Krugman’s blog, 11/27/13 | The problem with economics, the most dangerous pseudoscience.

http://mgpaquin.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/krugmans-blog-112713/

Krugman's blog, 11/27/13

The second post yesterday was "The Trouble With Economics Is Economists:"

That's in large part what Simon Wren-Lewis is saying in this post defending mainstream economics. And I largely agree.

It is deeply unfair to blame textbook economics either for the crisis or for the poor response to the crisis. The mania for financial deregulation, for example, didn't come out of standard economic analysis — in fact, it flew in the face of the canonical model of banking crises, Diamond-Dybvig, which suggested both a crucial role of government guarantees to prevent self-fulfilling panics and the need for regulation to control the moral hazard such guarantees would create. It's true that few economists tracked the rise of shadow banking that bypassed the traditional safeguards — but that was a problem of vigilance, not bad theory.

Efficient markets theory arguably deserves more blame for the failure of too many economists to recognize the housing bubble, but textbook economics always presented EMT as a baseline, not a revealed truth.

As for the crisis response, the remarkable thing has been the determination of policy makers to do the opposite of what textbook macroeconomics said they should have been doing. Slashing spending when interest rates are zero, jumping at any excuse to raise rates, aren't about orthodox economics being applied — in fact, the amazing thing has been to watch the proliferation of newly invented models to justify doing the opposite of what Econ 101 says.

The problem, of course, is that this wasn't just a case of ignorant or bull-headed political appointees ignoring economic wisdom: many prestigious economists were all too eager to turn their backs on standard macro, even when it was working very well, on behalf of their political leanings.

And that, I think, says that there is something wrong with the structure of the economics profession. We don't seem to need different economics as much as we need different economists.

Another great Salem gem: Mid-Valley Literacy Center

"To provide literacy services to adults in order to increase economic stability and overall quality of family life" Happy Thanksgiving 2013 Edy Pinto   MVLC Student Stories "Today is one of the happiest days of my life.  I finally passed my GED test.   A year ago if someone had told me that I was going to do it, probably I would not have believed it.  It is hard to think that a person like me, who only went to school for a short period of time, can pass a test like the GED.  With the help from the Mid-Valley tutors, that was made possible. I want to thank them all.  If I can do it, everybody can." Edy Pinto   * * * * * *  "I started the GED program at Mid-Valley Literacy Center.  I loved the smaller classes and the more personal help from the staff, volunteer teachers, and the unconditional caring support to each student.  The school's classes worked so well for me, and I was able to reach my goal of earning my GED.  Mid-Valley  Wynter Atkenson Literacy Center has helped me change my life for the best.     Thank you so much to the school, the staff, teachers, and Mrs. Vivian Ang." Wynter Atkenson Letter from Vivian Ang MVLC Executive Director As the Thanksgiving holiday approaches, I want to express my tremendous thanks to the people who helped MVLC make great progress this past year, our volunteer tutors and donors.  Without your generosity of time and financial support, this would not have been possible.  Thank you! Our achievements: 75 adults received their GED certificates 97 percent of our GED graduates obtained employment or entered college 10 students became Certified Nurse Assistants (CNAs) with full-time jobs 81 new volunteer tutors were trained and are working with over 500 adults 4 new tutoring sites were opened for a total of 26 sites in 5 counties The newest literacy site, at Albany First Assembly of God Church, has over 70 adults learning English while 50 children receive child care Our challenge: The new 2014 GED test preparation is a comprehensive program to ensure that adults have the skills and knowledge needed for college and work readiness in today's economy.  However, it takes much more preparation to achieve this level of competency.  It requires new educational materials that cost  $180  per student.  Our challenge is obtaining the funds to purchase those materials to continue helping our students succeed. If you want to donate to a worthy cause this holiday season, please consider giving the gift of literacy.  In doing so, you can change a life, change a family, change a community. Statistics show that for every dollar invested in adult literacy programs, it returns $33 to the economy of the community. Please consider donating to the Mid-Valley Literacy Center to help our students achieve their educational goals, which in turn strengthens our community. MVLC is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Visit our website to donate    Or make your tax-deductible check payable to: Mid-Valley Literacy Center 606 Dearborn Ave. NE Keizer, OR  97303 Mid-Valley Literacy Center 606 Dearborn Ave. NE Keizer, OR  97303 Phone:  (503) 463-1488 midvalleyliteracycenter@gmail.com www.midvalleyliteracycenter.org

