The key to the Afghani election...

is... A DONKEY. Nope, not me. But more a whole pack of rent-a-donkeys that are used to haul the ballots around in treacherous terrain.

But even in areas with roads, many villages can be reached only by footpaths. Those ballots will be delivered by brigades of donkeys, which election officials rent from local farmers. At the price of $60 per donkey — the monthly salary for a night watchman at a public school — there are many willing participants. Well, to be honest $60 a day won't quite entice this donkey... but you never know.

Inequality and lack of social mobility...

A couple of my more recent posts have focused on inequality comparisions between America and other developed nations in Western Europe. As part of my posts, I discoursed that it was somewhat absurd to make a statement along the lines of "Social mobility is at a more developed level in Germany than the United States." I thought I should, in all fairness, offer a rejoinder to myself after reading this article in this week's Economist. The article focuses on Britain, but many of the same statements can be made about America.

Income is distributed more unequally than in most OECD countries, as measured by the widely used Gini coefficient (see chart)—and more unequally than in any rich one except America and Italy. Nor is equality of opportunity much in evidence: a son’s income depends more strongly on his father’s in Britain than in any other country for which the OECD has data.

I am still not totally convinced that this single factor (correlation of father to son's wages) is adequate in measuring social mobility, but it is an interesting little article, and I deserve to have to eat some of it.

Also interesting from this week's print edition, is an article on the "axis of diesel; Iran, Venezuala and Russia.

In sum, Iran, Russia and Venezuela are all likely to be left short of cash—and facing a diminution in their international clout. “Never confuse brilliance with a bull market,” goes a Wall Street saying. The leaders of the oily trio may have thought high oil prices were an adequate substitute for good governance. In many quarters, the difference is now painfully clear.

I'm interested to see how these three respond to this rather sudden reduction in monetary power, especially Iran - given the looming elections next summer.

Gini coefficients...

To follow up on my last post, where I may have gotten a little ruffled by Michaels' piece in the NLR, I wanted to point readers to a data source for international economic data. The OECD is an international organization, based in Paris, that offers lots of access to data and literature on many economic topics. The OECD just posted a report on income inequality in developed countries, which I look forward to reading. While quickly perusing the report, I did a spot check on the OECD's Gini estimates, and what did I find? Estimated Gini's for selected countries (mid-2000's):
Before Taxes and Transfers:
Germany - .507
France - .482
United States - .457
Denmark - .417
United Kingdom - .460
Italy - .557

After Taxes and Transfers:
Germany - .298
France - .281
United States - .381
Denmark - .232
United Kingdom - .335
Italy - .352

The different values here show that, in nearly all developed countries, tax policy redistributes income and thus, increases parity. Of course, the amount to which this redistribution occurs does vary significantly. Same direction, different degree.

Recall, from Michaels (linked above) --

A standard measure of economic inequality is through the Gini coefficient, where 0 represents perfect equality (everybody makes the same), and 1 perfect inequality (one person makes everything). The Gini coefficient for the us in 2006 was 0.470 (back in 1968 it was 0.386). That of Germany today is 0.283, that of France, 0.327.

Obviously he was pulling his data from a different source, but doesn't it seem like just maybe he was being selectively misleading by reporting what is likely the US's Gini prior to taxes and transfers and France's and Germany's almost positively after? I don't doubt that there is a truly important point in criticizing America's policies that have allowed for an acceleration of income disparity, but I don't think the "cause" is helped by misleading statistics and inciting rhetoric (i.e. Move to Germany for the American dream).

Equality and neoliberalism...

Ken at Mel-Anon had an interesting post this morning on the relationship between identity politics and inequality. I am sympathetic to many of the arguments made by leftists that we must reduce our focus on identity traits and focus more on socioeconomic status. I am, however, not willing to go with Walter Benn Michaels to this level:

"It is neoliberalism, not racism or sexism (or homophobia or ageism) that creates the inequalities that matter most in American society; racism and sexism are just sorting devices."

I will be the first to admit that neoliberalism has an array of faults, not the least of which is instinctively moving to the muddled middle on many policy issues without much forethought. I don't believe, however, that it is wise to claim that racism and sexism are "sorting devices" and are not part of a real social issue. It is my belief that we can combat sexism, racism, bigotry and inequality all at the same time. The key is education. Both access and equality. Through whatever means work... be it vouchers, more public funds, higher taxes, etc. One area that I definitely feel is critical is access to university education. This means reinvigorating the Pell grant system, upping the ante on programs like Teach for America and such. A key part to a successful change in our educational system is for entrenched ideologues to rethink if their position is really advancing access and quality of education, or merely toeing the party line (and there are lots of party lines in this field).

