|
FOCUS: Crash-Test Dummies as Republican Candidates for President |
 |
|
Friday, 28 August 2015 11:39 |
|
Krugman writes: "Will China's stock crash trigger another global financial crisis? Probably not. Still, the big market swings of the past week have been a reminder that the next president may well have to deal with some of the same problems that faced George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Financial instability abides."
Paul Krugman. (photo: Bloomberg News)
Crash-Test Dummies as Republican Candidates for President
By Paul Krugman, The New York Times
28 August 15
 ill China’s stock crash trigger another global financial crisis? Probably not. Still, the big market swings of the past week have been a reminder that the next president may well have to deal with some of the same problems that faced George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Financial instability abides.
So this is a test: How would the men and women who would be president respond if crisis struck on their watch?
And the answer, on the Republican side at least, seems to be: with bluster and China-bashing. Nowhere is there a hint that any of the G.O.P. candidates understand the problem, or the steps that might be needed if the world economy hits another pothole.
READ MORE
|
|
FOCUS: Raising Interest Rates Would Hurt Working People |
|
|
Friday, 28 August 2015 10:37 |
|
Stiglitz writes: "As central bank governors, Federal Reserve officials, economists and reporters convene for the annual economic policy retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyo., this weekend, the question on everyone's mind is: Will the Fed raise interest rates come September?"
Joseph Stiglitz. (photo: Reuters)
Raising Interest Rates Would Hurt Working People
By Joseph Stiglitz, Los Angeles Times
28 August 15
 s central bank governors, Federal Reserve officials, economists and reporters convene for the annual economic policy retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyo., this weekend, the question on everyone's mind is: Will the Fed raise interest rates come September?
The answer should clearly be "no." The preponderance of economic data indicates that the predictable costs of premature tightening — slower job and wage growth — far outweigh the risk of accelerating inflation.
Six years into a lackluster U.S. expansion, price growth for personal consumption expenditures — excluding food and energy — has averaged less than 1.5% annually in the recovery, well below the Fed's unofficial 2% inflation target. It slowed to 1.3% so far in 2015.
Global economic forces are poised to drive inflation still lower. Last week, oil prices fell to $42, a low not seen since February 2009. Europe's growth remains anemic and is likely to remain so: The IMF forecast for 2015 is just 1.5%. And while it is difficult to piece together a precise picture of what is happening in China, most experts see growth slowing markedly, with effects in other emerging markets.
With a weaker euro and yuan, our exports will decrease and our imports increase. Together, this will put pressure on domestic businesses and the job market, which is hardly robust.
Despite a headline unemployment rate of 5.3%, the true labor market situation faced by working families in the United States remains dire. Millions remain trapped in disguised unemployment and part-time employment. As of July, the nation faced a jobs gap of 3.3 million — the number needed to reach pre-recession employment levels while also absorbing the people who entered the potential labor force. The true unemployment rate, including those working part time involuntarily and marginally attached, is more than 10.4%.
Poor labor market conditions are also reflected in wages and incomes. So far this year, wages for production non-supervisory workers, which tracks closely to the median wage, fell by 0.5%. Median household income — a better indicator of how well the economy is doing as seen by the typical American than GDP — at last measure was lower than it was a quarter-century ago.
It is hard to see why the Fed would choose slower job and wage growth for most Americans just to protect against the theoretical risk of moderately higher inflation. But, then again, it's often hard to understand the Fed's policy choices, which tend to contribute to widening inequality in the United States.
Too often, after the end of one recession, the Fed, fearing inflation, has used monetary policy to dampen the economic expansion. Its maneuvers keep inflation low but unemployment higher than it otherwise would be, negatively affecting all workers, not just those out of a job. Workers in jobs face greater stresses, downward pressure on wages and diminished opportunities for upward career mobility. The costs of higher unemployment are borne disproportionately by people in lower-income jobs, who also tend to be disproportionately people of color and women.
After the 2008 crisis, the Fed tried to stimulate the economy by buying bank debt, mortgage-backed securities and Treasury assets directly from the market — so-called quantitative easing — which disproportionately benefited the rich. Data on wealth ownership show clearly that the portfolios of the rich are weighed more toward equity, and one of the main channels through which quantitative easing helped the economy was to increase equity prices.
