Link here.
Friday, December 28, 2018
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison; Paris, September 6, 1789
"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."
Friday, December 21, 2018
Monday, December 3, 2018
Democrats make legislative gains over GOP in redistricting battle
“The Democrats have caught up and have expanded the conversation surrounding redistricting. You have multiple groups focused on it spending tens of millions of dollars,” Walter said. “They’re going to in all likelihood escalate their efforts, escalate their rhetoric, escalate the spending.”
Link here.
Monday, November 12, 2018
FAAH and MAGL inhibitors: therapeutic opportunities from regulating endocannabinoid levels.
This observation has suggested the possibility of targeting endocannabinoid-degrading enzymes to prolong the precisely regulated pro-homeostatic action of endocannabinoids. Two major enzymes have been cloned and investigated thoroughly: fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) and monoacylglycerol lipase (MAGL). Inhibitors of these enzymes have demonstrated therapeutic benefit in animal models of several disorders, including neuropathic pain, anxiety and inflammatory bowel diseases, as well as against the proliferation and migration of cancer cells. This review describes the major biochemical properties of FAAH and MAGL, and the design and pharmacological properties of inhibitors of these enzymes.
Link here.
Cannabidiol reduces the anxiety induced by simulated public speaking in treatment-naïve social phobia patients.
Pretreatment with CBD significantly reduced anxiety, cognitive impairment and discomfort in their speech performance, and significantly decreased alert in their anticipatory speech. The placebo group presented higher anxiety, cognitive impairment, discomfort, and alert levels when compared with the control group as assessed with the VAMS. The SSPS-N scores evidenced significant increases during the testing of placebo group that was almost abolished in the CBD group. No significant differences were observed between CBD and HC in SSPS-N scores or in the cognitive impairment, discomfort, and alert factors of VAMS. The increase in anxiety induced by the SPST on subjects with SAD was reduced with the use of CBD, resulting in a similar response as the HC.
Link here.
Monday, October 8, 2018
Science Says Happiness Can Change Your Brain
This is not a question of not experiencing emotions; it’s a question of not being enslaved by them. Let emotions arise, but let them be freed from their afflictive components: distortion of reality, mental confusion, clinging, and suffering for oneself and others.
Great virtue comes from resting from time to time in pure awareness of the present moment, and being able to refer to this state when afflictive emotions arise so that we do not identify with them and are not swayed by them.
--------------------------------
Afflictive mental states, on the other hand, begin with self-centeredness, with an increased gap between self and others. These states are related to excessive self-importance and self-cherishing associated with fear or resentment towards others, and grasping for outer things as part of a hopeless pursuit of selfish happiness. A selfish pursuit of happiness is a losing situation: You make yourself miserable and make others miserable as well.
Inner conflicts are often linked with excessive rumination on the past and anticipation of the future. You are not truly paying attention to the present moment but are engrossed in your thoughts, going on and on in a vicious circle, feeding your ego and self-centeredness.
This is the opposite of bare attention. To turn your attention inside means to look at pure awareness itself and dwell without distraction, yet effortlessly, in the present moment.
Great virtue comes from resting from time to time in pure awareness of the present moment, and being able to refer to this state when afflictive emotions arise so that we do not identify with them and are not swayed by them.
--------------------------------
Afflictive mental states, on the other hand, begin with self-centeredness, with an increased gap between self and others. These states are related to excessive self-importance and self-cherishing associated with fear or resentment towards others, and grasping for outer things as part of a hopeless pursuit of selfish happiness. A selfish pursuit of happiness is a losing situation: You make yourself miserable and make others miserable as well.
Inner conflicts are often linked with excessive rumination on the past and anticipation of the future. You are not truly paying attention to the present moment but are engrossed in your thoughts, going on and on in a vicious circle, feeding your ego and self-centeredness.
This is the opposite of bare attention. To turn your attention inside means to look at pure awareness itself and dwell without distraction, yet effortlessly, in the present moment.
Link here.
Monday, October 1, 2018
Fidget spinners, weighted blankets, and the rise of anxiety consumerism
Anxiety is now the most common mental illness in the US
Anxiety is quite possibly the defining characteristic for not only my own generation, but everyone alive at this particular time in history. It is already the most common mental health disorder in the US, affecting 18.1 percent of Americans each year and nearly one-third of Americans over their lifetimes, according to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America and the National Institute of Mental Health. And it’s quickly getting worse among college students: The American College Health Association found in its annual survey that in 2011, half of undergraduates reported they felt “overwhelming anxiety.” By 2017, 61 percent did.
Anxiety is quite possibly the defining characteristic for not only my own generation, but everyone alive at this particular time in history. It is already the most common mental health disorder in the US, affecting 18.1 percent of Americans each year and nearly one-third of Americans over their lifetimes, according to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America and the National Institute of Mental Health. And it’s quickly getting worse among college students: The American College Health Association found in its annual survey that in 2011, half of undergraduates reported they felt “overwhelming anxiety.” By 2017, 61 percent did.
Link here.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Why You Can’t Stop Creating Problems in Your Mind
If you feel like you can’t stop worrying, can’t stop creating problems for yourself, can’t stop shifting your anxiety from one corner of your life to the next, can’t just sit back and enjoy and be grateful and happy, it’s not because there’s something wrong with you. There’s something wrong with your understanding of the human brain and happiness.
We weren’t built to be “happy” in the way we think of happiness: carefree, grateful, excited.
We were born to survive, which is to create.
Suffering dissolves when we focus on creating rather than feeling. Instead of being at the whim of how the world makes us feel, we focus on how we can create what we want from what exists.
Good and bad become irrelevant when the focus isn’t “What can I enjoy?” But, rather, “What can I create?”
We weren’t built to be “happy” in the way we think of happiness: carefree, grateful, excited.
We were born to survive, which is to create.
Suffering dissolves when we focus on creating rather than feeling. Instead of being at the whim of how the world makes us feel, we focus on how we can create what we want from what exists.
Good and bad become irrelevant when the focus isn’t “What can I enjoy?” But, rather, “What can I create?”
Link here.
People Like You More Than You Think, a New Study Suggests
Several factors are likely driving the liking gap, Cooney says. For one thing, people may be so hyper-focused on their side of the conversation that they can’t accurately gauge how the other person is feeling. “We don’t know what other people are thinking, and so we substitute our own thoughts about ourselves for what other people think,” Cooney explains. “We’re basically projecting what we think of our own performance, and assume that’s what other people think of us.”
People tend to be harder on themselves than they are on new acquaintances. After a conversation, you can look back on everything you said wrong and mentally correct it, or remember instances when you were funnier, kinder or more eloquent. You don’t have the same mental catalogue for someone you’ve just met, so you may “take them more at face value and be much more charitable,” Cooney says.
That’s a potential problem, since underselling yourself socially may promote sadness and anxiety, or cause you to miss out on valuable personal interactions, Cooney says. While the study didn’t look into strategies for overcoming the liking gap, Cooney says simply knowing it exists is a good place to start.
“We always have this post-mortem with ourselves. That little voice in your head turns on, and you start thinking about your conversation,” Cooney says. “Be suspicious of this voice and its accuracy.”
People tend to be harder on themselves than they are on new acquaintances. After a conversation, you can look back on everything you said wrong and mentally correct it, or remember instances when you were funnier, kinder or more eloquent. You don’t have the same mental catalogue for someone you’ve just met, so you may “take them more at face value and be much more charitable,” Cooney says.
That’s a potential problem, since underselling yourself socially may promote sadness and anxiety, or cause you to miss out on valuable personal interactions, Cooney says. While the study didn’t look into strategies for overcoming the liking gap, Cooney says simply knowing it exists is a good place to start.
“We always have this post-mortem with ourselves. That little voice in your head turns on, and you start thinking about your conversation,” Cooney says. “Be suspicious of this voice and its accuracy.”
Link here.
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Financial Times’s Martin Wolf on finance as “a jungle inhabited by wild beasts”
The purchasers of promises will know that the sellers normally know much more than they do about their prospects. The name for this is “asymmetric information.” They will also know that those who have no intention of keeping their word will always make more attractive promises than those who do. This is “adverse selection.” They will know that even those who are inclined to be honest may be tempted… not to keep their promises. The source of this is “moral hazard.” The answer to adverse selection and moral hazard… is to collect more information. But this too has a drawback: “free-riding”… [T]hose who have made no investment in collecting [information] can benefit from the costly efforts of those who have… That will, in turn, reduce the incentive to invest in such information, thereby making markets subject to the vagaries of “rational ignorance.” If the ignorant follow those they deem to be better informed, there will be “herding.” Finally, where uncertainty is pervasive and inescapable — who, for example, knows the chances of nuclear terrorism or the economic impact of the internet? — the herds are likely both to blow and ultimately to burst “bubbles.”
Link here.
Link here.
Sunday, September 9, 2018
Partisanship’s a Helluva Drug — And It’s Reshaping the Economy
To test whether partisans used surveys to express their true beliefs about the economy or instead engaged in expressive reporting after the 2016 presidential election, we relied upon online search data from Bing in conjunction with survey data from MSN to estimate partisan purchasing behavior both before and after the election (all data used in this study was both anonymous and opt-in).
Time and again, search data have been shown to be strongly associated with real-world behavior, especially purchasing behavior. It’s a powerful predictor of economic activity—used to accurately predict a variety of economic indicators, including the stock market, automobile sales and housing prices—and is a significantly better predictor of consumption than consumer confidence indices.
For the purposes of our study, though, search is particularly useful because it assesses whether partisans actually changed their behavior, not just their opinions, during the post-election period. If partisan survey responses are just expressive reporting, there should be no change in searches for houses or cars. If, on the other hand, partisan survey responses represent genuine perceptions of the economy, this should be reflected in partisans’ search patterns.
Our study found that after Trump’s election, Democrats, as members of the losing party, became less likely to purchase cars and invest in real estate, as demonstrated by search patterns, even when controlling for geographic and demographic variation. And despite Republicans’ extremely high reported confidence in the economy, our study did not find a meaningful change in their purchasing patterns—all of which suggests that the positive consumer confidence numbers Trump likes to cite may not accurately represent many Americans’ economic experiences or behavior.
Time and again, search data have been shown to be strongly associated with real-world behavior, especially purchasing behavior. It’s a powerful predictor of economic activity—used to accurately predict a variety of economic indicators, including the stock market, automobile sales and housing prices—and is a significantly better predictor of consumption than consumer confidence indices.