More from Michaels:

A standard measure of economic inequality is through the Gini coefficient, where 0 represents perfect equality (everybody makes the same), and 1 perfect inequality (one person makes everything). The Gini coefficient for the us in 2006 was 0.470 (back in 1968 it was 0.386). That of Germany today is 0.283, that of France, 0.327. Americans still love to talk about the American Dream—as, in fact, do Europeans. But the Dream has never been less of a reality than it is today. Not just because inequality is so high, but also because social mobility is so low; indeed, lower than in both France and Germany. Anyone born poor in Chicago has a better chance of achieving the American Dream by learning German and moving to Berlin than by staying at home.

This paragraph bothers me, quite a lot. I think it bothers me so because I tend to agree with most of the basic premise of the argument - that socioeconomic inequality in the United States is a major issue - but this paragraph does little to enlighten this point. Let us deconstruct a bit: First, the Gini coefficient is not really a standard measure of inequality. It is a measure of income dispersion, but - as with most single stats - a failure to understand the underlying data makes its value fall significantly. I actually believe a review of the underlying data relating population percentages to income percentages in a ratio analysis based on the Lorenz curve quintiles would be interesting, and likely aide the point being made. Additionally, the Gini coefficient should only be compared across data that uses the same premises. The primary example here is that in the US benefits (health care) are not normally included in gross income computations, while in many European nations they are. What is the effect? Well, the cost for health insurance coverage offered by a single employer is likely the same for each employee (no matter how much that employee makes unless they had a progressive co-payment, novel?). How big of a difference this makes is debatable, but to use the Gini with no qualifications as a clear numerical comparison between nations is a bit overzealous.

Now to the part that is crazy -- Of course Americans and others love to talk of the American Dream, because it is real and a motivating factor for lots of people. To say that the dream is less of a reality today than... EVER, is completely bunk. Tell that to the generations of, yes, women and minorities that had NO chance to live the dream. To make such an inflammatory and patently untrue statement in what was already a fairly strongly opined piece is to, in my opinion, beg for criticism. As to the social mobility, I would point to the paragraph below, which highlights that Germany still makes decisions that greatly effect a child's ability to be mobile at age ten. Additionally, both France and Germany have very significant issues with immigration and reconciling their societies to the influx of Islamic immigrants. (I have little doubt that there is a lot of xenophobia here in the US.) To say that anyone born poor in Chicago has a better chance of achieving the American Dream in Germany is, to say the least, a big stretch. I have little doubt that they would receive a much better social safety net (which is good, and something the US must work on.), but there are lots of costs that come with that trade-off. I remind you, there is a reason the term is "American Dream." America is by no means perfect, and the growing inequality underlying the piece by Mr. Michaels is a real subject for discussion, but to devolve into a "America is the bastion of evil" mentality is, perhaps, a bit premature.

Before going to far with the Germany is a bastion of equality, one may wish to review this week's Economist, which has an interesting article on Germany's attempt at education reform.

Germany is one of the few European countries that still divides children up at the age of ten. The cleverest go to Gymnasien, the main route to university; the ordinary are sent to Realschulen; and the dullards attend Hauptschulen, often breeding-grounds for disaffection.

As we evolve...

Hitchens always offers something to say and a brief review of the last three posts in his Slate "Fighting Words" column shows that he is two for his last three. The old curmudgeon can still hit a little, eh? The column dated 7/7/08 on the death of Jesse Helms is definately a double to the gap.

I make no apology for calling him a provincial redneck, because that, to be fair to him once more, was how he thought of himself and even described himself. It was a scandal that a man with so little knowledge of the outside world should have had such a stranglehold on American foreign policy for so long. He once introduced Benazir Bhutto as the prime minister of India. All right, that could have happened to anybody. But what about the hearings on North Korea in which he made repeated references to "Kim Jong the Second"? In order to prevent any repetition of this idiotic gaffe, Helms' staff propped up a piece of card on which was clearly written the pronunciation "Kim Jong ILL." The senator from North Carolina duly made the adjustment, referring thenceforth to the North Korean despot as "Kim Jong the Third."

