Robalini On Disinformation

States of Depression
Robalini
April 12, 2012
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/states-of-depression

Here’s an article from Paul Krugman in the New York Times about the state of the economy, and this quote pretty much sums up his verdict: “In fact, if it weren’t for this destructive fiscal austerity, our unemployment rate would almost certainly be lower now than it was at a comparable stage of the ‘Morning in America’ recovery during the Reagan era.”

Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, is about as “liberal” (whatever the hell that means in 2012) as the korporate media will allow at this point. He has often been highly critical of Barack Obama, especially during the 2008 Democratic Party race, when he was one of the few to note Obama’s economic policies were already in campaign mode decidedly to the right of both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

That said, Krugman provides the following evidence:

One way to dramatize just how severe our de facto austerity has been is to compare government employment and spending during the Obama-era economic expansion, which began in June 2009, with their tracks during the Reagan-era expansion, which began in November 1982.

Start with government employment (which is mainly at the state and local level, with about half the jobs in education). By this stage in the Reagan recovery, government employment had risen by 3.1 percent; this time around, it’s down by 2.7 percent.

Next, look at government purchases of goods and services (as distinct from transfers to individuals, like unemployment benefits). Adjusted for inflation, by this stage of the Reagan recovery, such purchases had risen by 11.6 percent; this time, they’re down by 2.6 percent.

And the gap persists even when you do include transfers, some of which have stayed high precisely because unemployment is still so high. Adjusted for inflation, Reagan-era spending rose 10.2 percent in the first 10 quarters of recovery, Obama-era spending only 2.6 percent.


Of course, there’s many reasons behind this (two obvious ones are cutbacks on the state level aided by a lack of support from Washington and the extreme right-wing economics embraced by the GOP) but there’s a more obvious elephant in the room: Obamanomics is a primary cause for our current economic malaise. Indeed, his already right-wing campaign prescriptions hidden behind inane, context-free mantras like “Change” and “Hope” have been followed by actual policies which are even more reactionary than supposed liberal demon Ronald Reagan.

Krugman, even with his history of criticism against Team Obama, avoids these implications that his stats reveal. He also avoids the even greater indictment: for all the failures of George W. Bush and his reign, to blame the unemployment and tepid economy of 2012 on him would be untruthful. Barack Obama may have inherited a really bad hand, but his policies now are the bigger cause for economic woes than eight years of Bush Jr. This is all the more appalling when one considers Obama came into office with sixty out of 100 Senators, a decided majority in the HOR, and a supposed vast popularity with the public that desired leadership to combat the economic crisis.

The punchline: as the positions of Mitt Romney are even more reactionary that Obama’s, it appears that we are headed for a lost decade of economic malaise at least until 2016, and probably even further as the economic status quo shifts decidedly to the right.

Read Krugman in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html
*
The Women Who Named The ‘Big Mac’ Received A Plaque
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/04/the-women-who-named-the-big-mac-received-a-plaque/

Wildfires, Cops, and Keggers

Katherine Wells 11/02/2011

Full Article:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/11/02/wildfires-cops-and-keggers-a-new-marketplace-podcast-on-election-time-mischief

Next week, dutiful voters will head to the polls for elections. Among the jobs up for grabs are the Kentucky and Mississippi governorships, the mayorship of San Francisco, and a smattering of municipal and state positions across the country. In many of these races, incumbents are fighting to keep their seats...

As Stephen Dubner explains to Kai Ryssdal, incumbents’ incentives change when they run for re-election. They might try to perform better, hiring more police or lowering taxes. But they also might cater more to special interests, giving out election-time favors and even enabling illegal activities.

We went out in search of various election-year anomalies and found some pretty interesting stuff. For example, Jeffrey Kubik of Syracuse University and John Moran of Penn State found that sin taxes change in the year after an election: beer taxes generally go up, while cigarette taxes are less likely to increase. Kubik and Moran think legislators up for re-election might raise cigarette taxes to avoid raising taxes on other, more important constituencies (like beer drinkers). There are a lot of reasons this could happen, but legislators might rather hike those beer taxes after an election, once they’ve safely won another term.

In another paper, Kubik and Moran analyzed data from 1977 to 2000 and found that executions are 25 percent more likely in gubernatorial election years.

Election-year shenanigans are hardly limited to the U.S. Arkadipta Ghosh, a researcher with Mathematica Policy Research, found that crime rates (especially property crime) drop in India the year before an election, and spike the year after. MIT economist Benjamin Olken found that deforestation in Indonesia increases in the year of a local election. (More on that study here.) In a similar vein, Spyros Skouras and Nicos Christodoulakis, professors at the Athens University of Economics and Business, analyzed cycles of forest fires in Greece. They found that in election years, wildfires burn 2.5 times the area than they do in non-election years — a possible byproduct of building-permit regulations that forbid development on forest land unless it has been burned by a wildfire...

Things tend to get even weirder in off-year elections. Sarah Anzia, a political science Ph.D. candidate at Stanford, looked at teacher pay and school-board elections and found that experienced teachers get paid more in districts that hold off-cycle elections. That’s because in low-turnout elections like these, interest groups like teachers’ unions can make a bigger impact at the polls.

It’s all the more reason why this year, unlike in other elections, it might actually be worth your time to go vote.

Human species 'may split in two'

Tuesday, 17 October 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6057734.stm

Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.
The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

Race 'ironed out'

But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

However, Dr Curry warns, in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology.

Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.

Receding chins

Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.

Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.

Further into the future, sexual selection - being choosy about one's partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality, said Dr Curry.

The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine.

"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is a possibility of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other, said Dr Curry.

He carried out the report for men's satellite TV channel Bravo.