For the purposes of our study, though, search is particularly useful because it assesses whether partisans actually changed their behavior, not just their opinions, during the post-election period. If partisan survey responses are just expressive reporting, there should be no change in searches for houses or cars. If, on the other hand, partisan survey responses represent genuine perceptions of the economy, this should be reflected in partisans’ search patterns.
Our study found that after Trump’s election, Democrats, as members of the losing party, became less likely to purchase cars and invest in real estate, as demonstrated by search patterns, even when controlling for geographic and demographic variation. And despite Republicans’ extremely high reported confidence in the economy, our study did not find a meaningful change in their purchasing patterns—all of which suggests that the positive consumer confidence numbers Trump likes to cite may not accurately represent many Americans’ economic experiences or behavior.
Link here.
The lesson we refuse to learn about Republican voters
This isn't just because Trump is a uniquely effective demagogue — though he is. It's also because the bulk of Republican voters simply do not reside in the same moral and epistemological world as the rest of the country, including its centrist establishment. These Republicans don't believe or trust anything they read in the mainstream media, or anything a Democrat or Republican critic of the president says. And they have no interest in or respect for high-minded statements of principle (about, say, the rule of law) that purport to transcend partisanship.
What these Republicans care about is prevailing against their opponents, period. Accusing these GOP voters of double standards is beside the point. It's true that if any Democratic president had been accused of even one-tenth of the charges swirling around Trump, Republicans would be calling for blood. But what does it prove to point this out? That Republicans are hypocrites? Sure they are. Proudly. They hate it when their enemies break norms and laws, and they love it when their teammates do the same thing. That's the mindset of someone willing to fight dirty. That's what they think it takes to win.
What these Republicans care about is prevailing against their opponents, period. Accusing these GOP voters of double standards is beside the point. It's true that if any Democratic president had been accused of even one-tenth of the charges swirling around Trump, Republicans would be calling for blood. But what does it prove to point this out? That Republicans are hypocrites? Sure they are. Proudly. They hate it when their enemies break norms and laws, and they love it when their teammates do the same thing. That's the mindset of someone willing to fight dirty. That's what they think it takes to win.
Link here.
Monday, September 3, 2018
Breaking the ‘Medici Vicious Circle’ – monopolization trends in advanced economies
On the product markets side, since 1997, more than 75 percent of the U.S. sectors experienced an increase in concentration levels as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index rising more than 50 percent on average across the U.S. economy. In line with the stock markets concentration evidence mentioned earlier, the size of the average publicly listed company in the U.S. as measured by market capitalization, went from $1.2 billion to $3.7 billion in constant dollars.
Three factors drive the above figures.
One: Entrepreneurship is on a decline. The rate of new company formations has fallen from 15 percent in 1975 to 14 percent in the 1980s, to 11 percent in 1995. In 2015, the rate was just above 8 percent. The quality of the new company formations, as measured by life expectancy of the firms and tangible returns on investment, have also deteriorated.
Two: Firms are getting larger not through organic growth in revenues, but through M&As. Over 1997-2017, average annual volumes of global M&A activities amounted to roughly one half of the entire nominal global GDP growth. At the end of May, global M&A deal flow was running double on the same period of 2017 to reach a total of $1.5 trillion of announced deals. U.S.-only deals account for about 37 percent of the global total in M&A transactions – a share that is more than 2.5 times greater than the relative share of the U.S. economy in global GDP on PPP-adjusted terms.
Three: The demise of the medium-sized firms. In the 1980s, only 20 percent of mid-cap companies had negative earnings per share. By 2015, that number stood at 50 percent.
Three factors drive the above figures.
One: Entrepreneurship is on a decline. The rate of new company formations has fallen from 15 percent in 1975 to 14 percent in the 1980s, to 11 percent in 1995. In 2015, the rate was just above 8 percent. The quality of the new company formations, as measured by life expectancy of the firms and tangible returns on investment, have also deteriorated.
Two: Firms are getting larger not through organic growth in revenues, but through M&As. Over 1997-2017, average annual volumes of global M&A activities amounted to roughly one half of the entire nominal global GDP growth. At the end of May, global M&A deal flow was running double on the same period of 2017 to reach a total of $1.5 trillion of announced deals. U.S.-only deals account for about 37 percent of the global total in M&A transactions – a share that is more than 2.5 times greater than the relative share of the U.S. economy in global GDP on PPP-adjusted terms.
Three: The demise of the medium-sized firms. In the 1980s, only 20 percent of mid-cap companies had negative earnings per share. By 2015, that number stood at 50 percent.
Link here.
Friday, August 31, 2018
The $30 trillion reason Republicans won’t turn on Trump
As far as Wall Street is concerned, it makes no difference whether a jury found Trump’s former campaign chair guilty of eight federal crimes or that Trump’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer pleaded guilty to eight counts himself.
Trump’s policies have been a boon to them — from the GOP tax cuts passed last year that slashed corporate rates, to the administration’s successful rollback of pieces of Dodd-Frank. Now they see a possibility for even more tax cuts. (Trump’s trade tactics have made investors nervous, but by and large, Wall Street has thus far shrugged them off.)
“Investors aren’t moved because most of Trump’s pro-market policies are already out there,” Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Cresset Wealth Advisors, said in an email. Investors in the $30 trillion US stock market have had a lot to celebrate this year.
Wall Street just isn’t shaken by any of this. “When it comes to the Trump news, investors are saying, ‘Tell me something I don’t know, or at least I didn’t expect,’” Stovall said.
Trump and congressional Republicans already delivered on their biggest promise to Wall Street — tax cuts — at the end of last year. They passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut bill that slashed the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent, and while most Americans will see tax savings, the bill overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy.
According to estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the top fifth of earners get 70 percent of the bill’s benefits, and the top 1 percent get 34 percent. The new tax treatment for “pass-through” entities — companies organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, or S corporations — will mean an estimated $17 billion in tax savings for millionaires in 2018. American corporations are rewarding their shareholders with stock buybacks this year, thanks in part to their tax savings.
Trump’s policies have been a boon to them — from the GOP tax cuts passed last year that slashed corporate rates, to the administration’s successful rollback of pieces of Dodd-Frank. Now they see a possibility for even more tax cuts. (Trump’s trade tactics have made investors nervous, but by and large, Wall Street has thus far shrugged them off.)
“Investors aren’t moved because most of Trump’s pro-market policies are already out there,” Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Cresset Wealth Advisors, said in an email. Investors in the $30 trillion US stock market have had a lot to celebrate this year.
------------------------------------------------------
Wall Street just isn’t shaken by any of this. “When it comes to the Trump news, investors are saying, ‘Tell me something I don’t know, or at least I didn’t expect,’” Stovall said.
Trump and congressional Republicans already delivered on their biggest promise to Wall Street — tax cuts — at the end of last year. They passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut bill that slashed the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent, and while most Americans will see tax savings, the bill overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy.
According to estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the top fifth of earners get 70 percent of the bill’s benefits, and the top 1 percent get 34 percent. The new tax treatment for “pass-through” entities — companies organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, or S corporations — will mean an estimated $17 billion in tax savings for millionaires in 2018. American corporations are rewarding their shareholders with stock buybacks this year, thanks in part to their tax savings.
Link here.
Sunday, August 26, 2018
How to interfere in a foreign election
American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret. On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: “Now this is the right way to serve Western interests. . . It’s to use the politically bland but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund.” After Yeltsin won, Time put him on the cover—holding an American flag. Its story was headlined, “Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win.” The story was later made into a movie called “Spinning Boris.”
This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country’s assets to looting on a mass scale. He turned the Chechen capital, Grozny, into a wasteland. Standards of living in Russia fell dramatically. Then, at the end of 1999, plagued by health problems, he shocked his country and the world by resigning. As his final act, he named his successor: a little-known intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country’s politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today.
This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country’s assets to looting on a mass scale. He turned the Chechen capital, Grozny, into a wasteland. Standards of living in Russia fell dramatically. Then, at the end of 1999, plagued by health problems, he shocked his country and the world by resigning. As his final act, he named his successor: a little-known intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country’s politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today.
Link here.
Thursday, August 23, 2018
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Edmund Burke on the French Revolution (and Republican Legislators)
“But when the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people. If any of them should happen to propose a scheme of liberty, soberly limited, and defined with proper qualifications, he will be immediately outbid by his competitors, who will produce something more splendidly popular. Suspicions will be raised of his fidelity to his cause. Moderation will be stigmatized as the virtue of cowards; and compromise as the prudence of traitors; until, in hopes of preserving the credit which may enable him to temper, and moderate, on some occasions, the popular leader is obliged to become active in propagating doctrines, and establishing powers, that will afterwards defeat any sober purpose at which he ultimately might have aimed.”
― Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France
― Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Saturday, August 18, 2018
The Myth of Home Ownership and Why Home Ownership is Not Always a Good Thing
CONCLUSION
"The cultural attachment to home ownership significantly influences public policy discussions about housing. In pursuing the home ownership dream, consumers routinely ignore the financial risks associated with making this large, long-term investment in real property. Though home ownership is touted and subsidized because it helps increase jobs, boosts the demand for goods and services, and helps build prosperity, no one wants to admit that U.S. businesses need potential or existing homeowners to go deeply into debt in order to maintain high corporate earnings for U.S. companies.
Though inconsistent with the home ownership myth, the time has come for consumers to start ignoring the immediate, likely short-term, end result of achieving the status of homeowner. To force consumers to consider the long-term risks on investing in a house, home ownership subsidies should encourage renters and potential homeowners to focus on the likely long-term benefits of the investment itself. This should cause homeowners to decide whether it is in their best interest to devote limited investment funds to purchasing a house and also to consider the economic consequences of a failed investment; that is, the inability to use those funds to make other investments, and potentially losing the home to foreclosure."
"The cultural attachment to home ownership significantly influences public policy discussions about housing. In pursuing the home ownership dream, consumers routinely ignore the financial risks associated with making this large, long-term investment in real property. Though home ownership is touted and subsidized because it helps increase jobs, boosts the demand for goods and services, and helps build prosperity, no one wants to admit that U.S. businesses need potential or existing homeowners to go deeply into debt in order to maintain high corporate earnings for U.S. companies.
Though inconsistent with the home ownership myth, the time has come for consumers to start ignoring the immediate, likely short-term, end result of achieving the status of homeowner. To force consumers to consider the long-term risks on investing in a house, home ownership subsidies should encourage renters and potential homeowners to focus on the likely long-term benefits of the investment itself. This should cause homeowners to decide whether it is in their best interest to devote limited investment funds to purchasing a house and also to consider the economic consequences of a failed investment; that is, the inability to use those funds to make other investments, and potentially losing the home to foreclosure."
