“Though the slavery question is settled, its impact is not. The question will be with us always. It is in our politics, our courts, on our highways, in our manner, and in our thoughts all the day, every day.” – Cornelius Holmes
As a historian, I know slavery has left a deep scar on America. The reasons are many. I have found wisdom in the words of Cornelius Holmes, a former slave, interviewed in 1939, a man who saw brutality and separation of families. Holmes shared the dreams and melodies before freedom and then witnessed the reality of freedom.
One reason for my current retrospection is the fine essay by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the June issue of the Atlantic arguing that reparations are deserved and long overdue. He has gathered an amazing array of facts about racism, economics, violence and the role of the U.S. government, implicit and explicit. With pinpoint clarity, Coates has focused a scholarly light that shines into all the dark corners of this shameful chapter in our history. Continue reading Lonnie Bunch: America’s Moral Debt to African Americans | Smithsonian→
An Iowa mother said this week that the Des Moines school board may have gone easy on a white teacher who told her black son to call him “master.”
Roosevelt High School student Jabre White, 17, recalled to The Des Moines Register the way his teacher, Shawn McCurtain, had told the class to head downstairs for a final exam in economics in mid-May.
“Yes, sir,” Jabre White remembered telling the teacher.
Who is to blame for the dramatic rise in inequality in recent years? The bankers, many people say. According to this view, the financial sector is guilty of triggering the global economic crisis that began in 2008 and still affects millions of middle-class families in Europe and the United States, who’ve seen their purchasing power diminish and job prospects wither. The outrage is amplified by the fact that not only have the bankers and financial speculators escaped punishment for their blunders, but many are now even richer than they were before the crash. Others blame growing inequality on wages in countries like China and India, where low salaries depress incomes of workers in the rest of the world. Asia’s cheap labor compounds the problem because it creates unemployment in countries where companies close factories and “export” jobs to cheaper markets overseas. Still others see technology as the culprit. Robots, computers, the Internet, and greater use of machines in factories, they say, are replacing workers and thus boosting inequality.
The true explanation is a lot more complicated, says Thomas Piketty, the French economist whose influential Capital in the Twenty-First Century has turned into a global sensation. In many countries, Piketty argues, capital (which he equates with wealth in the form of real estate, financial assets, etc.) is growing at a faster rate than the economy. The income produced by capital tends to be concentrated in the hands of a small group of people, whereas income from labor is dispersed throughout the entire population. Therefore, when capital earnings increase faster than wages, inequality grows because those who own capital accumulate a higher proportion of income. And given that growth in wages is directly dependent on the growth of the economy as a whole, economic inequality is bound to get worse if the economy expands at a slower clip than capital earnings.
Piketty summarizes this complicated theory with the formula “r > g” where “r” is the rate of return on capital and “g” is the rate of growth in the economy. The future is dire, he concludes, because he expects the economies of the countries he surveyed to grow at a rate of 1 to 1.5 percent per year, while the average return on capital increases at a rate of 4 to 5 percent per year. Inequality, in other words, is bound to rise. To avoid this, Piketty calls for a progressive tax on wealth in large countries—an idea that even he concludes is utopian. He acknowledges the enormous political hurdles that his proposal would face and the huge practical difficulties that would accompany its implementation. Last week, the Financial Times claimed that it had found grave defects in Piketty’s work, provoking an ongoing debate about his analysis. Nonetheless, most impartial observers believe that the issues with Piketty’s data are not serious enough to completely discredit his overall conclusions.
[. . .]
In order for this discussion to be valuable, however, the problem requires a more complete diagnosis. It is not accurate to assert that in countries like Russia, Nigeria, Brazil, and China, the main driver of economic inequality is a rate of return on capital that is larger than the rate of economic growth. A more holistic explanation would need to include the massive fortunes regularly created by corruption and all kinds of illicit activities. In many countries, wealth grows more as a result of thievery and malfeasance than as a consequence of the returns on capital invested by elites (a factor that is surely at work too).
Health care reform was supposed to relieve the financial strain on hospitals that have provided a lot of free charity care to poor and uninsured patients. The reform law, known as the Affordable Care Act, was expected to insure most of those patients either through expanded state Medicaid programs for the poor or through subsidized private insurance for middle-income patients, thereby funneling new revenues to hospitals that had previously absorbed the costs of uncompensated care.
In return for the new income streams, hospitals that treat large numbers of the poor and get special subsidies to defray the cost would have those subsidies reduced on the theory that they would no longer need as much help.
But after the Supreme Court ruled that the reform law could not force states to expand their Medicaid programs, 20 or more states declined to do so. That failure has hurt some big urban hospitals, because their charity care burden remains essentially the same even as their federal aid has been cut. Even in California, which has expanded its Medicaid program, public hospitals that serve the poorest patients could face a big funding shortfall in future years, according to a study just published by researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles.
There are three things we know about man-made global warming. First, the consequences will be terrible if we don’t take quick action to limit carbon emissions. Second, in pure economic terms the required action shouldn’t be hard to take: emission controls, done right, would probably slow economic growth, but not by much. Third, the politics of action are nonetheless very difficult.
I’ve been looking into that issue and have come to the somewhat surprising conclusion that it’s not mainly about the vested interests. They do, of course, exist and play an important role; funding from fossil-fuel interests has played a crucial role in sustaining the illusion that climate science is less settled than it is. But the monetary stakes aren’t nearly as big as you might think. What makes rational action on climate so hard is something else — a toxic mix of ideology and anti-intellectualism.