$1.99 Ebook ENERGY: Overdevelopment and the Delusion of Endless Growth - E-BOOK

Subject: PCI Messenger - Now That the Party's Over
Reply-To: Post Carbon Institute <newsletter@postcarbon.org>

ENERGY: Overdevelopment and the Delusion of Endless Growth - E-BOOK
SPECIAL PROMOTION

We're offering you this digital book as a learning tool and invite you to do the same. Our goal is not to profit from its sale; therefore, we are offering it as a special promotion for $1.99 (other vendors have a listing price of $50.00). Please pay it forward, and share the link.

Buy Now

Countdown -- by Alan Weisman - Powell's Books

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780316097758-7

Synopses & Reviews

Publisher Comments:

A powerful investigation into the chances for humanity's future from the author of the bestseller The World Without Us.

In his bestselling book The World Without Us, Alan Weisman considered how the Earth could heal and even refill empty niches if relieved of humanity's constant pressures. Behind that groundbreaking thought experiment was his hope that we would be inspired to find a way to add humans back to this vision of a restored, healthy planet — only in harmony, not mortal combat, with the rest of nature.

But with a million more of us every four days on a planet that's not getting any bigger, and with our exhaust overheating the atmosphere and altering the chemistry of the oceans, prospects for a sustainable human future seem ever more in doubt. For this long awaited follow-up book, Weisman traveled to more than 20 countries to ask what experts agreed were probably the most important questions on Earth — and also the hardest: How many humans can the planet hold without capsizing? How robust must the Earth's ecosystem be to assure our continued existence? Can we know which other species are essential to our survival? And, how might we actually arrive at a stable, optimum population, and design an economy to allow genuine prosperity without endless growth?

Weisman visits an extraordinary range of the world's cultures, religions, nationalities, tribes, and political systems to learn what in their beliefs, histories, liturgies, or current circumstances might suggest that sometimes it's in their own best interest to limit their growth. The result is a landmark work of reporting: devastating, urgent, and, ultimately, deeply hopeful.

By vividly detailing the burgeoning effects of our cumulative presence, Countdown reveals what may be the fastest, most acceptable, practical, and affordable way of returning our planet and our presence on it to balance. Weisman again shows that he is one of the most provocative journalists at work today, with a book whose message is so compelling that it will change how we see our lives and our destiny.

Review:

"In this follow-up to The World Without Us, journalist Weisman visits more than 20 countries to explore four urgent questions. How many people can our planet hold? Is it in our own best interest to limit population growth? Which species are essential to our survival? And how can we design a prosperous economy that does not depend on endless growth and consumption? Weisman argues that this will be the century in which we must manage our population, 'or nature will do it for us in the form of famine, thirst... crashing ecosystems, and wars over dwindling resources.' To seek answers, he visits some of the planet's most overcrowded regions, including the Philippines, Niger, and India — with its 'archetypal new megalopolis,' Mumbai, swollen beyond comprehension at 21 million. He also visits countries that have slowed their population growth (Iran and Thailand), and those whose populations are dwindling, such as Japan. Weisman interviews Catholic clerics; Buddhist monks; biologists, including Paul Erlich (The Population Bomb); physicists, demographers; and others. He also analyzes the repercussions of China's one-child policy; the Haber-Bosch fertilization method that led to higher food yields; and the chronic malnourishment afflicting one billion people today. Provocative and sobering, this vividly reported book raises profound concerns about our future. (Sept.)" Publishers Weekly (Starred Review) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.

