Category Archives: economics

Links about our legal system

Republicans often talk about the will of the voters but they’ve made it very clear they make exceptions — like when voters don’t do what Republicans want them to. Voters in Michigan passed constitutional amendments in favor of early voting and same-day registration. Republicans in the state legislature are suing to stop the changes, on the grounds only the legislature can make those decisions (this is a fringe theory known as “independent legislature”).

Over in my state, North Carolina, the Republican-dominated legislature has empowered its members to shield their records from public access. It’s almost like those fine moral, upstanding Americans have something to hide. (On the plus side, a judge has blocked parts of North Carolina’s new forced-birth laws coming out of the same session).

In Wisconsin there’s a court battle over whether the legislature can fire the state’s top election official for not fixing things for Republicans — wait, that’s not how they phrased it. They also want to sideline the new justice for being anti-gerrymandering and pro-choice.

The US military academies got an exemption from that recent Supreme Court decision banning consideration of race in admissions. Unsurprisingly someone’s suing to change that. I’m not surprised the two young men suing haven’t been discriminated against, they just claim it’s inevitable if they do apply.

Alex Jones claims he’s still too broke to pay the Sandy Hook families their lawsuit settlement but his spending proves he’s lying.

This is from a few years back but it’s still a little shocking: attorney Neal Katyal told the Supreme Court US companies that benefited from child slavery can’t be sued or punished. The Supreme Court agreed.

In 2000, Al Gore filed lawsuits asking for a recount. Guess what, that’s not the same as Trump demanding states find him more votes.

Slime supremacist Stephen Miller’s legal group wants Kellogg’s investigated for putting RuPaul on its cereal boxes.

Philadelphia’s archdiocese has settled a child-rape case for $3.5 million.

Everyone’s entitled to a public defender if they can’t afford an attorney. As Radley Balko discusses, it’s a hollow right because the public defender system is a train wreck.

North Carolina is spending $100 million on a new digital case-management software for the court system. Is the software worth it? Plaintiffs have filed lawsuits, prosecutors report problems but the company is dismissive, arguing in court filings that “the case contained “no plausible factual allegations” against the company, which has “no legal duty to protect plaintiffs” and is not responsible for the software’s daily use.

Heather Cox Richardson looks at Trump’s trial in New York and concludes his bluster and temper tantrums aren’t going to help him. She’s more optimistic about a MAGA collapse than I am, but from her keyboard to god’s ears. Because this kind of bullying — Trump targeting the court clerk in his NY case — needs to stop. He received a restraining order forbidding him from talking about the trial on social media but promptly posted a link to the prosecutor’s home address. I hope there’s consequences.

The strategy of fake plaintiffs in religious-conservative cases needs to stop too.

Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro claims his role in Trump’s 2020 efforts to overturn the election focused entirely on the law. Nope, he was arguing that lawsuits had political benefit: ““the impression that the courts lacked the courage to fairly and timely consider these complaints, and justifying a political argument on Jan. 6 that none of the electoral votes from the states with regard to which the judicial process has failed should be counted.””

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, Politics

Megan McArdle: normalize marriage to end poverty!

A couple of decades back, one of the standard explanations for poverty was that rich people had become too decadent and too tolerant. Decadent, in that they engaged in all sorts of reckless behavior which they could handle — their wealth would cushion them — but the working class and the poor would imitate them and didn’t have the same protections. Plus the rich were too tolerant in that they didn’t demand their inferiors behave better; David Brooks, for example, thinks the main flaw in our ruling class is that they don’t impose social conformity like the WASP elites of old.

A variation on this is that the reason poor people are poor is they don’t get married. As Roy Edroso says at the link, this is “an answer to all the liberals who think conservatives should be doing better by our poorer citizens — without costing their donors a cent (except in marriage promotion boondoggles, but those are cheap and help keep the less talented wingnut welfare cases off the street).” It’s also deeply tied in with their misogynist longing to push women out of public life and keep them barefoot and pregnant: James Taranto and other right-wingers think shotgun weddings were preferable to birth control and abortion. Taranto also thinks if we didn’t have laws that guarantee equal employment rights to women, more of them would have to marry to support themselves.

WaPo columnist Megan McArdle says the entertainment industry needs to preach marriage to fix things, which strikes me as an even more vapid solution: just have more films with marriage in them and poverty will be fixed! No need for government programs! Because it’s not like there are any programs on TV any more where people marry or want to marry … oh. Wait. There are lots. Superman and Lois and Flash are just two that immediately come to mind. Possibly she means marriage is presented as an option rather than a must-have, but it’s not treated as an aberration or something unusual.