I’ve noted in earlier columns that every even halfway serious study of the economic impact of carbon reductions — including the recent study paid for by the anti-environmental U.S. Chamber of Commerce — finds at most modest costs. Practical experience points in the same direction. Back in the 1980s conservatives claimed that any attempt to limit acid rain would have devastating economic effects; in reality, the cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide was highly successful at minimal cost. The Northeastern states have had a cap-and-trade arrangement for carbon since 2009, and so far have seen emissions drop sharply while their economies grew faster than the rest of the country. Environmentalism is not the enemy of economic growth.
Charles Blow’s op-ed today is the perfect complement to Professor Krugman’s.
Because of the current make-up of our politics, the current tides in them, America’s historical relationship with religion and its place in all of our lives, we need to account for the current push-pull struggle between the theocrats and the plutocrats in their quest to establish supremacy.
What more perfect marriage is there than the obscene amounts of business money in our politics and the teachings of the theocrats in changing the way we view science and believe in scientific facts?
To read the rest of this op-ed and my comment, click here.
AMONG Americans age 40 and older, there’s a pastime more popular than football, Candy Crush or HBO.
It’s bashing millennials.
Oh, the hours of fun we have, marveling at their self-fascination and gaping at their sense of entitlement! It’s been an especially spirited romp lately, as a new batch of them graduate from college and gambol toward our cubicles, prompting us to wonder afresh about the havoc they’ll wreak on our world.
For decades they’ll be saddled with our effluvium: a monstrous debt, an epidemic of obesity, Adam Sandler movies. In their lifetimes the Atlantic will possibly swallow Miami Beach (I foresee a “Golden Girls” sequel with dinghies and life preservers) and the footwear for Anchorage in February may be flip-flops. At least everyone will be saving on heating bills.
The Obama administration did unveil a bold climate-change measure last week. Or, rather, it signaled its intent to act: We’ll have to wait and see whether Congress figures out a way to foil the president or the courts gum things up. The plan as it stands would cut carbon pollution from American power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
Today’s young people, ages 18 to 24, should have been the lucky ones. They were preteens or teenagers when the recession hit in late 2007, with high school and college still ahead. Unlike those who had to enter the work force in the depths of the downturn, they had time, or so it seemed, to wait out the weak economy.
But that’s not how things have worked out. While the worst is over, economic conditions are still subpar, damaging the immediate job prospects and long-term living standards of young adults starting out now.
In recent years, the economy has grown annually at 2 percent or so. That’s too slow to make up the current shortfall of nearly seven million jobs, let alone to absorb new graduates or push up wages in jobs that do exist.
WASHINGTON — IN the last chapter, I covered how not to get high. In this one, I will cover how to get high.
After my admission that I did a foolish thing in Denver — failing to realize that consuming a single square, about a quarter, of a pot candy bar was dicey for an edibles virgin — many in the pot industry upbraided me for doing a foolish thing.
Justin Hartfield is the California founder of Marijuana.com and Weedmaps.com (a sort of Yelp for pot), and an entrepreneur involved in some of the nation’s top marijuana-technology companies. As The Wall Street Journal noted in a profile last March, the 30-year-old former high school pot dealer wants to be “the Philip Morris of pot.”
IF the excerpts currently circulating in the press are any indication, Hillary Clinton’s latest memoir will resemble pretty much every recent political memoir from a potential presidential candidate: That is, it will be chloroform in print.
Which no doubt troubles its “author” not at all. Clinton has every incentive to bore us, sedate us, lull us to sleep — to hit the snooze button, in effect, for as long as our politics makes possible. She is the rare presidential hopeful who has nothing whatsoever to gain from making news. Leading the Democratic presidential field by a Secretariat-esque margin; leading every potential Republican candidate by around 10 points; running far ahead of President Obama’s job approval numbers … if she had her way, all the months from here till 2016 would be consumed by devouring time without anything altering her current image.
And her desire converges almost perfectly with the interests of her party, even if not every liberal quite realizes it yet. That’s because Clinton’s iconic status is, increasingly, the only clear advantage the Democratic Party has. If her position is weakened, diminished or challenged, the entire coalition risks collapse.
Liberals don’t see this clearly yet because they tend to regard the Obama coalition as a left-of-center mirror-image of Nixon’s and Reagan’s conservative majority — a natural, settled and, thanks to demographic trends, growing presidential majority (if not a congressional one) that should deliver the White House to their party reliably for cycles to come.
Who is to blame for the dramatic rise in inequality in recent years? The bankers, many people say. According to this view, the financial sector is guilty of triggering the global economic crisis that began in 2008 and still affects millions of middle-class families in Europe and the United States, who’ve seen their purchasing power diminish and job prospects wither. The outrage is amplified by the fact that not only have the bankers and financial speculators escaped punishment for their blunders, but many are now even richer than they were before the crash. Others blame growing inequality on wages in countries like China and India, where low salaries depress incomes of workers in the rest of the world. Asia’s cheap labor compounds the problem because it creates unemployment in countries where companies close factories and “export” jobs to cheaper markets overseas. Still others see technology as the culprit. Robots, computers, the Internet, and greater use of machines in factories, they say, are replacing workers and thus boosting inequality.
Charles Blow’s op-ed today is the perfect complement to Professor Krugman’s.