Review:

"Unflinching and ready for anything, Weisman's Countdown tackles the biggest question facing not only us, but every other living thing on earth. How many people can there be on the earth? Written with extraordinary clarity, without all the arm-waving and doomsaying that seems to kill the conversation, his firsthand tour of the globe offers both worst case scenarios and the most hopeful futures we can imagine." Craig Childs, author of Apocalyptic Planet

Review:

"Weisman offers heart-rending portrayals of nations already suffering demographic collapse....A realistic, vividly detailed exploration of the greatest problem facing our species." Kirkus (starred review)

Review:

"Spirited descriptions, a firm grasp of complex material, and a bomb defuser's steady precision make for a riveting read....Weisman's cogent and forthright global inquiry, a major work, delineates how education, women's equality, and family planning can curb poverty, thirst, hunger, and environmental destruction. Rigorous and provoking, Countdown will generate numerous media appearances for Weisman and spur many a debate." Booklist (starred review)

Review:

"He makes a strong case for slowing global population growth-and even for reducing overall population numbers-as a prerequisite for achieving a sustainable future....Weisman's book...offers hope....Weisman's emphasis on expanding access to contraception as the next-best strategy is both pragmatic and workable, as past efforts have shown. It is to be hoped that his message may be heeded sooner rather than later." Nature

Review:

"[Weisman] found vivid, real-world portraits of what overpopulation portends." Men's Journal

Review:

"Countdown converts globetrotting research into flowing journalism, highlighting a simple truth: there are, quite plainly, too many of us. A world that understands Weisman's words will understand the pressing need for change." Bill Streever, author of Cold and Heat

A real big inspiration for Salem

This is brilliant -- I've been trying to interest the Marion-Polk Food Share in this idea (training people to go around and adopt urban fruit trees and care for them to rescue them from neglect/ignorance and put the food to good use) for a while, and didn't even know we had a great model just up the road.  

Portland's Backyard Fruit — From Waste to Feast 

"We look forward to a time when we're really able to harvest all of the fruit trees in the city that aren't being fully utilized," envisions Katy Kolker, founder and executive director of Portland Fruit Tree Project. Volunteer groups harvest trees whose fruit would otherwise go to waste. Half of the fruit goes to neighborhood food banks, and the remainder goes home with the volunteers. Tree Care workshops offered to the public cover pruning, thinning and pest and disease control. They also train Tree Care Teams who adopt clusters of fruit trees in a neighborhood. From harvesting 8000 pounds of fruit in 2008 to three times that in 2010, this growing project is bearing fruit and benefitting thousands. Episode 217. [portlandfruit.org ]

Audio  | iTunes | Review: Community Group Harvests 25,000 lbs of Fruit from Unloved Trees | Janaia's journal: A Gleaning Project Shares Fruitful Abundance | DVD $20

Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay

Amen -- how TV wrecked our politics

I've had a version of this rant for years -- that the toxic seeds planted when TV pushed aside papers and radio in the 50s bore fruit in Reagan in 1980, the first true TV president, the guy elected because the electorate had been stupefied for thirty years and finally got to the point where any problem that couldn't be resolved within 22 minutes meant that you should just change channels (presidents) to find a better program; naturally, the more content-free you actually are, the more you fit in with TV's agenda, which is serving up the eyeballs to the corporate sponsors.

Begin forwarded message:

How television wrecked our politics

Sam Smith

With television, politics moved from Washington to Hollywood. The first beneficiary of this was Jack Kennedy, a handsome, unaccomplished senator whose ambitions were propelled by a  wealthy father of few restraints.

With television the voters' relationship with politicians changed dramatically. It was no longer a matter of stories formed in  a community, favors done for friends, or reports in the morning paper. Now the politician became a theatrical icon to be judged the ability to create a comfortable fantasy for a black and white screen. Kennedy was exceptionally good at it.