Friday, August 17, 2018
Hume the humane
While Hume was lying aged 65 on his deathbed at the end of a happy, successful and (for the times) long life, he told his doctor: ‘I am dying as fast as my enemies, if I have any, could wish, and as easily and cheerfully as my best friends could desire.’ Three days before he died, on 25 August 1776, probably of abdominal cancer, his doctor could still report that he was ‘quite free from anxiety, impatience, or low spirits, and passes his time very well with the assistance of amusing books’.
When the end came, Dr Black reported that Hume ‘continued to the last perfectly sensible, and free from much pain or feelings of distress. He never dropped the smallest expression of impatience; but when he had occasion to speak to the people about him, always did it with affection and tenderness … He died in such a happy composure of mind, that nothing could exceed it.’
--------------------------------
Hume saw human beings as we really are, stripped of all pretension. We are not immortal souls temporarily encased in flesh, nor the pure immaterial minds Descartes believed he had proved we were. Humans are animals – remarkable, highly intelligent ones – but animals nonetheless. Hume did not just bring human beings down to Earth, he robbed us of any enduring essence. Arguing against Descartes’s claim that we are aware of ourselves as pure, undivided egos, Hume challenged that when he introspected, he found no such thing. What we call the ‘self’ is just a ‘bundle of perceptions’. Look inside yourself, try to find the ‘I’ that thinks and you’ll only observe this thought, that sensation: an ear worm, an itch, a thought that pops into your head.
Hume was echoing a view that was first articulated by the early Buddhists, whose ‘no-self’ (anattā) view is remarkably similar. He also anticipated the findings of contemporary neuroscience which has found that there is no central controller in the brain, no one place where the sense of self resides. Rather the brain is constantly executing any number of parallel processes. What happens to be most central to consciousness depends on the situation.
Link here.
When the end came, Dr Black reported that Hume ‘continued to the last perfectly sensible, and free from much pain or feelings of distress. He never dropped the smallest expression of impatience; but when he had occasion to speak to the people about him, always did it with affection and tenderness … He died in such a happy composure of mind, that nothing could exceed it.’
--------------------------------
Hume saw human beings as we really are, stripped of all pretension. We are not immortal souls temporarily encased in flesh, nor the pure immaterial minds Descartes believed he had proved we were. Humans are animals – remarkable, highly intelligent ones – but animals nonetheless. Hume did not just bring human beings down to Earth, he robbed us of any enduring essence. Arguing against Descartes’s claim that we are aware of ourselves as pure, undivided egos, Hume challenged that when he introspected, he found no such thing. What we call the ‘self’ is just a ‘bundle of perceptions’. Look inside yourself, try to find the ‘I’ that thinks and you’ll only observe this thought, that sensation: an ear worm, an itch, a thought that pops into your head.
Hume was echoing a view that was first articulated by the early Buddhists, whose ‘no-self’ (anattā) view is remarkably similar. He also anticipated the findings of contemporary neuroscience which has found that there is no central controller in the brain, no one place where the sense of self resides. Rather the brain is constantly executing any number of parallel processes. What happens to be most central to consciousness depends on the situation.
Link here.
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Democrats Must Reclaim the Center … by Moving Hard Left
This precarious balancing act helps explain why policies that would clearly benefit the majoritarian center are so often rejected as ideologically “far left;” for a centrism that seeks to balance the interests of capital is a centrism that seeks to balance the interests of the very wealthiest Americans against those of everybody else. It’s this sort of “one dollar, one vote” logic that led to Citizens United—a logic that threatens to subvert American democracy itself. For a system that justifies the wealthiest 2 percent purchasing the same political influence as the other 98 percent, isn’t really a democracy at all. I’m not saying that self-described “centrist” Democrats are any more greedy or corrupt than their progressive colleagues, but if they’re honest with themselves, they should recognize how much they have internalized this orthodox ideological bias. Indeed, this is what they mean by “pragmatic centrism”: an economic policy agenda that necessarily balances the interests of business (the few) versus the interests of labor (the many), in an attempt to best serve the interests of all. Yet as pragmatic as such an approach might at first appear, when viewed from a majoritarian perspective, the ideological center consistently fails to hold.
Link here.
Link here.
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Harmony - Part 1 Zhi Yi (538-597)
When entering Zen meditation the first thing which you the practitioner must do is, if you wish to enter samadhi (mental state of concentration focusing on one object) is to properly regulate the body. This must be done outside the state of meditation. Working, resting, walking, stopping, in motion or rest, whatever you do, you must in all things choose with care and discretion.
If your actions are coarse and rough, then your breath and Qi energy will follow in accord, i.e., your Qi energy will become coarse, the heart-mind will be dissipated and hard to control, and when it's time to sit in meditation you'll find it a bother; the heart will not be at peace. Because of this, even when you are outside the state of meditation, you must still use your heart-mind in a way not contrary to the "skillful means" (Upaya) of meditation.
If your actions are coarse and rough, then your breath and Qi energy will follow in accord, i.e., your Qi energy will become coarse, the heart-mind will be dissipated and hard to control, and when it's time to sit in meditation you'll find it a bother; the heart will not be at peace. Because of this, even when you are outside the state of meditation, you must still use your heart-mind in a way not contrary to the "skillful means" (Upaya) of meditation.
Link here.
Beyond Economics: Fears of Cultural Displacement Pushed the White Working Class to Trump
- Identification with the Republican Party. Identifying as Republican, not surprisingly, was strongly predictive of Trump support. White working-class voters who identified as Republican were 11 times more likely to support Trump than those who did not identify as Republican. No other demographic attribute was significant.
- Fears about cultural displacement. White working-class voters who say they often feel like a stranger in their own land and who believe the U.S. needs protecting against foreign influence were 3.5 times more likely to favor Trump than those who did not share these concerns.
- Support for deporting immigrants living in the country illegally. White working-class voters who favored deporting immigrants living in the country illegally were 3.3 times more likely to express a preference for Trump than those who did not.
- Economic fatalism. White working-class voters who said that college education is a gamble were almost twice as likely to express a preference for Trump as those who said it was an important investment in the future.
- Economic hardship. Notably, while only marginally significant at conventional levels, being in fair or poor financial shape actually predicted support for Hillary Clinton among white working-class Americans, rather than support for Donald Trump. Those who reported being in fair or poor financial shape were 1.7 times more likely to support Clinton, compared to those who were in better financial shape
It is notable that many attitudes and attributes identified as possible explanations for Trump’s support among white working-class voters were not significant independent predictors. Gender, age, region, and religious affiliation were not significant demographic factors in the model. Views about gender roles and attitudes about race were also not significant. It is also notable that neither measure of civic engagement—attendance at civic events or religious services—proved to be a significant independent predictor of support for Trump.
Link here.
Make America Christian Again: Christian Nationalism and Voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election
Data from a national probability sample of Americans surveyed soon after the 2016 election shows that greater adherence to Christian nationalist ideology was a robust predictor of voting for Trump, even after controlling for economic dissatisfaction, sexism, anti-black prejudice, anti-Muslim refugee attitudes, and anti-immigrant sentiment, as well as measures of religion, sociodemographics, and political identity more generally. These findings indicate that Christian nationalist ideology—although correlated with a variety of class-based, sexist, racist, and ethnocentric views—is not synonymous with, reducible to, or strictly epiphenomenal of such views. Rather, Christian nationalism operates as a unique and independent ideology that can influence political actions by calling forth a defense of mythological narratives about America’s distinctively Christian heritage and future.
Link here.
Net Worth by Age Calculator for the United States
"We present here a net worth by age percentile calculator for the United States in 2016. Enter a net worth and the age of the primary earner in the household and we’ll estimate which percentile it fell into, down to the closest 1%. We’ll also provide our estimate of the number of households matching the bracket’s wealth breakpoint.
Once you select your inputs, we graph every net worth breakpoint for that age range automatically. You can choose whether or not to count the equity in any primary home in the calculation."
Once you select your inputs, we graph every net worth breakpoint for that age range automatically. You can choose whether or not to count the equity in any primary home in the calculation."
Link here.
Thursday, August 9, 2018
The Two-State Solution: An Autopsy
"Pompeo, Haley and the Israel lobby – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) and allied organisations – are probably unaware of, or simply refuse to know about, the extent to which terrorism and war crimes marked the creation of Israel. Those who are told about this history dismiss it as a fabrication. What they deny or ignore is that these charges have been fully documented not only by historians, including Israeli ones, but by Israel’s own military. The point of recognizing this history is not to justify terrorism by either Israelis or Palestinians, but to acknowledge the outrageous double standard that has been applied to the two parties and has undermined the possibility of a peace accord. Without knowing that history, it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the extent to which Israeli propaganda has succeeded in shaping a narrative about the creation of Israel that presents the Palestinians who were brutally expelled from their homes as the aggressors and the Jews as their victims. Without that history, it is impossible to understand the outrage Palestinians feel over having been portrayed as the bad guys for so long."
-----------------
"According to this double standard, my people’s terrorism is sacred, but my neighbour’s terrorism is criminal. When my neighbour renames a street after his terrorist hero it proves he will continue his terrorism even after he achieves statehood, whereas when my country elects former terrorists as prime ministers (Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir) it proves we are the greatest democracy in the Middle East. When my terrorists are killed or imprisoned, a grateful people take care of their families. When my neighbours do the same, it proves they reward terrorism, and must be denied statehood. The point is not that states behave hypocritically – of course they do. The point is that when hypocrisy is the starting point of diplomacy, you will not get peace but only more hypocrisy and violence."
-----------------
"According to this double standard, my people’s terrorism is sacred, but my neighbour’s terrorism is criminal. When my neighbour renames a street after his terrorist hero it proves he will continue his terrorism even after he achieves statehood, whereas when my country elects former terrorists as prime ministers (Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir) it proves we are the greatest democracy in the Middle East. When my terrorists are killed or imprisoned, a grateful people take care of their families. When my neighbours do the same, it proves they reward terrorism, and must be denied statehood. The point is not that states behave hypocritically – of course they do. The point is that when hypocrisy is the starting point of diplomacy, you will not get peace but only more hypocrisy and violence."
Link here.
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Bank Stocks Rebound as Home Prices Start to Weaken
With all of the different government programs put into place since the 2008 financial crisis to manipulate the credit markets and artificially boost home ownership, the fact of a bubble in home prices is no great surprise. Add to that the limitations on bank lending for new residential home construction and you have the perfect formula for killing the American dream of home ownership of American families.