And anything McArdle says about how to fix the problems of the poor I automatically disbelieve. Her career has been built on telling people not to worry about the poor. For example, ““it’s all too common for well-meaning middle class people to think that if the poor just had the same stuff we do, they wouldn’t be poor any more (where “stuff” includes anything from a college education to a marriage license to a home). But this is not true.” Poor people are poor because they make bad life decisions, period, end of statement — she respects poor people too much to say they’re at the mercy of outside forces. Like say, rich people giving jobs to less talented friends and family — something she supports. Who cares about equality of opportunity? And sure, Scandinavian countries may take care of your education and health needs but you can’t afford servants — who’d want to live like that?

She defends restaurants making false claims they sell locally sourced food. She argues that Hobby Lobby refusing to let employee health insurance cover contraceptives is no more unreasonable than not buying employees a car (she’s wrong. See at the link). And that the number of under-age girls needing abortion is so small denying them is no big deal (this is a common right-wing argument, I’ll note). Besides, only rich women with white-collar careers care about abortion, not working-class women!

When it comes to discussions of how to help the poor, she is not likely to be say anything worthwhile. Of coursse, few other Republicans are any better, whether it’s Fox pundit Mark Levin comparing the UAW head to Mussolini (“Making demands, making threats, trying to bully.”) or presidential candidate Tim Scott saying workers don’t have the right to strike.

1 Comment

Filed under economics, Politics

Capitalism and its discontents

Capitalism and free enterprise have produced a lot of stuff I like. However in the current system of oligarchy and monopoly, the competition that’s supposed to ensure good outcomes for everyone ain’t happening. Eyewear, for example, costs far more than it should because the industry is down to a few key players. It’s also the reason groceries keep getting more expensive. And in some cases, medical procedures.

It doesn’t help that the current climate in Washington is by and large pro-business. If there’s no support for busting business even when they commit crimes, and none for opposing monopoly, it’s inevitable the rich get richer and the big corporations get bigger. Though Republicans are perfectly happy to fight business for being too liberal and “woke.” Florida’s CFO is questioning one company for pulling out of homeowners insurance in the state but has to blame it on wokeness. Questioning capitalism would be a bridge too far, I guess. Sen. Rick Scott blames it on fraud but he means evil customers cheating the noble insurers, ignoring the probability that insurers are defrauding customers.

A related problem is that business is increasingly unresponsive to complaints, or abandons you to a chatbot. One woman invested in a house she hoped to pay for partly by renting it on AirBnB; the company dropped her and resists course-correcting. Greyhound Bus tickets are often entirely digital so if there’s a computer glitch, you’re screwed.

A lot of the issues, I suspect, come from existing in a culture where returns to investors are held up as the only moral good (as touched on in some of the links above). So to avoid any loss of revenue, oil companies give lip service to fighting climate change, then do nothing. Businesses insist that standards protecting workers from heat exhaustion are unnecessary and complicated and dammit, why shouldn’t they be able to work employees to death if it’s good for the bottom line (my interpretation, not their words).

For older investors it may be like Louis XV dismissing the consequences of his spendthrift ways: “apres moi, le deluge” (after me, the flood) Rupert Murdoch is 90; no matter that he’ll leave the world much worse than he found it, he’ll escape most of the consequences.

Another aspect, as Paul Krugman puts it, is that “Tech bros appear to be especially susceptible to brain-rotting contrarianism.” They’re smart and lucky enough to become rich, often by beating conventional wisdom, which makes them think someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his crackpot vaccine theories might be right after all (which is not how science works). It’s very easy to build themselves an echo chamber reaffirming their own genius. And being rich and successful makes it tempting to go Dunning-Krueger and imagine you can grasp lots of stuff outside your field of expertise easily (I see a lot of that in Mensa). And if someone points out the emperor has no clothes, threaten to sue them!

Then there’s fraud, which in this particular case (companies selling overpriced gold — buy before the economy collapses!) gets advertised on Fox News, Ted Cruz’ podcast and multiple other seemingly respectable (if you’re a conservative) venues. Any qualms Cruz or Fox have about this (I’m not sure they have any) are assuaged by the money, and being immune from any liability (“If an advertiser blames their legal troubles on ‘the woke mob,’ she said, ‘you’re often allowed to believe them.'”). More about right-wing fraud here.

I’ll switch gears slightly here and note that as far as the economy collapsing, “Bidenomics” has performed well over all. Inflation has come down, Biden’s very pro-labor and he’s found a workaround for SCOTUS rejecting his student-loan forgiveness plan. Nevertheless, as noted at the link, he may not be getting credit for it (a lot of the commenters disagree with the OP’s interpretation of why). Tech bros (again) are convinced the good economy is government propaganda — recession is imminent! Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy goes even more delusional, agreeing with a questioner’s theory that the Federal Reserve just adds zeroes to bank accounts of the government’s allies.