The shift from politics as a craft crammed with complexity and growing out of a community's experiences and myths towards a story externally controlled by those with little history or contact with the voter was a phenomenon of which Kennedy was the first beneficiary. His debate with Nixon, for example, was a clash of images and not ideas.

Talking with NPR, historian Robert Dallek said, "I think the most important moment was in that first television debate with Richard Nixon, when Kennedy came across as presidential,"

Given that Kennedy had few political achievements and few proposals that varied markedly from Nixon, how did he accomplish this?

Dallek said, "As someone who was poised, who was witty, charming, handsome and deserved to be president of the United States."

This was not some fan boy speaking but a historian outlining what would be come to be the standard for someone "deserving" to be president of the United States.

Similarly, in a recent two hour program on Kennedy's assassination on CNN, "handsome" was the most common adjective used to describe the president.

After her husband's assassination, Jackie Kennedy directly infused more of the theatrical into the story with the Camelot metaphor. The media quickly bought into it and thereafter became more than glad to supplant facts in political coverage with whatever fantasy was handy.

At least three of our subsequent presidents - Reagan, Clinton and Obama - were beneficiaries of TV soap operas concocted by organizations and the media that in no way adequately revealed either their roots or their reality.

And now we're headed for 2016 with Hillary Clinton's corrupt and dishonest past carefully hidden by the media as we're told to get ready for the first woman president.

Then we have rightwing stars like Ted Cruz, who comes out of nowhere (and significantly the son of an evangelical TV hustler).  These candidates are transformed into potential presidents for no other reason than the media tells us so.

None of this would have been possible without television.

And the money behind it.

From Joe Kennedy to the Koch brothers, vast sums going to TV advertising and the public relations manipulation of media stories, have caused massive damage to our political system. Even when the former system was corrupt, it at least included serious feudal obligations to voters. Today, constituents are owed nothing. They are no longer to be served or represented, but only manipulated.

A 2010 Los Angeles Timesstory by Meg James described it well:

For California TV stations, particularly those in Los Angeles, the midterm election has led to a gold-rush mentality. One campaign organizer said the cost of a 30-second TV spot has been soaring in the final days before Tuesday's election. A spot that went for $2,000 two years ago is going for $5,000 today.

Analysts who track political spending predict that TV stations nationwide will rake in two-thirds of the campaign dollars this year — about $2 billion. Commercial radio, another old-media staple, is expected to collect $250 million. At least $650 million will be spent on direct mail campaigns, those glossy fliers now filling mailboxes.

Internet sites should fetch about $50 million, less than 2% of the total.

"Television delivers a mass audience in a short amount of time and you don't have that same assurance with the Internet," said Wayne Johnson, president of Wayne Johnson Agency in Sacramento, which advises Republican candidates.

Several factors have contributed to this year's gusher, including a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in January that now allows unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions. In August, a low-profile Federal Election Commission decision opened the door for donors to pool their money and give anonymously, which produced a bumper crop of ads from nonprofit political groups and committees trying to influence voters.

Because television campaigning has been with us more than fifty years, it is easy to shrug and say, well, that's the way it goes. But do we really want to live in a country led by those whose politics are so distant from what they claim? Where television reporters have no small part of their salary derived during a campaign from the very people they are supposed be reporting objectively about? Or where this money not only picks the candidates but brain washes the public into thinking that it is those who are sufficiently handsome and charming who deserve to be president?

When historians attempt to figure out what caused America's collapse as a democracy, an economy and a culture, high on the list of perps will be that it all went down the tube while we were watching the tube. 

Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay

Bean & Grain Project on Peak Moment News!

The Bean and Grain Project — Outperforming Chemical Agriculture. The Bean and Grain Project is exploring bean, grain, and edible seed varieties which can be added to those already grown in Oregon's Willamette Valley. Oregon Tilth co-founder and farmer Harry MacCormack shares wisdom and stories about farms transitioning from chemical to organic farming. His book The Transition Document: Toward a Biologically Resilient Agriculture is a compendium of organic practices, like using compost tea to feed soil micro-organisms. Dan Armstrong, the author of Prairie Fire, notes that the project aims to increase the diversity of staple crops and add resilience to the regional food system. Episode 248.

Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay

Great Stuff - Oregon Common Cause Rips Away ALEC's Cloak of Darkness

[ALEC is essentially the stormtroopers in the trenches for the Koch Brothers' war against democracy.]

Do you know who ALEC is? Chances are, your elected representatives do.

Join us Thursday December 5th for a special screening of The United States of ALEC, a documentary film narrated by Bill Moyers that examines how corporations and lawmakers are colluding to write laws and remake America one state house at a time.

After the film, you’ll hear briefly how ALEC model-legislation is playing out here in Oregon, including the special session “grand bargain” deal preempting GMO labeling, and upcoming ballot measures to undermine Oregon’s clean energy laws and weaken our right to organize in labor unions.

You won't want to miss out on this informative evening, please RSVP today!

WHEN:    Thursday December 5th, 7 p.m.
WHERE:    Grand Theater, 191 High St NE, Salem
TICKETS:    Just $5.00

Counting among its members some 2,000 state legislators and business executives, ALEC passes cookie-cutter pro-corporate model bills through state houses across the country -- without the public ever knowing who's behind it.

Bill Moyers describes ALEC as "the most influential corporate-funded political force most of America has never heard of."

Join us to learn how to combat this secretive special interest-funded effort to rewrite our state's laws.

Tickets for this event are a bargain $5. We are looking forward to seeing you there!

Sincerely,
  
Kate Titus
and the rest of the team at Common Cause

Petition to demand Pentagon financial audit instead of cuts to programs for the 99%

Republicans have forced devastating cuts to vital programs like food stamps and Meals on Wheels to safeguard against “fraud” and “waste.”

But here’s the real fraud: A new investigative report by Reuters shows that the Defense Department waste is so astonishingly bad that the Pentagon doesn’t know how much money it has, where it comes from, or where it goes.
Sign the petition telling Congress: Stop all spending cuts and audit the Defense Department.

We will hand deliver the signatures to Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) and Senate Appropriations Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) who have the subpoena power to start an investigation like this. Please click here to sign the petition.

Just how bad is the waste? Faulty and fraudulent accounting across the Defense Department is so bad that no one actually knows how much money the Pentagon has, how much of it is spent, how much is wasted, how much is stolen, or how much was spent on what it was intended for.

You read that right: No one knows how much money the Defense Department has or spends, or where is goes—not even the Defense Department itself.

And the accounting problems aren’t just money related. Apparently the Pentagon doesn’t know how many weapons it has either--leading them to buy more arms and munitions than they need because they can’t account for the ones they have.

The Defense Department receives one-half of all money appropriated by Congress every year—but it can’t account for any of it. Meanwhile, Republicans have been demanding more cuts to programs like food stamps. It’s outrageous and it needs to stop.
Sign the petition: No more cuts. Audit the Defense Department.

Keep fighting,
Michael Langenmayr
Campaign Director, Daily Kos

Texas Democratic state rep candidate Byran Boyko is big fan of PR / and gets into why he backs RCV as part of the case for RCV

http://www.boykotx.org/great-as-the-enemy-of-good/

Great as the "enemy" of good?

I wanted to address something quickly to Clay Shentrup and William Waugh on Twitter, specifically, who said that "FairVote errs in failing to promote Approval Voting for U.S. Presidency, U.S. Senate, and State Governorships"

I said (being limited to 140 characters and all) that all systems have pros and cons.

Clay Shentrup then posted that "I'd be curious to hear what you think the cons are." and linked me to this page: ScoreVoting.net/BayRegsFig.html - a link at "The Center for Range Voting."

Clay, William: You're not wrong.

Approval voting, Range voting, and other voting systems produce better, more accurate results.  I would have no problem if we voted using Range or Approval voting for elections where there can only be one winner – executive elections, like the Governorship or the Presidency.