We believe that the year 2018 may be remembered as marking the peak in both bank equity valuations and residential home prices. Residential loan default rates are unlikely to rise very quickly given the shortage of moderately priced homes, but as we note in The IRA Bank Book, bank net interest margins are likely to be as flat as the yield curve by year-end. And the embedded credit risk in the financial system will continue to build with each passing day and largely due to the conflicting policy decisions emanating from Washington.
We believe that the year 2018 may be remembered as marking the peak in both bank equity valuations and residential home prices. Residential loan default rates are unlikely to rise very quickly given the shortage of moderately priced homes, but as we note in The IRA Bank Book, bank net interest margins are likely to be as flat as the yield curve by year-end. And the embedded credit risk in the financial system will continue to build with each passing day and largely due to the conflicting policy decisions emanating from Washington.
Link here.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
This conversation explains a vital reason why Trump is so popular on the right
Craig and Robinson dubbed this effect “group-status threat”: When whites felt like their control over society was slipping, they were more likely to embrace anti-minority ideas and support policies that might slow the rate of demographic change (like immigration restrictionism). When whites feel like the privileged status of their group in society is threatened, they will want to do something to preserve it.
This study wasn’t a one-off: As my colleague Brian Resnick documents, study after study has confirmed that white status threat is a major force driving white Americans to the right on issues of race and tolerance. And since the Republican Party has become overwhelmingly white, this has an effect on the party as a whole. A July poll found that 50 percent of Republicans felt that “increased racial diversity” had a negative impact on the United States, while only 43 percent thought the effect was positive.
The University of Maryland’s Janelle Wong looked at the political attitudes of white evangelicals like Sheila and found that status threat is the key reason why they, as a group, have been so overwhelmingly supportive of Trump.
“Rank-and-file white evangelicals have the most negative attitudes toward immigrants of all U.S. religious groups,” Wong writes at the Monkey Cage. “Their conservative reaction to demographic change is at the heart of their political agenda.”
This study wasn’t a one-off: As my colleague Brian Resnick documents, study after study has confirmed that white status threat is a major force driving white Americans to the right on issues of race and tolerance. And since the Republican Party has become overwhelmingly white, this has an effect on the party as a whole. A July poll found that 50 percent of Republicans felt that “increased racial diversity” had a negative impact on the United States, while only 43 percent thought the effect was positive.
The University of Maryland’s Janelle Wong looked at the political attitudes of white evangelicals like Sheila and found that status threat is the key reason why they, as a group, have been so overwhelmingly supportive of Trump.
“Rank-and-file white evangelicals have the most negative attitudes toward immigrants of all U.S. religious groups,” Wong writes at the Monkey Cage. “Their conservative reaction to demographic change is at the heart of their political agenda.”
Link here.
The U.S. Needs to Face Up to Its Long History of Election Meddling
What many Russians, but few Americans, know is that 20 years before Russia tried to swing an American presidential election, America tried to swing a presidential election in Russia. The year was 1996. Boris Yeltsin was seeking a second term, and Bill Clinton desperately wanted to help. “I want this guy to win so bad,” he told Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, “it hurts.”
Clinton liked Yeltsin personally. He considered him Russia’s best hope for embracing democracy and capitalism. And he appreciated Yeltsin’s acquiescence during nato’s march eastward, into the former Soviet bloc.
Unfortunately for Clinton, ordinary Russians appreciated their leader far less. Yeltsin’s “shock-therapy” economic reforms had reduced the government’s safety net, and produced a spike in unemployment and inflation. Between 1990 and 1994, the average life expectancy among Russian men had dropped by an astonishing six years. When Yeltsin began his reelection campaign in January 1996, his approval rating stood at 6 percent, lower than Stalin’s.
So the Clinton administration sprang into action. It lobbied the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10 billion loan, some of which Yeltsin distributed to woo voters. Upon arriving in a given city, he often announced, “My pockets are full.”
Three American political consultants—including Richard Dresner, a veteran of Clinton’s campaigns in Arkansas—went to work on Yeltsin’s reelection bid. Every week, Dresner sent the White House the Yeltsin campaign’s internal polling. And before traveling to meet Yeltsin in April, Clinton asked Dresner what he should say in Moscow to boost his buddy’s campaign.
It worked. In a stunning turnaround, Yeltsin—who had begun the campaign in last place—defeated his communist rival in the election’s final round by 13 percentage points. Talbott declaredthat “a number of international observers have judged this to be a free and fair election.” But Michael Meadowcroft, a Brit who led the election-observer team of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, later claimed there had been widespread voter fraud, which he had been pressured not to expose. In Chechnya, which international observers believe contained fewer than 500,000 adults, one million people voted, and Yeltsin—despite prosecuting a brutal war in the region—won exactly 70 percent. “They’d been bombed out of existence, and there they were all supposedly voting for Yeltsin,” exclaimed Meadowcroft. “It’s like what happens in Cameroon.” Thomas Graham, who served as the chief political analyst at the U.S. embassy in Moscow during the campaign, later conceded that Clinton officials knew the election wasn’t truly fair. “This was a classic case,” he admitted, “of the ends justifying the means.”
Clinton liked Yeltsin personally. He considered him Russia’s best hope for embracing democracy and capitalism. And he appreciated Yeltsin’s acquiescence during nato’s march eastward, into the former Soviet bloc.
Unfortunately for Clinton, ordinary Russians appreciated their leader far less. Yeltsin’s “shock-therapy” economic reforms had reduced the government’s safety net, and produced a spike in unemployment and inflation. Between 1990 and 1994, the average life expectancy among Russian men had dropped by an astonishing six years. When Yeltsin began his reelection campaign in January 1996, his approval rating stood at 6 percent, lower than Stalin’s.
So the Clinton administration sprang into action. It lobbied the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10 billion loan, some of which Yeltsin distributed to woo voters. Upon arriving in a given city, he often announced, “My pockets are full.”
Three American political consultants—including Richard Dresner, a veteran of Clinton’s campaigns in Arkansas—went to work on Yeltsin’s reelection bid. Every week, Dresner sent the White House the Yeltsin campaign’s internal polling. And before traveling to meet Yeltsin in April, Clinton asked Dresner what he should say in Moscow to boost his buddy’s campaign.
It worked. In a stunning turnaround, Yeltsin—who had begun the campaign in last place—defeated his communist rival in the election’s final round by 13 percentage points. Talbott declaredthat “a number of international observers have judged this to be a free and fair election.” But Michael Meadowcroft, a Brit who led the election-observer team of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, later claimed there had been widespread voter fraud, which he had been pressured not to expose. In Chechnya, which international observers believe contained fewer than 500,000 adults, one million people voted, and Yeltsin—despite prosecuting a brutal war in the region—won exactly 70 percent. “They’d been bombed out of existence, and there they were all supposedly voting for Yeltsin,” exclaimed Meadowcroft. “It’s like what happens in Cameroon.” Thomas Graham, who served as the chief political analyst at the U.S. embassy in Moscow during the campaign, later conceded that Clinton officials knew the election wasn’t truly fair. “This was a classic case,” he admitted, “of the ends justifying the means.”
Link here.
Saturday, July 21, 2018
Why Trump Is Getting Away With Foreign-Policy Insanity
"The main reason, I suspect, is that the elite foreign-policy establishment doesn’t have a lot of credibility anymore. After all, this bipartisan caste of national security managers are responsible for open-ended NATO expansion, which did not make Europe a reliable “zone of peace”; mishandled the Kosovo War; failed to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks; either conceived, supported, or went along with the invasion of Iraq; have continued to back the 17-years-and-counting-quagmire in Afghanistan; bungled assorted interventions in Libya, Yemen, and Syria; repeatedly mismanaged the Middle East peace process; and have presided over an ever-expanding and apparently endless “war on terror.” Some of these folks also approved the illegal surveillance of Americans, the torture and targeted killings of foreigners (some of them innocent civilians), and any number of other crimes or follies. The credibility of this elite was further tarnished by the 2008 financial crisis and their failure to recognize that globalization and rising inequality were leaving many people behind and were bound to provoke a powerful backlash.
To make matters worse, most members of this elite refused to hold themselves or their friends accountable for all of these failures. Instead, both Democratic liberal interventionists and Republican neoconservatives kept insisting that the United States had the right, the responsibility, and the wisdom to spread its values far and wide and that there was no alternative to their ambitious strategy of liberal hegemony. With a few notable exceptions, most of these folks have never acknowledged their past errors or shown that they’ve learned from their mistakes."
To make matters worse, most members of this elite refused to hold themselves or their friends accountable for all of these failures. Instead, both Democratic liberal interventionists and Republican neoconservatives kept insisting that the United States had the right, the responsibility, and the wisdom to spread its values far and wide and that there was no alternative to their ambitious strategy of liberal hegemony. With a few notable exceptions, most of these folks have never acknowledged their past errors or shown that they’ve learned from their mistakes."
Link here.
Friday, July 20, 2018
These American scholars say the real threat to the U.S. is Russophobia
“I’ve seen these things from the inside. I've re-thought and re-thought how we got to the edge of war with Russia, where we haven't been since Cuba in 1962. And I have concluded, and I would be happy to debate my opponents… It is 95 percent our own doing,” Cohen said.
Amen.
Link here.
Amen.
Link here.
DC Elites Shocked at Trump Bromance with Putin but Give Israel’s Netanyahu a Pass
"In Washington, it is all right to slam Trump for treason (it isn’t really treason since the US isn’t at war with the Russian Federation) or for making nice with Putin despite the latter’s various misdeeds. But it is political death to criticize Netanyahu’s interference in American foreign policy or aggressive Israeli land theft or Israel setting the US up for conflict with Iran.
But there is no domestic Russia lobby, so it is all right to slam Putin.
Hypocrisy."
Link here.
But there is no domestic Russia lobby, so it is all right to slam Putin.
Hypocrisy."
Link here.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Washington’s Dangerous Fixation on Iran
"Perhaps the most problematic aspect of how Iran’s specter haunts America is that it forecloses serious domestic introspection about Washington’s Middle Eastern policies. This is unfortunate because the U.S. bears much responsibility for what Iran and the surrounding region have become today- but America seems unlikely to recognize that anytime soon."
Link here.
Link here.
Monday, May 28, 2018
White Outgroup Intolerance and Declining Support for American Democracy
We generalize the implications of Spencer’s words and what we are observing about American politics and society in the age of Trump into an analysis of the anti-democratic orientations of white Americans across four waves of WVS data from 1995 to 2011. We construct an argument linking social intolerance to anti-democratic orientations, highlighting how perceived outgroup threat to status and material well-being leads to an intolerance from white Americans toward the presence of ethnic/racial outgroups. This becomes a problem for attitudes about democracy since democracy requires extending the “opportunity of access” to politics to these same outgroups that aggrieved white Americans perceive as threatening them. Our analysis of four waves of WVS data finds support for our argument. White Americans who would not want an immigrant/foreign worker, someone who spoke a different language, or someone from a different race as a neighbor are more likely to support strongman rule in the United States, rule of the U.S. government by the army, and are more likely to outright reject having a democracy for the United States. These findings are robust across multiple model specifications we analyze and report in the appendix as well.
