The world is now in full blown panic regarding the Zika virus, and its link to microcephaly, a rare disorder that causes newborns to develop abnormally small skulls and brains. Just today, there appeared this article in the BBC, and this article in the Daily Beast.
But in Brazil and Argentina, there is a growing controversy over whether Zika is the cause of the birth defect. Doctor's groups in both countries are claiming that the real cause of the birth defects is not Zika, but a chemical, pyriproxyfen, used in mosquito eradication programs.
GM Watch first reported on this last Wednesday, with a link to this report from an Argentine doctor's group. On Sunday, the southernmost state of Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul, suspended the use of the pesticide. Here is an article in Britain's Telegraph newspaper from yesterday, stating that the national government disagrees and insists that Zika is the cause of the birth defects.
As the doctor's group points out, Zika has been around for a long time. The pesticide has not. It's use in Brazil only began in 2014.
Why are there no reports about this in the American Press? Maybe this headline will give you a clue:
Report says Monsanto-linked pesticide is to blame for microcephaly outbreak - not Zika
Stay tuned.
16 February 2016
18 November 2015
Paris Fear
So first I hear that the people committing the Paris attack
were not immigrants. They were citizens of the EU – France and Belgium – and none of them were part of wave of refugees
that have been coming to Europe this year.
Even the alleged ringleader, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was born and raised in Belgium.
Next we hear that the report that the perpetrators communicated throughPlay Station 4 machines is bunk.
There is so much crap being made up to spread fear through the populace
that I don’t know where to begin.
But let’s begin here, with this question.
It was asked of Secretary of State John Kerry by Lester Holt of NBC news:
“Mr.
Secretary, we learned from Russia today that it was in fact a bomb that took
down the MetroJet over Egypt a couple of weeks ago. ISIS claimed
responsibility. ISIS apparently behind the Paris bombings. These are capabilities that no one apparently knew they had. How
could the US and the West expectations of ISIS be so wrong?”
The passage I highlighted
is what really got to me.
Capabilities no one thought
they had? Seriously? What the hell is Lester Holt talking about?
Everyone in the United
States has the capability of pulling off something like this.
We are awash with weapons. Any person who has a desire to commit mass
murder in the U.S. can get the kinds of guns that were used in Paris. And many of them have. That’s no great shakes. Hell, we have xenophobes saying we can’t letrefugees come to the U.S. because weapons are so freely available here.
Bombing airplanes? We know people have the capability of placing
a bomb in an airplane. That’s why we
screen everybody before we let them on the plane, from young children to little
old ladies. That’s why we screen luggage
before we pack it in the cargo bay.
Here's a picture of the bomb that was placed on the MetroJet (h/t TPM).
Looks like something a child could build.
The difference is that they
want to commit a mass killing, and are willing to do so.
We are never going to stop
people from being able to kill other human beings.
We need to focus on
stopping them from wanting to kill other human beings.
08 April 2015
Today's links:
The GOP's Campaign to Make You Hate the IRS
IRS Workers are Miserable and Overwhelmed
NY Budget Deal Includes Tax Breaks for Large Yachts and Private Planes This is really bad.
California, By the Nuts Nobody is making California's farms, especially including nut growers, conserve water during the drought.
Controversial Ukrainian Pianist Dropped From Toronto Symphony Orchestra Very similar to the Salaita case. Robert Reich hits the nail on the head about this whole topic in "When Big Money Sways Nonprofits, Public Loses."
Teeth Whitening at the Supreme Court. About an important case nobody is talking about.
What Part of "No, Totally" Don't You Understand?
Let the 2016 Presidential Poster Wars Commence!
The GOP's Campaign to Make You Hate the IRS
IRS Workers are Miserable and Overwhelmed
NY Budget Deal Includes Tax Breaks for Large Yachts and Private Planes This is really bad.
California, By the Nuts Nobody is making California's farms, especially including nut growers, conserve water during the drought.
Controversial Ukrainian Pianist Dropped From Toronto Symphony Orchestra Very similar to the Salaita case. Robert Reich hits the nail on the head about this whole topic in "When Big Money Sways Nonprofits, Public Loses."
Teeth Whitening at the Supreme Court. About an important case nobody is talking about.
What Part of "No, Totally" Don't You Understand?
Let the 2016 Presidential Poster Wars Commence!
13 June 2014
The Breakdown of the Neo-Classical Synthesis
Brad DeLong, Robert Waldman and Paul Krugman are having a conversation about the breakdown of the so-called "Neo-classical synthesis." The conversation begins with Joseph Stiglitz at the Minsky lecture in 2009:
I'm going to beg the question right up front and say, what the hell are we talking about here? When we ask the question of whether markets are efficient, there is an implied goal: are they efficient at doing what? In other words, what do we want the marketplace to do?
Frankly, I'm not certain there is consensus even on this basic point, whether among economists or in society as a whole.