4 Comments

Filed under economics, Politics

“The endgame is to allow things to drag on until union members start losing their apartments”

According to Deadline, that’s the reason Hollywood’s studios haven’t begun negotiations with the screenwriters, despite being 70 days into a s strike: they plan to break the union by refusing to negotiate at all until writers’ money runs out. Wall Street, Deadline says, is thrilled with the idea of less money to workers and more flowing to investors.

Now the Screen Actors Guild has gone out on strike too. Will that make a difference? I don’t know.

I’m with the actors and writers of course. While I don’t have links handy, I’ve read plenty about how the streaming era has changed things: residuals for reruns no longer make sense, a season on a hit show may only last 10 episodes and creatives’ share of the streaming profits is way small.

Will the studios hold out? Can the strikers last? No idea. From my perspective this changes little: there’s so much good new stuff, foreign stuff, rerun stuff I haven’t seen, plus things I could rewatch that if there was no 2023-4 TV season it wouldn’t matter. Does that mean studios can afford to wait out the writers and actors? I sure hope not.

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, Movies, Politics, TV

Nonfiction about prosecutors, black fashion and gay rights

THE CHICKENSHIT CLUB: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives by Jesse Eisinger looks back at the glory days of the late 20th century when the Justice Department and the SEC accomplished several successful prosecutions for corporate fraud, culminating early in this century with the prosecution of Enron and its accounting firm, Arthur Anderson. Unfortunately that triumph proved a pyrrhic one: the collapse of Arthur Anderson was held up as proof some firms were too big to fail and many of the tools the feds used, like pressuring companies not to pay executives’ legal fees, were eventually tossed out. Firms pay inconsequential fines for criminal behavior ($10 million, say, is large in itself but not to a billion-dollar corporation); nobody goes to jail.

Eisinger shows it’s a mix of factors, including prosecutors afraid to take on cases they might not win (the “chickenshit club” of the title), lobbyists, judges and government officials who come from the world of business, prosecutors who hope to get jobs with corporate counsel (several hardcase prosecutors found their job opportunities in the private sector vanishing) and a government that has no problem with a double standard: it’s fine to seize a suspected drug dealer’s assets so he’s unable to pay an attorney but doing that to rich CEOs? Unthinkable!BLACK IVY: A Revolt in Style by Jason Jules argues that before the 1970s, black leaders embraced “Ivy” League style not out of conformity but to prove they were the equals of white America. The book, however, simply shows endless photos of prominent blacks in suits (Thelonius Monk, James Baldwin, MLK, Gordon Parks) and discusses their style; possibly if I had more interest in fashion this would have been more interesting but I don’t. I also don’t see how Richard Roundtree as Shaft, above, fits into the same style, though he certainly is stylish.

WE ARE EVERYWHERE: Protest, Power and Pride in the History of Gay Liberation by Matthew Reimer and Leighton Brown is a myth-busting book that argues making Stonewall the origin of gay liberation ignores decades of earlier “homophile” organizing, and that rather than the arc of the universe bending towards justice, the past century was a grim slog marked by small triumphs. Informative, and like March, it does a good job showing the movement’s internal issues. Gay men dismissing lesbian feminists. Lesbians dismissing trans women (“trans-exclusionary” is not a new thing). Complaints that AIDS is so important, questions of discrimination against POC or women are now just distractions. And should the end game be a world where gays are happily accepted as normal or where freaks and nonconformists have the freedom to be outside the mainstream without hassles (the authors side with option B).

#SFWApro. All rights to image remain with current holder.

3 Comments

Filed under economics, Politics, Reading

Hunger is a policy choice

That was a point Paul Campos at Lawyers, Guns and Money (I don’t have the specific link) made a while back: the United States has the resources to feed every kid in America currently living with hunger. Not doing so is a policy choice. It’s usually policy by inaction, by not doing anything to change that, but it’s still a policy.

And in some cases, Republicans make it an active decision. The Community Eligibility Provision to school lunch programs allows schools to provide free food to all students regardless of need. This only applies to low-income school districts so it’s not like billionaire kids will get free meals (heck, if that were the case Repubs would probably love it). It’s more efficient for schools than collecting and means-testing individual applications. So naturally the Congressional Republicans want to kill it. Just like last year a Republican senator objected to rules that wouldn’t let schools refuse lunch to LGBTQ kids.