But none of the voting methods analyzed on the ScoreVoting.net site have any sort ofproportional representation component.

This is the key.

We have to go back and look at why electoral reform is necessary.  To tell the truth, range and approval voting systems are mathematically superior to other systems.  And you're right – range voting is the best of all single-winner election methods.

But the problem is that range voting only produces a single winner. No matter who wins in Range Voting, there's going to be a significant number of people who feel they aren't represented at all.

You suggest that range voting would end two-party domination, but let's be honest, the vast majority of people in America are either center-left or center-right.  In order for a third-party to be elected in any sort of single-winner system, they'd at least need to be approved by 51% of the population (even if they were not approved as a first choice.)  That's just not going to happen, in just about any district in America.

Range voting does allow you to vote for a Libertarian or Green candidate, give them your full support, without hurting your "second choice."  It eliminates the spoiler effect.  But it still doesn't make third parties viable.  Third parties will still be unrepresented or at best, underrepresented in legislative elections. Indeed, I doubt that the actual results of any range-voting election would be any different from the results you would have gotten under plurality.

Quite simply, proportional representation systems address several things that range voting doesn't.

• Proportional representation systems allow for significant ideological minorities – Libertarians, Greens, etc. to be represented in proportion to their actual support among the populace.  
• Proportional representation systems provide viable alternatives to the two major parties which allows voters to better hold politicians accountable.
• Proportional representation systems tend to produce better representation of socioeconomic minorities and women. (We can see this in Australia, which uses single-winner for the House, and proportional representation for the Senate. The Australian House is 25% women, the Australian Senate is 40% women, and yet, these are the same voters.)
• Proportional representation systems eliminate (or at least, greatly diminish) the impact of gerrymandering.  Voters get to choose their representatives – not the other way around, which is what we have now.

At the core of everything I'm working for, the main thing I am trying to do is to empower voters.Quite frankly, I think proportional representation systems do the most to empower voters, compared to any single-winner system.

But you're arguing that FairVote, by throwing it's support to IRV instead of Range Voting, is not endorsing the best system for single-winner elections that must be single-winner by definition – Presidency and Gubernatorial elections.

I think FairVote is actually being extremely clever to support IRV instead of Range Voting, and here's my reasoning:

Changing electoral systems is possible, but difficult.  Only one country in the world has ever changed electoral systems without significant upheaval (war or crisis) prompting the change.  That country is New Zealand.  They moved from plurality to MMP.

So, if we do manage to change the electoral system, we might get one shot to do so within our lifetimes.

FairVote is pushing for Single Transferable Vote in the United States for legislative elections.  It's the system I support, and the one I think has the best shot of America adopting. It provides proportional results without using party lists. People still vote for a name.  Voting is simple (you rank candidates first, second, third, and so on) and easily understood.

What's interesting, however, is that a Single Transferable Vote ballot looks more or less identical to an Instant Runoff Voting ballot to the voter.  Both rank candidates in order of preference.  Both are "choice voting" systems.

IRV may not be the best system for single-winner executive elections, but in all likelihood, STV is the best system for legislative elections. Because of the ballot similarity, pushing for STV and IRV at the same time is a much more achievable option.

All systems have pros and cons, as I said.  The cons for range voting, for me, is that it won't produce proportional results in our legislature, something we desperately need.  And we're likely only going to have one shot at electoral reform.

Now, if we already had some form of proportional representation for our legislature, then I'd say the move to range voting would be a priority for our executive, single-winner, elections.  But we don't.  And that's the bigger problem.

Instant Runoff Voting isn't perfect.  But it's good enough for the single-winner election systems.  And in this case, knocking FairVote for supporting IRV instead of range voting is a case of "great being the enemy of good."  The problem is, compared to any proportional representation system, range voting doesn't even rank.  FairVote is supporting IRV because it is seen as a compliment to STV – to proportional representation. 

To me, that just makes sense..

__,_._,___