So quantitative easing was yet another instance of failed trickle-down economics — by giving more to the rich, the Fed hoped that everyone would benefit. But so far, these policies have enriched the few without returning the economy to full employment or broadly shared income growth.
The Fed has been forthright in pointing out the limits of monetary policy to help the economy. Fiscal policy could lead to stronger and more equitable growth, but the Republican-led Congress has demanded austerity.
Still, there is more the Fed could do. It could do more to curb excessive debit card fees and the anti-competitive charges that credit and debit cards impose on merchants. These fees lead to higher prices and lower real incomes of workers. It could also do more to encourage lending to small and medium-sized businesses.
Easiest of all, it could choose not to raise interest rates. All policy is made under uncertainty. In this case, however, the risks are one-sided: Ordinary Americans in particular will be hurt by a premature rate rise, as the economy slows, unemployment increases and there is even more downward pressure on wages.
 |
|
|
The Virginia TV Shooting and the End of American Exceptionalism |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 27 August 2015 13:38 |
|
Pierce writes: "If it had happened in Syria, Lindsey Graham might liquefy entirely and disappear in a rush down a storm drain. But it happened here, in the exceptional home of American exceptionalism, so, once again, we will be told that Alison Parker and Adam Ward are merely more of the price we pay for the exceptional exceptionalism of a free society."
Police near the scene of the Virginia shooting of on-air journalists. (photo: Getty)
The Virginia TV Shooting and the End of American Exceptionalism
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
27 August 15
Today's events are a horrifying example of the way we live now.
 've been away from my TV for a while, so can anyone tell me whether Wayne LaPierre has leaped to a microphone yet to explain that, if there only had been a .50-caliber machine gun or a Stinger missile mounted atop the camera when that guy exercised his Second Amendment rights in Roanoke this morning, the two murdered journalists still would be alive? C'mon, Wayne. It's time for your now-monthly argumentum ad dementum about our country's lunatic attachment to its firearms. A grateful nation awaits your wisdom.
(The latest reports indicate that this was yet another case of workplace violence, albeit one that took place outside the actual newsroom. This will qualify the shooter for the NRA's coveted Mucko McDermott Human Resources Award.)
A news crew, doing a completely ordinary happy-face morning feature at a mall get blown away on camera. If this had happened in Somalia, we'd have a lot of earnest talk about the dangers of a failed society. If it had happened in Syria, Lindsey Graham might liquefy entirely and disappear in a rush down a storm drain. But it happened here, in the exceptional home of American exceptionalism, so, once again, we will be told that Alison Parker and Adam Ward are merely more of the price we pay for the exceptional exceptionalism of a free society.
(Google "reporter shot on camera" and, once you get past the massive coverage of this morning's barbarism, you'll be amazed at how often it happens. Or you won't be.)
Without naming the teacher, Barbour County Schools Superintendent Jeffrey Woofter credited her for maintaining control just when classes were about to change. Woofter also praised the local police chief for getting quickly to the scene and talking the suspect into giving up. The teacher talked the boy into not allowing the next group of students to enter the classroom. Alerted by those students, another teacher told school administrators, who then called 911. "The teacher did a miraculous job, calming the student, maintaining order in the class," Woofter said. The entire situation was contained in about two or three hours, police said. Meanwhile, the rest of the 724-student body was safely evacuated to the bleachers of the football stadium, where they awaited rides home.
Of course, hero teacher should have been strapped and the episode wouldn't have lasted so damn long.
I mean, Holy Mother of God, this country's gone mad.
|
|
Many Police Departments Spy on You Without Oversight. This Must End |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29990"><span class="small">Trevor Timm, Guardian UK</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 27 August 2015 13:36 |
|
Timm writes: "Rather than be upfront about their surveillance methods to prosecutors, defendants and judges - like is required by law - they are purposefully letting serious alleged criminals go free, all to continue their blanket surveillance practices with minimal scrutiny."