I presume this is a variation of the Republican belief in sticks over carrots. If parents know their kids have food, that’s one more incentive for them to be lazy; conservatives (at least those who oppose free lunch programs) won’t acknowledge any other reason for lacking money or food. Similarly Rep. Glenn Grothman thinks providing food stamps and affordable housing discourages work and marriage. Plus there’s the terrifying fear that somebody, somewhere, will get something they don’t deserve. That’s unacceptable unless it’s well-off white people like themselves.

It’s a policy choice the same way that not doing anything about mass shootings is a policy choice. Or any flooding in the blue counties Ron DeSantis is denying flood-control funds to is a policy choice. If Texas construction workers pass out because Gregg Abbott overrode regulations for mandatory water breaks, that’s a policy choice. If defunding Pentagon anti-extremism efforts allows more violence or terrorism, that’s a choice too. So is letting diseases spread because they oppose vaccine mandates.

That’s not to say we can eliminate hunger 100 percent. There may be abused kids, sex-trafficked kids, runaway kids who can’t be found and fed. As one excellent article discusses, providing free medical care and shelter space won’t save every homeless person. But they can save a lot. We can feed a lot of kids.

But we don’t. And Republicans don’t want us to.

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, Politics

Diversity, plus links about labor and economics

Chick-Fil-A has been the right wing’s favorite restaurant for ages (at least on paper — I wouldn’t bet they patronize it as much as they write about it) until recently it became too woke for conservatives. The issue? They have a diversity, equity and inclusiveness vice president at the company. For a lot of conservatives, as noted at the second link, thinking about diversity means choosing less qualified POC or women over more qualified white people and that’s racist!

Ron DeSantis, who’s making I Hate Diversity his brand, says if he were president, federal civil rights investigations will include fighting diversity, including in the military, where diversity truly horrifies right wingers. As I’ve said before, letting people of all races, genders, and orientations enlist isn’t woke, but for people who fantasize about the ability to fight as the ultimate test of manhood (never mind whether they do or not), it’s agonizing.

As I’ve mentioned before (here and here) there was never a time when jobs were handed out without race and gender being an influence. It’s just that a century ago the bias was in favor of white men; I guarantee you, nobody pretending they want a meritocracy would be demanding one if they were thrown back a hundred years. Nor do they care about legacy admissions and other bias factors that disproportionately benefit upper-class white people.

Despite the squealing about how we should be color/gender blind, it takes a conscious effort to overcome bias. For example, orchestras hire more women musicians if they don’t know their gender (auditioning unseen behind a screen). One study that sent out near-identical resumes with different photos attached found a white man with a felony was more likely to get a job interview than a black man with the same resume but no rap sheet. Other studies have found people are biased in favor of natural talent over hard work. That isn’t the same sort of discrimination but does show how our unbiased assessments are anything but.

Overcoming that sort of bias takes conscious effort. Right-wingers don’t want business making that effort because it doesn’t benefit white dudes, end of story.

In other economic news:

Did a consultant contribute to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank?

Another day, another crypto firm shows cracks.

“It’s like being on vacation all the time, with occasional scrambling to do a thing, then doing the thing for a couple of hours, then going back to the rest of my life,”— says one of the “jobless employed.”

“The real problem here is that a more rational work culture would include the recognition that it’s OK to get paid full time wages for doing ten or fifteen hours of work a week, since that’s what everybody should be doing at this point, given how rich we’ve become as a society. But we can’t have that because any such recognition would dampen economic growth and profit maximization, which is obviously a terrible thing because [step in argument missing].” — LGM responding to the previous link.

Labor protests in the newspaper business.

The National Eating Disorder Association’s staff made the decision to unionize. So NEDA’s replacing human hotline staffers with chatbots.

“Johnson & Johnson said on Tuesday that it had agreed to pay $8.9 billion to tens of thousands of people who claimed the company’s talcum powder products caused cancer

LGM dissects and mocks a really bad argument for why workers should return to the office.

For workers whose jobs require showing up in person, the economy isn’t improving.

The right-wing war against diversity in business.

The impact of COVID-quitting on one county (this is from 2021, but it’s interesting).

2 Comments

Filed under economics, Politics

Writers on strike! There’d be film at 11 but we have no script!

The Washington Post provides the basics on why screenwriters are striking, what they want and how it will affect TV.

Vanity Fair looks at the current streaming environment and how it’s already become hard for writers to make a living in it. “Wall Street changed the rules of the game,” says Marc Guggenheim, a veteran showrunner. Instead of chasing subscriber growth with great content, streamers are now directed to focus on profitability. “Overnight, all the streamers will suddenly be measured by a completely different yardstick that they weren’t built to meet.”

If you want a primer on the topic, these articles should do the trick.

