values.

Christians are given to asking themselves, "what would Jesus do?" and not even a hardened atheist would ever suggest that Jesus would act like any of the jerks described in Conniff's column. So it shouldn't be that difficult to get from "Am I my brother's keeper?", The Beatitudes, the parable of the Good Samaritan etc, etc to universal public health care plus decent public education.

So I think Howard Dean is really onto something of genuinely revolutionary potential. Something, that combined with political micro-financing and participatory democratic activism could reshape and humanize the face of America and American politics. DS

Friday, December 01, 2006

Krugman on the coming recession - NYT

David Seaton's News Links
The bursting of the housing bubble has an objective effect on the economy, of course, but I'm more interested in the subjective effects of the loss of value of the only thing most Americans possess that is of any real value. What is the subjective cost of the loss of the "wealth effect": the idea that one is rich because of the sharp rise in the paper value of one's dwelling? As the disaster in the Middle East gathers speed and steam and its complex knock-on effects make themselves evident, we could be looking at the sinister synergies of a massive "feel bad" movement. If a war went sour with everybody feeling rich it would be different from losing a war when people are feeling recently impoverished... There is a good chance that we'll soon be looking at a "perfect storm" of pessimism. DS
Abstract: The last time things were this confused was early in 2001, when most economists failed to realize that the United States was sliding into recession. If that sounds ominous, it should: the bond market, which has a pretty good record of forecasting recessions, is pointing toward a serious economic slowdown next year. Before I explain what the bond market is telling us, let’s talk about why the economy may be at a turning point. Between mid-2003 and mid-2006, economic growth in the United States was fueled mainly by a huge housing boom... That housing boom has now gone bust. But the optimists and pessimists disagree both about how bad the bust will get and about how much damage the housing slump will do to the economy... Most, though not all, of the ... economic numbers that came out this week were ... substantially weaker than expected. Pessimists feel vindicated by the downbeat data. Nouriel Roubini..., who has been forecasting a housing-led recession for some time, ... predicts zero growth for the current quarter. Economists at Deutsche Bank say the same thing.(...) most forecasters are still telling us not to worry. So whom should you listen to? And how can you avoid believing what you want to believe? Maybe the best answer is to look at what the financial markets say. Not the stock market, which is a notoriously bad indicator of the economy’s direction, but the bond market. (Paul Samuelson, the Nobel Prize-winning ... economist, famously quipped that the stock market had predicted nine of the last five recessions). Since last summer, when the housing bust became unmistakable, interest rates on long-term bonds have fallen sharply. They’re now yielding much less than short-term bonds. The fact that investors are willing to buy those long-term bonds anyway tells us that these investors expect interest rates to fall. And that will happen only if the economy weakens, forcing the Federal Reserve to cut rates. So bond buyers are, in effect, betting on a future economic slowdown. How serious a slump is the bond market predicting? Pretty serious. Right now, statistical models ... give roughly even odds that we’re about to experience a formal recession. And since even a slowdown that doesn’t formally qualify as a recession can lead to a sharp rise in unemployment, the odds are very good — maybe 2 to 1 — that 2007 will be a very tough year. Luckily, we’ve got good leadership for the coming economic storm: the White House is occupied by a man who’s ideologically flexible, listens to a wide variety of views, and understands that policy has to be based on careful analysis, not gut instincts. Oh, wait. READ IT ALL (bootleg)