Link here.
Link here.
Friday, May 25, 2018
This Is Why It's So Hard to Sound Normal When You're Nervous
Anxiety and awkwardness create a lot of mental noise and distraction, which can drain mental resources from other processes, like finding and using the correct words. “If you experience strong emotion, fear, or any negativity-based feeling, it makes it harder to figure out these words,” Tashiro says. Part of the reason is that awkward people engage in bottom-up brain processing, Tashiro says. They tend to see situations as an accumulation of details to absorb. “In top-down processing, a person goes to a party and their first thought is that the tone of the room is positive or neutral. Most people who are bottom-up [in their brain processing] are putting together the pieces and are in a rush to put it together.
Awkward people, who are self-critical and analyze environments for potential threats to their insecurities, are doing more mental work than non-awkward people capable of “joining in the sing-song of the moment,” Tashiro says. “Especially because of speed demands, it’s amazing how many cues [awkward] people are taking in,” he adds. When a person is not able to focus on speech, non-word placeholders, like “ugh” and “um” sneak in, and “Nice to meet you” becomes “Niece to feed you.
Awkward people, who are self-critical and analyze environments for potential threats to their insecurities, are doing more mental work than non-awkward people capable of “joining in the sing-song of the moment,” Tashiro says. “Especially because of speed demands, it’s amazing how many cues [awkward] people are taking in,” he adds. When a person is not able to focus on speech, non-word placeholders, like “ugh” and “um” sneak in, and “Nice to meet you” becomes “Niece to feed you.
Link here.
Saturday, May 19, 2018
Impact of the Trump Fiscal Stimulus on US Economic Growth
Together, the sweeping tax cuts enacted in the United States at the end of 2017 and the spending package enacted in February of this year are expected to add $276 billion in fiscal stimulus to the US economy this year, or 1.4 percent of GDP. But the actual impact on US economic growth may turn out to be lower than meets the eye. As we explain in this blog, the impact of fiscal stimulus on economic activity and output varies with the business cycle. Existing projections of the impact of the Trump stimulus measures—the "multiplier" effects—miss (or ignore) the fact that the US economy is operating at nearly full potential. Based on the current state of the US economy, we predict that the Trump fiscal stimulus will yield an extra boost to GDP of 0.5 percent by 2020, instead of 2.1 percent if this dimension is not taken into account.
Link here.
Link here.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
CFR World Economic Update Past Event — May 11, 2018
No shit.
-----------------------------------------------------
So, you know, it feels like there’s a similarity between how the economy is poised now and the dilemma for the Fed with how things were, let’s say, in 2005 or 1999. So in those cases you had inflation that was fine. You had pretty much, you know, full employment, and if there was a source of instability in 1999, it was that tech stocks were going nuts, and in 2005, the real estate thing was already beginning to pump up.
So an inflation-targeting Fed looks at this and say, our job is to target inflation, inflation seems under control. We can tighten very, very gradually. And looking back, in both cases, there was a bubble, it blew up, and the bubble blowing up caused trouble.
So why, in the face of a sudden surge of fiscal stimulus, would you not have a sudden surge of commensurate monetary tightening given that you’ve got this risk that you’ve lived through twice before, which is that if you simply target inflation—the price of eggs may be very stable, but the price of nest eggs is going nuts. Why not run policy a little tighter—which is perfectly justifiable given the credit stimulus—I mean, the fiscal stimulus—and take some of that financial sector risk off the table?
REINHART: Because it is a remarkably risk-averse entity concerned about the reaction to a marked change in its policy. If the Fed—
MALLABY: What’s the worst that could happen? Are you—we talking about the market reaction or are we talking about political reaction first of all?
REINHART: Oh, I don’t think it’s political reaction.
MALLABY: OK, so it’s the market—
REINHART: I think it’s the market reaction, that we saw the 10-year flirting with 3 percent as a risk even for emerging market economies. Think back to the taper tantrum—this is an institution scarred by that, that if there is a deep irony that before the taper tantrum they were frank in criticizing the 2004 to 2006 policy realignment as too gradual and too telegraphed. It not just made the yield curve steeper than it would be otherwise, strengthening the carry trade and adjustable rate mortgage finance. It also made them safe because it was so clear what the Fed was going to do.
MALLABY: Right, right.
REINHART: After the taper tantrum, what are they doing? They are more gradual, they’re more contractual even as they continue to say all decisions are data-dependent and made meeting by meeting.
MALLABY: So you’re suggesting that the Fed is colored by the effect of its policy on emerging markets.
REINHART: Markets—financial markets generally.
Link here.
Sunday, May 13, 2018
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Saturday, May 5, 2018
Marco Rubio says there’s “no evidence whatsoever” Republican tax cuts are helping workers
"Rubio’s right: corporations are using a lot more of the tax cut to benefit shareholders than they are to benefit workers
The $1.5 trillion GOP tax cut is a major boon to corporations. It slashed the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent, reduced the rate on corporate income brought back to the United States from abroad to between 8 and 15.5 percent instead of 35 percent, and exempted American companies’ foreign income from US tax.
The Republican argument behind the bill is that putting billions of dollars back into the hands of big business will boost the economy, boost wages, and create jobs. But thus far, companies seem to be much more eager to put their tax savings into their shareholders’ pockets by the way of stock buybacks — as Rubio pointed out. Buybacks occur when companies repurchase shares of their own stock. That leaves remaining shareholders with a bigger chunk of the company and increases the earnings they reap per share.
A Bloomberg analysis found that about 60 percent of tax cut gains will go to shareholders, compared to 15 percent for employees. A Morgan Stanley survey found that analysts estimate 43 percent of tax cut savings will go to stock buybacks and dividends, while 13 percent will go to pay raises, bonuses, and employee benefits. Just Capital’s analysis of 121 Russell 1000 companies found that 57 percent of tax savings will go to shareholders, compared to 20 percent directed to job creation and capital investment and 6 percent to workers."
The $1.5 trillion GOP tax cut is a major boon to corporations. It slashed the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent, reduced the rate on corporate income brought back to the United States from abroad to between 8 and 15.5 percent instead of 35 percent, and exempted American companies’ foreign income from US tax.
The Republican argument behind the bill is that putting billions of dollars back into the hands of big business will boost the economy, boost wages, and create jobs. But thus far, companies seem to be much more eager to put their tax savings into their shareholders’ pockets by the way of stock buybacks — as Rubio pointed out. Buybacks occur when companies repurchase shares of their own stock. That leaves remaining shareholders with a bigger chunk of the company and increases the earnings they reap per share.
A Bloomberg analysis found that about 60 percent of tax cut gains will go to shareholders, compared to 15 percent for employees. A Morgan Stanley survey found that analysts estimate 43 percent of tax cut savings will go to stock buybacks and dividends, while 13 percent will go to pay raises, bonuses, and employee benefits. Just Capital’s analysis of 121 Russell 1000 companies found that 57 percent of tax savings will go to shareholders, compared to 20 percent directed to job creation and capital investment and 6 percent to workers."
Link here.
Saturday, April 28, 2018
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds
A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.
“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
Link here.
Homebuyers are stretching their budgets and mortgage limits to win bidding wars
LOL! Here we go again.
"When they're more confident they are willing to stretch a little further," said Mike Graff, a mortgage consultant with Prosperity Home Mortgage. "I think that some people realize, look, they're not going to be in this house for 30 years, so moving to an ARM, when the rate is fixed for a period of time, they're definitely more comfortable with something like that to lower their payment or to kind of stretch their budget a bit, so we have seen an uptick in that."
Borrowers also have more options for low down payment loans, options that were not available as recently as just a few years ago. Fannie Mae reintroduced a 3 percent down payment loan that it had discontinued during the recession, and some private lenders are venturing back into subprime, although they're calling them "nonprime" loans. These are mortgages to borrowers with lower credit scores.
Higher debt-to-income ratios
After holding steady for two years, the share of conventional loans backed by Fannie Mae with down payments of less than 10 percent rose from 12 percent to 14 percent in 2017. The expectation is that it will be even higher this year.
"Availability of some low-down-payment loans is really much more widespread than previously, you're seeing things like debt-to-income ratios increase," said Mike Fratantoni, chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Underwriting, he adds, however, is still quite conservative.
"Not the products that really led to big payment shocks in the last crisis," Fratantoni said.
Banks are also willing to take on more risk in the jumbo loan space. They hold these loans on their balance sheets.
"You could always put a low down payment on lower-priced homes, but once you start getting into that five, six, seven, eight hundred thousand-dollar price range, it typically was 20 percent, whereas now you can do 5 percent, so we are seeing that absolutely, especially within the past year, that has spiked up," said Prosperity Home Mortgage's Graff.
"When they're more confident they are willing to stretch a little further," said Mike Graff, a mortgage consultant with Prosperity Home Mortgage. "I think that some people realize, look, they're not going to be in this house for 30 years, so moving to an ARM, when the rate is fixed for a period of time, they're definitely more comfortable with something like that to lower their payment or to kind of stretch their budget a bit, so we have seen an uptick in that."
Borrowers also have more options for low down payment loans, options that were not available as recently as just a few years ago. Fannie Mae reintroduced a 3 percent down payment loan that it had discontinued during the recession, and some private lenders are venturing back into subprime, although they're calling them "nonprime" loans. These are mortgages to borrowers with lower credit scores.
Higher debt-to-income ratios
After holding steady for two years, the share of conventional loans backed by Fannie Mae with down payments of less than 10 percent rose from 12 percent to 14 percent in 2017. The expectation is that it will be even higher this year.
"Availability of some low-down-payment loans is really much more widespread than previously, you're seeing things like debt-to-income ratios increase," said Mike Fratantoni, chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Underwriting, he adds, however, is still quite conservative.
"Not the products that really led to big payment shocks in the last crisis," Fratantoni said.
Banks are also willing to take on more risk in the jumbo loan space. They hold these loans on their balance sheets.
"You could always put a low down payment on lower-priced homes, but once you start getting into that five, six, seven, eight hundred thousand-dollar price range, it typically was 20 percent, whereas now you can do 5 percent, so we are seeing that absolutely, especially within the past year, that has spiked up," said Prosperity Home Mortgage's Graff.