#SFWApro

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, TV

AI and other science and tech topics.

“People have reported the voice of their loved ones being recreated to perpetuate scams. Start-ups have emerged that scrape the internet for high-quality speech samples and bundle hundreds of voices into libraries, and sell them to companies for their commercials, in-house trainings, video game demos and audiobooks, charging less than $150 per month.” — from an article about how AI may kill voice actors’ careers.

What effect will AI-generated images have on porn?

AI deepfakes are hurting women already but some women are doing their best to fight back.

The flip side: some hustlers have figured out how AI can help them work two salaried jobs or more.

A new food safety law was supposed to avoid sesame-contamination (it’s an allergen) the same way companies avoid peanut contamination. Instead, some companies just add sesame flour to food.

Using Excel for genetics data is not a good approach.

“When relocating, villagers face a choice of either leaving behind the bones of ancestors, or exhuming them and taking them to the new site. Either choice is deeply traumatic.” — an excellent look at the physical, financial, social and spiritual challenges Fiji faces moving villages to escape climate change.“New swarms of satellite constellations, such as SpaceX’s Starlink, threaten to outshine the real celestial objects that capture astronomers’ interest—and that humans have admired and pondered for all of history.”

Water is scarce in parts of the west, and IT data centers suck it up.

“The problem was that the most efficient way to win baseball games under the rules as they existed turned out to be highly inefficient for the purpose of entertaining the spectators and TV audiences who make major league baseball major.” — on how baseball managing has come to resemble AI.

“The products shown in targeted ads were, on average, roughly 10 percent more expensive than what users could find by searching online. And the products were more than twice as likely to be sold by lower-quality vendors, as measured by their Better Business Bureau ratings.”

#SFWApro. Covers by Werner Roth, Jack Kirby, Nick Cardy, Mike Sekowsky and Carmine Infantino. All rights remain with current holders.

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, Miscellanea

I’d like belief, I’ll settle for support

For months now, America’s right wing has been on a non-stop shriek-a-thon about woke business. Budweiser has a trans spokesperson in the Superbowl ad? They’re woke! Disney markets to gays? They’re woke! Rainbow-creme oreos to celebrate pride? Woke!

In reality, of course, it’s the free market at work. Gays and trans people are a demographic that buys stuff; American corporations want to get their money. Ergo, be LGBTQ friendly, much as companies in the 1970s branded themselves as friends to liberated women.

I feel about this the same way I do politics. I much prefer politicians who sincerely share my values; I’ll settle for politicians who’ll enforce them out of self-interest. Whether Democrats are pro-choice because they believe in the right to abortion or they’re pro-choice to get themselves re-elected, it gets the same results. Part of being a voter is finding the politicians who’ll deliver the most bang for the buck, not the one who reflects your personal ideas best. It often requires compromise, but that’s politics.

On gay issues, I suspect a lot of business leaders are pro-gay or at least not anti-. The culture has shifted radically and gay acceptance is much more widespread than the end of the last century, 23 years ago. For all the outrage on the right, a large chunk of America doesn’t think catering to the LBGTQ market is a bad thing; it’s no longer a controversial or daring stand.

That’s part of the problem for the right — the realization that companies are not only willing to compete for LGBTQ dollars, they don’t see a downside to doing so. It’s like the old urban legend that Proctor and Gamble was openly Satanist and sneered that “there are not enough Christians in America” to cause any blowback. The reminder that outside the Republican Party the right-wing doesn’t have enough clout to force companies to change has to stick in their craw. Heck, Disney’s response to Ron DeSantis’ trying to bully it is to schedule a pride event. Conversely, Oklahoma officials talking about how they miss the days of lynching produces more outrage and criticism than a century ago.

Another issue, I suspect, is that right wingers such as Matt Walsh — who has embraced a Bud Light boycott as the great crusade of our time — know that being inclusive from self-interest leads to real inclusion. The more companies send a message of “we’re cool with gay, give us your money” the more normal and acceptable being gay/trans looks. This may be part of Ron DeSantis and others pushing don’t say gay in schools. Seeing gay teachers, gay fellow students, reading about gays makes it easier (I assume) for other gay kids to come out, and for straight kids to see gays are just like them, unremarkable and not the sick fiends of right-wing propaganda. Keeping them quiet, keeping pride symbols out of school, that works the other way. It’s the same logic by which attorney Matt Staver wants Christian schools to exclude kids with gay parents — otherwise students might meet them and learn gays aren’t monsters!

This is what happens when you build a worldview on a tissue of lies, you have to live in perpetual fear that reality will rip it apart.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, Politics, Undead sexist cliches