Personally, I would describe the purposes of any economic system as (i) to produce or acquire goods and services, and (ii) to distribute the goods and services produced or acquired in a fair and equitable manner. At a minimum, the amount of goods and services produced should be sufficient ensure the survival of all members of the society. Ideally, the amount produced and the method of distribution should be sufficient to permit each member of society a minimum level of freedom. Because a person who must struggle merely to survive is a person who is not free.
I'll have more to say about this topic....
The advocates of free markets in all their versions say that crises are rare events, though they have been happening with increasing frequency as we change the rules to reflect beliefs in perfect markets. I would argue that economists, like doctors, have much to learn from pathology.We see more clearly in these unusual events how the economy really functions. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, a peculiar doctrine came to be accepted, the so-called “neoclassical synthesis.” It argued that once markets were restored to full employment, neoclassical principles would apply. The economy would be efficient. We should be clear: this was not a theorem but a religious belief. The idea was always suspect…Brad doesn't really state a position on all this, but explains the issue thusly:
There are, I think two lessons that can be drawn from big depressions. You can draw the Keynes lesson, which is also the Milton Friedman lesson, that if only you can stabilize the trend of aggregate demand (and compensate for externalities either through clever Pigovian taxes or ingenious Coaseian carving of property rights at the joints) then the competitive market system does absolutely fine. You can draw the Stiglitz lesson–which is that such a gross market failure in the large tells us that every single market everywhere in the world is probably riddled with smaller-scale market failures, and that comprehensive and detailed governmental structuring of institutions at every level–macro, mess, and micro–is necessary in order to properly promote the general welfare.Krugman basically says he is still a disciple of the synthesis:
The brand of economics I use in my daily work – the brand that I still consider by far the most reasonable approach out there – was largely established by Paul Samuelson back in 1948, when he published the first edition of his classic textbook. It’s an approach that combines the grand tradition of microeconomics, with its emphasis on how the invisible hand leads to generally desirable outcomes, with Keynesian macroeconomics, which emphasizes the way the economy can develop magneto trouble, requiring policy intervention. In the Samuelsonian synthesis, one must count on the government to ensure more or less full employment; only once that can be taken as given do the usual virtues of free markets come to the fore.....although with reservations:
It’s a deeply reasonable approach – but it’s also intellectually unstable. For it requires some strategic inconsistency in how you think about the economy. When you’re doing micro, you assume rational individuals and rapidly clearing markets; when you’re doing macro, frictions and ad hoc behavioral assumptions are essential.
I still think that the Keynes/Samuelson view is reasonable, although market imperfections loom larger in my mind than they used to. But these are not reasonable times …Waldman tends to lean towards the Stiglitz position:
So why is the Keynes-Friedman-Samuelson position unstable ? I note that on the questions of public policy where they all agreed, I tend to agree with them. However, I definitely do not believe in the neoclassical synthesis as described by Stiglitz. I don’t think that, even given full employment, markets are efficient. I tend to advocate leaving the market alone except for 1) redistribution from rich to poor 2) mandatory insurance is market insurance is prevented by the adverse selection death spiral 3) Pigouvian taxes to internalize externalities 4) aggregate demand management 5) Anti discrimination legislation and 6) I’m sure there are lots of other exceptions which don’t come to mind.Ok, with that background, what do I think of all of this?
I'm going to beg the question right up front and say, what the hell are we talking about here? When we ask the question of whether markets are efficient, there is an implied goal: are they efficient at doing what? In other words, what do we want the marketplace to do?
Frankly, I'm not certain there is consensus even on this basic point, whether among economists or in society as a whole.
Personally, I would describe the purposes of any economic system as (i) to produce or acquire goods and services, and (ii) to distribute the goods and services produced or acquired in a fair and equitable manner. At a minimum, the amount of goods and services produced should be sufficient ensure the survival of all members of the society. Ideally, the amount produced and the method of distribution should be sufficient to permit each member of society a minimum level of freedom. Because a person who must struggle merely to survive is a person who is not free.
I'll have more to say about this topic....
12 June 2014
We Are Becoming Brazil
Atrios links to this post about the 76ers new training facility:
I have a feeling that people in the U.S. will be doing the same pretty soon if this sort of bullshit doesn't stop.
Talk to Tom Knoche about the just-announced deal to move the NBA’s 76ers training facility from Philadelphia to Camden, and the Rutgers-Camden urban planning professor pointedly says: “What does this mean for the residents of Camden? Not much.”In Brazil, people are rioting in the streets over this sort of thing.
In a city that was ranked the poorest in the country last year and where the unemployment rate is 16.6 percent (double that of New Jersey and far beyond the national average of 6.3 percent), New Jersey’s Economic Development Authority is going to spend $82 million in tax subsidies to build a state-of-the-art venue in a deal that will deliver approximately 250 jobs. With 200 of those positions already filled, the state is paying a whopping $1.6 million per new job created.
EDA states that its mission is to create “public/private partnerships to bridge financing gaps and to increase access to capital by the State’s business community with an emphasis on small and mid-size businesses and not-for-profit organizations.” But the 76ers are no small business — they are owned by billionaire Joshua Harris and, as the Inquirer noted, the 76ers’ development broker is Philip Norcross, brother of State Sen. Donald Norcross, a Democrat who represents Camden.