Police could be vacuuming up telecommunications in a neighborhood near you. (photo: RayArt Graphics/Alamy)
Many Police Departments Spy on You Without Oversight. This Must End
By Trevor Timm, Guardian UK
27 August 15
Stingray phone trackers are so controversial that some state legislatures have passed laws restricting their use – which is why police want to keep it secret
 ocal police around the country are increasingly using high-tech mass surveillance gear that can vacuum up private information on entire neighborhoods of innocent citizens - all to capture minor alleged criminals. Even worse, many cops are trying to put themselves outside the reach of the law by purposefully hiding their spying from courts to avoid any scrutiny from judges.
Two important news reports from the last week have shed light on the disturbing practices, and new technology that’s never been previously reported. The first investigation, done by USA Today’s Brad Heath, found: “In one case after another … police in Baltimore and other cities used the phone tracker, commonly known as a stingray, to locate the perpetrators of routine street crimes and frequently concealed that fact from the suspects, their lawyers and even judges.”
Stingrays facilitate a particular controversial and invasive form of surveillance, where the police essentially own a roving, fake cell phone tower that force all the cell phones in its vicinity to connect to it. They then vacuum up the cell phone data of their suspect, as well as that of potentially hundreds of innocent citizens. Police departments have previously claimed they would only use it in “emergencies,” but as predicted by nearly everyone, those vows have almost immediately went out the window once they got their hands on the technology.
Stingrays are so controversial that some state legislatures have already passed laws restricting their use – which is exactly why police want to keep it secret. Police and the FBI have claimed extreme secrecy is needed to prevent alleged criminals from finding out about how they use the devices, but they are so well-known at this point that they’ve been featured in virtually every major newspaper in the country. The real reason they want to keep them secret is to protect them from judges ruling their use illegal, as well as from state legislatures cracking down on them.
Stingrays are expensive, costing police departments hundreds of thousands of dollars (when they don’t get a grant from the federal government to get them for free). But the ability to secretly track untold numbers of cell phones is getting much cheaper still, as a second-generation of products is now coming to the market.
The Wall Street Journal also reported last week about newer devices costing as little as a few hundred dollars with ominous sounding names like the “Jugular” and “Wolfhound.” While, thanks to all the restrictive secrecy around them, it’s still unclear exactly how they work, we do know that they use radio waves to find cell phones and that the police supposedly don’t think they require a court order at all to use against potential suspects. They’re also smaller than Stingrays, which fit into the back of a van. These devices are handheld or can be attached to clothing.
“We can’t disclose any legal requirements associated with the use of this equipment,” a spokeswoman for the Baltimore County Police told the Wall Street Journal. “Doing so may disclose how we use it, which, in turn, interferes with its public-safety purpose.”
This is not only potentially illegal - defendants have the Sixth Amendment right to know how evidence was gathered against them - but keeping the legal rationale for surveillance hidden is also an absurd concept. It’s like saying the fact that a warrant is required for the police to wiretap your phone should be a state secret, and the Fourth Amendment - instead of being enshrined in the Constitution - should be redacted from public view.
Not only are these cops violating the constitutional rights of defendants by spying on them without court orders, but, in some cases, they’re also allegedly dismissing felony cases involving potentially dangerous criminals, so they can prevent judges from ruling on whether their surveillance tactics are legal. The USA Today reported that the Baltimore police quickly dropped a kidnapping charge without explanation when their tactics might have been revealed.
Think about that for a moment: rather than be upfront about their surveillance methods to prosecutors, defendants and judges - like is required by law - they are purposefully letting serious alleged criminals go free, all to continue their blanket surveillance practices with minimal scrutiny.
All of this is especially disturbing considering the recent reports - confirmed by the government’s own documents - that both the Department of Homeland Security and local police departments are closely monitoring peaceful activists in the #BlackLivesMatter movement, in some cases with police counterterrorism officers. If local police departments are willing to use these powerful devices on minor criminals, in many cases without court orders, and have no problem hiding their practices from judges, what’s the prevent them from spying on citizens merely expressing their First Amendment rights? The answer seems to be nothing, and that is exactly why this reckless snooping must end.
|
|