Link here.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Face to Face: Saudi Arabia-Iran
An in-depth look at the military spending, the economy and the drivers of growth for the two regional rivals.
Link here.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Friday, April 13, 2018
Creating A Perpetual War Machine
The United States has taken Thucydides’s famed Melian Dialogue and turned it inside out. Centuries before Augustine, the great Athenian historian wrote, “The strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must.”Strength confers choice; weakness restricts it. That’s the way the world works, so at least Thucydides believed. Yet the inverted Melian Dialogue that prevails in present-day Washington seemingly goes like this: strength imposes obligations and limits choice. In other words, we gotta keep doing what we’ve been doing, no matter what.
Making such a situation all the more puzzling is the might and majesty of America’s armed forces. By common consent, the United States today has the world’s best military. By some estimates, it may be the best in recorded history. It’s certainly the most expensive and hardest working on the planet.
Yet in the post-Cold War era when the relative strength of U.S. forces reached its zenith, our well-endowed, well-trained, well-equipped, and highly disciplined troops have proven unable to accomplish any of the core tasks to which they’ve been assigned. This has been especially true since 9/11.
We send the troops off to war, but they don’t achieve peace. Instead, America’s wars and skirmishes simply drag on, seemingly without end. We just keep doing what we’ve been doing, a circumstance that both Augustine and Thucydides would undoubtedly have found baffling.
Making such a situation all the more puzzling is the might and majesty of America’s armed forces. By common consent, the United States today has the world’s best military. By some estimates, it may be the best in recorded history. It’s certainly the most expensive and hardest working on the planet.
Yet in the post-Cold War era when the relative strength of U.S. forces reached its zenith, our well-endowed, well-trained, well-equipped, and highly disciplined troops have proven unable to accomplish any of the core tasks to which they’ve been assigned. This has been especially true since 9/11.
We send the troops off to war, but they don’t achieve peace. Instead, America’s wars and skirmishes simply drag on, seemingly without end. We just keep doing what we’ve been doing, a circumstance that both Augustine and Thucydides would undoubtedly have found baffling.
Link here.
The Law: Presidential Deception in Foreign Policy Making: Military Intervention in Libya 2011
Abstract
How did a U.S.‐led, U.N.‐ approved military intervention to protect civilians in Libya end up enabling rebels to overthrow the Qaddafi regime? A variety of evidence shows that the Obama administration was dishonest in publicly describing its military purpose as solely humanitarian when it was largely directed towards regime change. Presidential deception prevented the emergence of alternative policies that might have avoided Libya's postwar chaos while obfuscating U.S. responsibility for that consequence. The essence of the deception is set forth below in contrasting statements by President Obama and former Central Intelligence Agency Director and Secretary of Defense Panetta.
How did a U.S.‐led, U.N.‐ approved military intervention to protect civilians in Libya end up enabling rebels to overthrow the Qaddafi regime? A variety of evidence shows that the Obama administration was dishonest in publicly describing its military purpose as solely humanitarian when it was largely directed towards regime change. Presidential deception prevented the emergence of alternative policies that might have avoided Libya's postwar chaos while obfuscating U.S. responsibility for that consequence. The essence of the deception is set forth below in contrasting statements by President Obama and former Central Intelligence Agency Director and Secretary of Defense Panetta.
Link here.
America Can’t Be Trusted Anymore
But wait, there’s more! The multinational operation against Qaddafi was authorized by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, and Russia agreed to abstain on the resolution because its stated purpose was preventing Qaddafi from attacking civilians in Benghazi, not toppling the regime. However, as Stephen R. Weissman has shown in an important article, regime change was on U.S. officials’ minds from the get-go, and they soon blew right past the terms of the resolution. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates later recalled, “The Russians felt they had been played for suckers on Libya. They felt there had been a bait and switch.” And they were right. So, if you’re ever wondering why Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly blocked Security Council action over the disaster in Syria, there’s at least part of your answer.
Needless to say, the lessons of Libya have not been lost on other countries. North Korean media have repeatedly invoked this example to justify the country’s nuclear weapons program and to warn against ever trusting assurances from the United States. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why. If you were Kim Jong Un, would you rather pin your survival on a nuclear deterrent of your own or promises from the United States?
Which brings us to Donald Trump. The world is now dealing with a U.S. president who appears to have no firm convictions or beliefs, the attention span of a hummingbird, and who apparently makes important national security decisions on the basis of whatever fairytale he just saw on Fox & Friends. As near as one can tell, he never saw a treaty or agreement signed by his predecessor that he liked, even though he has trouble explaining what’s wrong with any of them. He just likes to talk about “tearing them up” no matter what the consequences may be.
Needless to say, the lessons of Libya have not been lost on other countries. North Korean media have repeatedly invoked this example to justify the country’s nuclear weapons program and to warn against ever trusting assurances from the United States. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why. If you were Kim Jong Un, would you rather pin your survival on a nuclear deterrent of your own or promises from the United States?
Which brings us to Donald Trump. The world is now dealing with a U.S. president who appears to have no firm convictions or beliefs, the attention span of a hummingbird, and who apparently makes important national security decisions on the basis of whatever fairytale he just saw on Fox & Friends. As near as one can tell, he never saw a treaty or agreement signed by his predecessor that he liked, even though he has trouble explaining what’s wrong with any of them. He just likes to talk about “tearing them up” no matter what the consequences may be.
Link here.
Subprime mortgages make a comeback—with a new name and soaring demand
Here we go again . . . government doing everything in it power to jack up the cost of housing. And the profits of the FIRE parasites.
"Last summer, Fannie Mae announced it would relax its lending standards for prime loans, allowing borrowers with higher debt and lower credit scores to obtain loans without additional risk overlays, such as large down payments and a year's worth of cash reserves.
Fannie Mae raised its debt-to-income (DTI) limit from 45 percent to 50 percent. DTI is the amount of total debt a borrower can have compared to his or her income. As a result, demand from buyers with higher debt exceeded all expectations. The share of high DTI loans jumped from 6 percent in January 2017 to nearly 20 percent by the end of February 2018, according to a study by the Urban Institute.
"Last summer, Fannie Mae announced it would relax its lending standards for prime loans, allowing borrowers with higher debt and lower credit scores to obtain loans without additional risk overlays, such as large down payments and a year's worth of cash reserves.
Fannie Mae raised its debt-to-income (DTI) limit from 45 percent to 50 percent. DTI is the amount of total debt a borrower can have compared to his or her income. As a result, demand from buyers with higher debt exceeded all expectations. The share of high DTI loans jumped from 6 percent in January 2017 to nearly 20 percent by the end of February 2018, according to a study by the Urban Institute.
- 'From January to July 2017, Fannie purchased 80,467 loans with DTI ratios between 45 and 50 percent. But from August 2017 to February 2018, Fannie purchased 181,911 loans in the same DTI bucket. This increase of more than 100,000 loans in just seven months exceeded our estimate (85,000 additional Fannie loans annually) and Fannie's expectations.' – Urban Institute
Link here.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
More government efforts to make housing unaffordable
In summer 2017, Fannie Mae increased the number of loans made to
borrowers with debt-to-income ratios of up to 50%, up from a typical limit of
45%. Freddie Mac did the same thing. Fannie’s policy change has resulted in 100,000 new mortgages
that otherwise wouldn’t have been made last year and early this year, according
to the Urban Institute.
Monday, April 9, 2018
Paulsen Says ‘Proceed With Caution’ Across Many Asset Classes
“Perhaps the Markets Message Indicator peak in January will prove only temporary. However, its current warning comes when the indicator is near the peaks of 2000 and 2007,” Paulsen wrote in a note to clients Monday. “That is, it suggests investor confidence and aggressiveness ‘across all financial markets’ is nearly as pronounced today as it was at the last two major stock market tops.”
Link here.
Saturday, April 7, 2018
Trump and his generals lock horns over Syria
More from Mr. Bhadrakumar - I really like reading his observations . . .
In the final analysis, it is all about the corporate interests of the military – more budget allocation, more 'good times', more empire building. And the war profiteers – military-industrial complex, think tankers, ex-faujis on the conference circuit, congressmen, the correspondents on the Pentagon press pool all travel in the gravy train at the tax payers’ expense.
President Donald Trump is now facing the moment of truth. He has decided that the US troops should return home from Syria, but is facing resistance form the military. The generals have already decided that there shall be an open-ended military presence in Syria. In fact, they are busy planning more bases in Syria. The argument being touted is that the ISIS may stage a comeback. The real reason could be that the Pentagon wants to turn Syria into a theatre in the New Cold War to fight Russia. With a view to rally the Israeli lobby, the generals also invoke the spectre of Iranian influence in Syria."
Link here.
President Donald Trump is now facing the moment of truth. He has decided that the US troops should return home from Syria, but is facing resistance form the military. The generals have already decided that there shall be an open-ended military presence in Syria. In fact, they are busy planning more bases in Syria. The argument being touted is that the ISIS may stage a comeback. The real reason could be that the Pentagon wants to turn Syria into a theatre in the New Cold War to fight Russia. With a view to rally the Israeli lobby, the generals also invoke the spectre of Iranian influence in Syria."
Spot. Fucking. On.
Link here.
Rand Paul: It's Time for a New American Foreign Policy
We need a foreign policy that recognizes its own limits, a common sense realism of strength, limited action, full diplomatic engagement and free trade.
Here’s how I see the most important principles of this foreign policy.
First, the use of force must always be on the table, but rarely used. War should be the last resort, not the first.
War is necessary when America is attacked or directly and clearly threatened, and when we have exhausted all measures short of war.
The second principle is that Congress, the people’s representative, must authorize the decision to intervene.
The most serious decision we make as a nation is to send our sons or daughters to war. We should make it together, and we should vote on it.
Finally, how do we solve non-military challenges in places like Asia and Eastern Europe?
That’s where the third principle comes in—a firm, full commitment to diplomacy and leadership.
Hysteria over election-meddling threatens to reignite the Cold War.
Russia, at times, is our adversary, but it need not be our permanent enemy.
Whether it is the threat of ISIS, or the situations in Iran and Syria, it would be in our interest to work together with Russia where possible, yet this opportunity is slipping by. Obsession with Russian “collusion” or other conspiracies involving the Kremlin and the administration have frozen the narrative and hampered what I believe to be the president’s good instincts on the proper relationship with Russia.
Link here.
Here’s how I see the most important principles of this foreign policy.
First, the use of force must always be on the table, but rarely used. War should be the last resort, not the first.
War is necessary when America is attacked or directly and clearly threatened, and when we have exhausted all measures short of war.