State Sen. Michael Doherty sharply critiqued the deal in an official statement, saying “the facility will essentially be a free gift from the hard-pressed taxpayers of New Jersey to Joshua Harris, the billionaire owner of the team … Local governments are being forced to cut to the bone … How can New Jersey not make this year’s full pension payment, but the state government can find an extra $82 million for a basketball practice facility?”
I have a feeling that people in the U.S. will be doing the same pretty soon if this sort of bullshit doesn't stop.
10 June 2014
Wow! (UPDATED)
Just...wow!
Update: Just to add that I think Booman hits the nail on the head here:
There is literally no hope now that the Republican Party can do one thing to improve their performance with the Asian or Latino communities. In fact, since it is now evident that it is not sufficient to do nothing about immigration reform, but one must spend all day bellowing about the brown hordes crossing our border, Republican politicians are powerfully incentivized to loudly advertise their disgust with the changing demographics of the country. And they will. The GOP is guaranteed to do much worse with Asians and Latinos in 2016 than they did in 2008 or 2012.
Think about this. Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce and Agribusiness and the evangelical community all lobbied the House Republicans to pass immigration reform and they got nowhere. That is how incredibly racist the people are in these gerrymandered districts. When has the Republican Party ever before told those powerful conservative interests to go fuck themselves? Normally, when those groups speak, the GOP jumps to do their bidding.
Eric Cantor didn't lift a finger to pass a comprehensive immigration bill and he was voted out anyway because he wasn't enough of a hard-ass on the issue.
The effect of Cantor losing will be more important than the causes of his defeat. Some will argue that immigration wasn't the only or even primary reason he lost. That won't matter for presidential politics, because Republicans will behave very counterproductively in response to Cantor's loss.
But it's true that these white, rural, conservative Christian voters have no reason to be happy with the Republican Establishment. The Republican Establishment has been a disaster on foreign policy. They have not brought back the lost manufacturing jobs. They have been losing the culture war. They haven't overturned Roe v. Wade or stopped the march of gay rights. They haven't stopped the dissolution of the nuclear family. They haven't prevented a prescription drug epidemic in their communities. They've been losing elections.
They have not been delivering in any tangible way.
Except on guns. Guns, guns, guns. Look where that's getting us by scanning the headlines over the past couple of weeks
The GOP ramps up the hatred of gays and blacks and Latinos and Muslims and "takers" and liberals and academics and teachers and journalists and scientists and urban-dwellers and secularists and...
...they oversee the biggest growth in wealth disparity in ninety years and offer nothing for jobs but tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, and...
then they hand these aggrieved people guns, no questions asked.
Is it any wonder that every few days a new rivet pops and someone shoots up a school or a mall or Wal-Mart?
Non-Competes
Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution has an interesting piece up about non-competes which talks about how they reduce innovation and so overall are bad for the economy. It links to this New York Times article about how noncompetes are popping up everywhere.
Non-competes are proliferating everywhere. I know a woman who works at a beauty salon - one of a chain of nearly 600 franchises nationwide - making $10 an hour plus tips in NYC. She was made to sign a noncompete in order to get the job. Frankly, this is bordering on the ridiculous.
I'd like to know whether this sort of thing is becoming more prevalent in other kinds of low-wage jobs. It seems to me that if these clauses are enforceable employment becomes a sort of indentured servitude.
Noncompetes of this kind used to be unenforceable. I don't know what the state of the law is lately, but I would find it shocking if the noncompete that my friend signed could actually be enforced. But that's not really the point. There is an in terrorem effect that these kinds of clauses have. Most people like my friend wouldn't think twice about signing this because they need the job, but worry that if they leave their jobs they won't be allowed to work elsewhere. Just the threat of enforcement is enough to keep employees in line.
Frankly, I'd like to see this sort of thing be outlawed. Companies should not be allowed to insert clauses into contracts unless they are clearly enforceable. If they do so they should be fined.
Non-competes are proliferating everywhere. I know a woman who works at a beauty salon - one of a chain of nearly 600 franchises nationwide - making $10 an hour plus tips in NYC. She was made to sign a noncompete in order to get the job. Frankly, this is bordering on the ridiculous.
I'd like to know whether this sort of thing is becoming more prevalent in other kinds of low-wage jobs. It seems to me that if these clauses are enforceable employment becomes a sort of indentured servitude.
Noncompetes of this kind used to be unenforceable. I don't know what the state of the law is lately, but I would find it shocking if the noncompete that my friend signed could actually be enforced. But that's not really the point. There is an in terrorem effect that these kinds of clauses have. Most people like my friend wouldn't think twice about signing this because they need the job, but worry that if they leave their jobs they won't be allowed to work elsewhere. Just the threat of enforcement is enough to keep employees in line.
Frankly, I'd like to see this sort of thing be outlawed. Companies should not be allowed to insert clauses into contracts unless they are clearly enforceable. If they do so they should be fined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