The second principle is that Congress, the people’s representative, must authorize the decision to intervene.
The most serious decision we make as a nation is to send our sons or daughters to war. We should make it together, and we should vote on it.
Finally, how do we solve non-military challenges in places like Asia and Eastern Europe?
That’s where the third principle comes in—a firm, full commitment to diplomacy and leadership.
Hysteria over election-meddling threatens to reignite the Cold War.
Russia, at times, is our adversary, but it need not be our permanent enemy.
Whether it is the threat of ISIS, or the situations in Iran and Syria, it would be in our interest to work together with Russia where possible, yet this opportunity is slipping by. Obsession with Russian “collusion” or other conspiracies involving the Kremlin and the administration have frozen the narrative and hampered what I believe to be the president’s good instincts on the proper relationship with Russia.
Link here.
Saudi Arabia Has Become a Geopolitical Loose Cannon
The Saudi state is an artifact of Western militarism and imperialism, growing out of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Abdul Aziz ibn Saud eventually fulfilled his lengthy quest to unify the peninsula. Discovery of oil in 1938 gave his country an unexpected international importance.
Four decades ago the Islamic revolution in Iran, which inspired Shia in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s eastern provinces, and seizure of Mecca’s Grand Mosque by Islamic extremists caused the monarchy to turn its theocracy in a totalitarian direction. The royals enforced the Wahhabist clergy’s fundamentalist interpretation of Islam in return for the latter urging obedience to the Saudi state. Hence, ruling princes mixed private libertinism with public piety, treated women as inferior, prohibited non-Muslim faiths, and deployed the mutawa, or religious police. Also, they provided large-scale subsidies to spread Wahhabism abroad, through mosques, schools, teachers and textbooks.
The result was a decrepit, corrupt gerontocracy undermining virtually every Western value and interest. However, the doddering monarchy, passed among the aging sons of ibn Saud, possessed oil and money aplenty. This earned the regime plenty of affection in the West, and especially the United States.
Four decades ago the Islamic revolution in Iran, which inspired Shia in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s eastern provinces, and seizure of Mecca’s Grand Mosque by Islamic extremists caused the monarchy to turn its theocracy in a totalitarian direction. The royals enforced the Wahhabist clergy’s fundamentalist interpretation of Islam in return for the latter urging obedience to the Saudi state. Hence, ruling princes mixed private libertinism with public piety, treated women as inferior, prohibited non-Muslim faiths, and deployed the mutawa, or religious police. Also, they provided large-scale subsidies to spread Wahhabism abroad, through mosques, schools, teachers and textbooks.
The result was a decrepit, corrupt gerontocracy undermining virtually every Western value and interest. However, the doddering monarchy, passed among the aging sons of ibn Saud, possessed oil and money aplenty. This earned the regime plenty of affection in the West, and especially the United States.
Link here.
PERSPECTIVE: To Truly Fight Terror, Counter Salafist Jihadist Ideology First
Additionally, several ISIS defectors I interviewed specifically told me how al-Wahhab’s Kitab at-Tawhid was the chief and the most important part of their training, a book also widely and historically adopted by today’s Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, I observed that Salafist literature and books were adopted by terrorists including al-Qaeda for their indoctrination and training during the investigations I carried out as a counterterrorism police chief in Turkey.
This is the reason Sheikh Adel al-Kalbani, the former Imam of Kaaba, the Grand Mosque of the Prophet Muhammad in Mecca, and a Salafi himself, openly and sincerely admitted that “ISIS is a true product of Salafism, and we must deal with it with full transparency.”
The fact is, some Saudi princes, clerics, and charities for decades have been pouring out billions of dollars to promote their understanding of Islam, Wahhabism. They have found willing partners among the vulnerable populations in the Central Asian and Afghan-Pakistani regions, Africa, the Balkans and even in Europe. These funders indirectly assist ISIS and al-Qaeda-friendly organizations to fast-track their recruitments process on their behalf. In the leaked U.S. embassy cables, it was openly addressed that Saudi Arabia was “a critical source of terrorist funding” where the money is mostly spent on training of Wahhabi clerics, production and distribution of Wahhabi textbooks, media outreach and donations to local schools or cultural centers.
Thanks to the Saudis spreading Salafism all over the world, these terrorists reach ideologically ripe people among their targeted groups who are already educated by the Wahhabis.
Link here.
This is the reason Sheikh Adel al-Kalbani, the former Imam of Kaaba, the Grand Mosque of the Prophet Muhammad in Mecca, and a Salafi himself, openly and sincerely admitted that “ISIS is a true product of Salafism, and we must deal with it with full transparency.”
The fact is, some Saudi princes, clerics, and charities for decades have been pouring out billions of dollars to promote their understanding of Islam, Wahhabism. They have found willing partners among the vulnerable populations in the Central Asian and Afghan-Pakistani regions, Africa, the Balkans and even in Europe. These funders indirectly assist ISIS and al-Qaeda-friendly organizations to fast-track their recruitments process on their behalf. In the leaked U.S. embassy cables, it was openly addressed that Saudi Arabia was “a critical source of terrorist funding” where the money is mostly spent on training of Wahhabi clerics, production and distribution of Wahhabi textbooks, media outreach and donations to local schools or cultural centers.
Thanks to the Saudis spreading Salafism all over the world, these terrorists reach ideologically ripe people among their targeted groups who are already educated by the Wahhabis.
Link here.
Licence to kill
From Leon Trotsky, killed with an ice pick in Mexico, to Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned with polonium in London, Russia’s security services have undoubtedly liquidated many opponents of the Kremlin living abroad. Other countries have resorted to such measures without triggering the same diplomatic uproar. France, Germany and the US have been involved in the kind of state-sponsored assassination that has so offended Johnson, yet this has not stopped them joining him and May in railing against Russia.
Israel has taken great care to avoid commenting, perhaps because it is one of the countries that most frequently ‘carry out this kind of operation, known as an “extraterritorial elimination”’. The list of Palestinians, including official representatives, killed by Israel’s secret service abroad makes the Russians look like amateurs: at least half a dozen in Paris alone, without serious consequences. Moroccan opposition leader Mehdi Ben Barka also disappeared in Paris; the African National Congress’s chief representative in France, Dulcie September, and more recently three Kurdish activists, were assassinated there. Across the Atlantic, Orlando Letelier, a minister under former Chilean president Salvador Allende, was killed in Washington DC by agents of Augusto Pinochet, which did not stop Ronald Reagan from feting Pinochet; and Margaret Thatcher was happy to drink tea (without polonium) with the dictator and present him with a silver dish.
Link here.
Israel has taken great care to avoid commenting, perhaps because it is one of the countries that most frequently ‘carry out this kind of operation, known as an “extraterritorial elimination”’. The list of Palestinians, including official representatives, killed by Israel’s secret service abroad makes the Russians look like amateurs: at least half a dozen in Paris alone, without serious consequences. Moroccan opposition leader Mehdi Ben Barka also disappeared in Paris; the African National Congress’s chief representative in France, Dulcie September, and more recently three Kurdish activists, were assassinated there. Across the Atlantic, Orlando Letelier, a minister under former Chilean president Salvador Allende, was killed in Washington DC by agents of Augusto Pinochet, which did not stop Ronald Reagan from feting Pinochet; and Margaret Thatcher was happy to drink tea (without polonium) with the dictator and present him with a silver dish.
Link here.
Thursday, April 5, 2018
Britain's best long-distance walks
Friday, March 16, 2018
NUKEMAP
Why was the NUKEMAP created? We live in a world where nuclear weapons issues are on the front pages of our newspapers on a regular basis, yet most people still have a very bad sense of what an exploding nuclear weapon can actually do. Some people think they destroy everything in the world all that once, some people think they are not very different from conventional bombs. The reality is somewhere in between: nuclear weapons can cause immense destruction and huge losses of life, but the effects are still comprehensible on a human scale.
The NUKEMAP is aimed at helping people visualize nuclear weapons on terms they can make sense of — helping them to get a sense of the scale of the bombs. By allowing people to use arbitrarily picked geographical locations, I hope that people will come to understand what a nuclear weapon would do to places they are familiar with, and how the different sizes of nuclear weapons change the results.
There are many different political interpretations one can legitimately take away from such results. There is not intended to be a simple political "message" of the NUKEMAP.
The NUKEMAP is aimed at helping people visualize nuclear weapons on terms they can make sense of — helping them to get a sense of the scale of the bombs. By allowing people to use arbitrarily picked geographical locations, I hope that people will come to understand what a nuclear weapon would do to places they are familiar with, and how the different sizes of nuclear weapons change the results.
There are many different political interpretations one can legitimately take away from such results. There is not intended to be a simple political "message" of the NUKEMAP.
Link here.
The Real Engine of the Business Cycle
All told, the conclusion that we draw from a large body of research into the links between household debt, the housing market, and business cycles is that expansions in credit supply, operating primarily through household demand, are an important driver of business cycles generally. We call this the “credit-driven household demand channel.” An expansion in the supply of credit occurs when lenders either increase the quantity of credit or decrease the interest rate on credit for reasons unrelated to borrowers’ income or productivity.
In a new study, we show that the credit-driven household demand channel rests on three main conceptual pillars. First, credit-supply expansions, rather than technology or permanent income shocks, are the key drivers of economic activity. This is a controversial idea. Most models attribute macroeconomic fluctuations to real factors such as productivity shocks. But we believe the financial sector itself plays an underappreciated role through its willingness to lend.
In a new study, we show that the credit-driven household demand channel rests on three main conceptual pillars. First, credit-supply expansions, rather than technology or permanent income shocks, are the key drivers of economic activity. This is a controversial idea. Most models attribute macroeconomic fluctuations to real factors such as productivity shocks. But we believe the financial sector itself plays an underappreciated role through its willingness to lend.
Link here.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Intel Vets Tell Trump Iran Is Not Top Terror Sponsor
The public image of Iran as a hotbed of fanatical terrorists has been usurped since the August 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in east Africa by Al Qaeda and other radical Sunni entities. The U.S. Government’s own list of terrorist attacks since 2001 shows a dramatic drop in the violence carried out by Iran and an accompanying surge in horrific acts by radical Sunni Muslims who are not aligned with Iran. The latest edition of the Global Terrorism Index, a project of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, shows that four groups accounted for 74 percent of all fatalities from terrorism in 2015 — Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS.
Thirteen of the 14 Muslim Groups identified by the U.S. intelligence community as actively hostile to the US are Sunni, not Shia, and are not supported by Iran:
– ISIS (Sunni)
– The Al-Nusra Front (Sunni)
– Al-Qa’ida Central (Sunni)
– Al-Qa’ida in Magheb (Sunni)
– Al-Qa’ida in Arabian Peninsula (Sunni)
– Boku Haram (Sunni)
– Al-Shabbab (Sunni)
– Khorassan Group (Sunni)
– Society of the Muslim Brothers (Sunni)
– Sayyaf Group in the Philippines (Sunni)
– Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Sunni)
– Lashgar i Taiba (Sunni)
– Jemaa Islamiya (Sunni)
– Houthis (Shia)
Link here.
“Fat Leonard,” the Navy bribery scandal involving more than 60 admirals, explained
This is why we need to increase military spending . . .
"As the Washington Post reports, the Singapore-based Francis bribed officers of the Navy’s Seventh Fleet — the service’s largest fleet that operates in Asia — with gifts like prostitutes, money, and vacations while they docked in his ports from Russia to Australia. In exchange, Francis received classified information — including warship and submarine movements — and sensitive contracting developments.
Francis would use that privileged information to get US ships to dock in ports his company controlled. Once there, he would overcharge for “fuel, tugboats, barges, food, water, and sewage removal,” the Washington Post reported last year.
This went on for at least a decade until Francis was arrested in a sting operation on September 16, 2013, that spanned three states and seven countries in order to arrest other suspects and obtain relevant files.
Francis did have some help to do his work, though. His four associates recruited Navy officers as moles for the company and submitted fraudulent invoices, according to the Post. They have also pleaded guilty to charges ranging from fraud to conspiracy to defraud the United States."
"As the Washington Post reports, the Singapore-based Francis bribed officers of the Navy’s Seventh Fleet — the service’s largest fleet that operates in Asia — with gifts like prostitutes, money, and vacations while they docked in his ports from Russia to Australia. In exchange, Francis received classified information — including warship and submarine movements — and sensitive contracting developments.
Francis would use that privileged information to get US ships to dock in ports his company controlled. Once there, he would overcharge for “fuel, tugboats, barges, food, water, and sewage removal,” the Washington Post reported last year.
This went on for at least a decade until Francis was arrested in a sting operation on September 16, 2013, that spanned three states and seven countries in order to arrest other suspects and obtain relevant files.
Francis did have some help to do his work, though. His four associates recruited Navy officers as moles for the company and submitted fraudulent invoices, according to the Post. They have also pleaded guilty to charges ranging from fraud to conspiracy to defraud the United States."
Link here.
U.S. Admits Israel Is Building Permanent Apartheid Regime — Weeks After Giving It $38 Billion
Honest observers on both sides of the conflict have long acknowledged that the prospects for a two-state solution are virtually non-existent: another way of saying that Israel’s status as a permanent apartheid regime is inevitable. Indeed, U.S. intelligence agencies as early as 45 years ago explicitly warned that Israeli occupation would become permanent if it did not end quickly.
All relevant evidence makes clear this is what has happened. There has been no progress toward a two-state solution for many years. The composition of Israel’s Jewish population — which has become far more belligerent and right-wing than previous generations — has increasingly moved the country further away from that goal. There are key ministers in Israel’s government, including its genuinely extremist justice minister, who are openly and expressly opposed to a two-state solution. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has himself repeatedly made clear he opposes such an agreement, both in words and in deeds. In sum, Israel intends to continue to rule over and occupy Palestinians and deny them self-governance, political liberties, and voting rights indefinitely.
Whether despite this aggression and oppression, or because of it, the Obama administration has continually protected Israel with unstinting loyalty and lavished it with arms and money. This rewarding of Israeli behavior culminated in the administration’s announcement just three weeks ago that it has signed a “memorandum of understanding” to significantly increase the amount of money the U.S. gives to Israel every year, even though Israel was already by far the biggest recipient of U.S. aid. Under this agreement, the U.S. will give Israel $38 billion over 10 years, by far a new record for U.S. aid commitments, even though Israeli citizens enjoy all sorts of state benefits that Americans (whose money is being given to Israel) are told are too costly for them, including universal health care coverage, and tout superior life expectancy and infant mortality rates.
All relevant evidence makes clear this is what has happened. There has been no progress toward a two-state solution for many years. The composition of Israel’s Jewish population — which has become far more belligerent and right-wing than previous generations — has increasingly moved the country further away from that goal. There are key ministers in Israel’s government, including its genuinely extremist justice minister, who are openly and expressly opposed to a two-state solution. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has himself repeatedly made clear he opposes such an agreement, both in words and in deeds. In sum, Israel intends to continue to rule over and occupy Palestinians and deny them self-governance, political liberties, and voting rights indefinitely.
Whether despite this aggression and oppression, or because of it, the Obama administration has continually protected Israel with unstinting loyalty and lavished it with arms and money. This rewarding of Israeli behavior culminated in the administration’s announcement just three weeks ago that it has signed a “memorandum of understanding” to significantly increase the amount of money the U.S. gives to Israel every year, even though Israel was already by far the biggest recipient of U.S. aid. Under this agreement, the U.S. will give Israel $38 billion over 10 years, by far a new record for U.S. aid commitments, even though Israeli citizens enjoy all sorts of state benefits that Americans (whose money is being given to Israel) are told are too costly for them, including universal health care coverage, and tout superior life expectancy and infant mortality rates.
Link here.
Colonial Slow Genocide: Palestinian Leader Abbas asks Britain for “Balfour” Apology
"On the occasion of this entirely justified demand by Palestine, I’ll share a couple of my posts that delve into the significance of that declaration, which led to settler-colonialism in the British Mandate of Palestine and to the current Apartheid state in Israel-Palestine and the statelessness and oppression at the hands of Israelis of millions of Palestinians. This extended colonialism is unparalleled in the whole world: no other colonial power now existing is keeping millions stateless and without the right to have rights. And let me point out that British authorities were told by the European Powers after Versailles that the Balfour Declaration was *not* the basis for a legal claim of Zionist Jews to Palestine and that, moreover, British high officials agreed with this objection. That is, the legislative history does not even support the conventional Zionist interpretation of Balfour to begin with."
Link here.
Friday, March 9, 2018
ETFs Create Stock Markets That Are Both Mindless and Too Expensive, Study Says
Exchange-traded funds are making stock markets dumber -- and more expensive.
That’s the finding of researchers at Stanford University, Emory University and the Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya in Israel. They’ve uncovered evidence that higher ownership of individual stocks by ETFs widens the bid-ask spreads in those shares, making them more expensive to trade and therefore less attractive.
This phenomenon eventually turns stocks into drones that move in lockstep with their industry. It makes life harder for traders seeking informational edges by offering fewer opportunities to capitalize on insights into earnings and other signals.
- - - - - - - - -
A single percentage point increase in ETF ownership has demonstrable effects on an individual stock, the researchers found. Over the ensuing year, correlation to the share’s industry group and the broader market ticks up 9 percent, while the relationship between its price and future earnings falls 14 percent. Meanwhile, bid-ask spreads rise 1.6 percent and absolute returns grow 2 percent.
The cause? Unsophisticated investors and the ways they buy securities. Before index funds, traders who thought they knew something others didn’t could turn a profit in transactions with less informed buyers of individual stocks. That disadvantaged cohort now buys ETFs, locking up securities that traders once could pick off when price discrepancies arose.
That’s the finding of researchers at Stanford University, Emory University and the Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya in Israel. They’ve uncovered evidence that higher ownership of individual stocks by ETFs widens the bid-ask spreads in those shares, making them more expensive to trade and therefore less attractive.
This phenomenon eventually turns stocks into drones that move in lockstep with their industry. It makes life harder for traders seeking informational edges by offering fewer opportunities to capitalize on insights into earnings and other signals.
- - - - - - - - -
A single percentage point increase in ETF ownership has demonstrable effects on an individual stock, the researchers found. Over the ensuing year, correlation to the share’s industry group and the broader market ticks up 9 percent, while the relationship between its price and future earnings falls 14 percent. Meanwhile, bid-ask spreads rise 1.6 percent and absolute returns grow 2 percent.
The cause? Unsophisticated investors and the ways they buy securities. Before index funds, traders who thought they knew something others didn’t could turn a profit in transactions with less informed buyers of individual stocks. That disadvantaged cohort now buys ETFs, locking up securities that traders once could pick off when price discrepancies arose.
Link here.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
“I hope for Goldman Sachs’ bankruptcy”: Nassim Nicholas Taleb on Skin in the Game
In Taleb’s universe, the fieriest circle of hell is reserved for bankers and neoconservatives. “The best thing that could happen to society is the bankruptcy of Goldman Sachs,” he tells me. “Banking is rent-seeking of industrial proportions.” Taleb, who became rich as a derivatives trader, is not a foe of capitalism but of “cronyism”. “If you’re taking risks, God bless you. This is why I accept inequality. I’ve seen people go from trader to cab driver and back again.”
He similarly denounces armchair interventionists. “There’s a corrective mechanism in nature: a predator typically inflicts risk on others but also on itself. Unless warmongers are more exposed to dying than others it’s the equivalent of reckless drivers being isolated from the risks of reckless driving.” Is he suggesting that, like George Orwell in Spain, neocons should have joined the Iraq frontline? “They should have kept their mouths shut,” he replies.
Link here.
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Stock Buybacks Hurt Workers and the Economy. We Should Ban Them.
Repurchases done on the open market, which constitute the vast majority of all buybacks, are nothing but manipulation of the stock market. So why are companies allowed to do them? Because of the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan as president on a platform of market deregulation. In November 1982, after Reagan had appointed Wall Street banker John Shad as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the agency adopted Rule 10b-18, which permits a company to do buybacks that can amount to hundreds of millions of dollars per day, trading day after trading day, without fear of being charged with stock-price manipulation. Rule 10b-18, which remains in force 35 years later, is a license to loot the U.S. business corporation.
The argument for rescinding Rule 10b-18 is overwhelming. As research I’ve done with the Institute for New Economic Thinking documents, buybacks wreak immense damage on households, companies, and the economy. The profits that major corporations reinvest in productive capabilities form the foundation for a prosperous middle class. Buybacks deprive companies of that investment capital, instead serving as a prime mode of making the richest households richer while eroding middle-class employment opportunities.
Link here.
The argument for rescinding Rule 10b-18 is overwhelming. As research I’ve done with the Institute for New Economic Thinking documents, buybacks wreak immense damage on households, companies, and the economy. The profits that major corporations reinvest in productive capabilities form the foundation for a prosperous middle class. Buybacks deprive companies of that investment capital, instead serving as a prime mode of making the richest households richer while eroding middle-class employment opportunities.
Link here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)