Good riddance Jesse...

I won't go into great detail on his post from July 14th on what he feels is a false zero-sum choice proposed by liberals with regard to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I feel this piece is either a hard line out to right center, or maybe it is reaching on an error by the left side of the infield? I am not as convinced as Mr. Hitchens that the war in Iraq is going as well as he would have it, but he does make one point in reference to the Afghanistan war that I believe to be of import.

It would also be very nice to accept another soft-centered corollary of the Iraq vs. Afghanistan trade-off and to believe that the problem of Afghanistan is a problem only of the shortage of troops. Strangely, this is not the view of the Afghan government or of any of the NATO forces on the ground. The continued and, indeed, increasing insolence of the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies is the consequence of one thing and one thing only. These theocratic terrorists know that they have a reliable backer in the higher echelons of the Pakistani state and of its military-intelligence complex and that while this relationship persists, they are assured of a hinterland across the border and a regular supply of arms and recruits.

Until Pakistan gets serious about the insurgents in the Tribal Regions, an area much neglected and extremely economically and politically depressed, there will be no true "peace" in Afghanistan... no matter how many NATO or US troops are there.

And finally we have the blind salamander column dated July 21st. In this column Hitchens offers an interesting argument against the entire mindset of linear progression, which is of primary import to the Creationists (and is at least partially shared by many other humans). Hitchens proposes considering our current position not as the resultant of a natural progression, but as the temporary status quo of an ongoing and dynamic process, whereby things (cells, organs, organisms, ecosytems, planets, galaxies, etc.) come and go. There is no ultimate end to evolution, it is merely a part of the ongoing change that is the universe.

I am not myself able to add anything about the formation of light cells, eyespots, and lenses, but I do think that there is a dialectical usefulness to considering the conventional arguments in reverse, as it were. For example, to the old theistic question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" we can now counterpose the findings of professor Lawrence Krauss and others, about the foreseeable heat death of the universe, the Hubble "red shift" that shows the universe's rate of explosive expansion actually increasing, and the not-so-far-off collision of our own galaxy with Andromeda, already loomingly visible in the night sky. So, the question can and must be rephrased: "Why will our brief 'something' so soon be replaced with nothing?" It's only once we shake our own innate belief in linear progression and consider the many recessions we have undergone and will undergo that we can grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design.

The Worst African Dictator...

According to Peter Maass at Slate, it isn't Mugabe. Maass focuses his article on the fact that Obiang is the devil we don't know due to lack of media coverage and any official condemnation from the U.S. He points out that Condie Rice has referred to Obiang as a "good friend," which makes you wonder about the old adage regarding "With friends like these..."

I understand that the media neccesarily can't make news of all "bad" leaders of government, but it does seem odd that Obiang and his goons have gotten such an obvious free pass from the Western media and governments.

The U.S. government is not propping up Mugabe, but with billions invested by American companies in Equatorial Guinea, it is propping up Obiang. The Equatorial Guinean minister who owns the building that houses the U.S. Embassy in Malabo has even been accused of torture by human rights organizations. Instead of seeking an indictment against the man, the U.S. government is putting rent money in his pocket. (A lot of rent money, actually—$17,500 a month.)

You haven't heard that before? The tragedy is that you might not hear of it again.

Ooops, not a free pass, but a paid one!

Monday is soooo Goode...

From the blog of the Goode Guy!

On the trail, the number one issue on the minds of people continues to be the price of gasoline.* Citizens in this country want the United States to decrease and ultimately end our dependency on foreign oil, and there is no excuse for Congress to be neglecting this critical issue. Where is the Congress?

Well Greg, since you are running for it I thought I would let you know it's in Washington DC... Be sure to note the DC means District of Columbia way out there near the Atlantic Ocean, not Daviess County between the White rivers.

* I guess it could be different in Southern Indiana, but around the USA it seems the economy and jobs is a bigger issue than gas prices. Of course, maybe Mr. Goode is selectively filing this issue away because he knows his "Conservative Covenant" doesn't care about the disadvantaged among us.

McCain-Lieberman?

An interesting article at Salon muses over this hawkish ticket. For the sheer theatrics, I would have to support (not vote) said ticket. Imagine, the Huck getting his Bible thumpers into a tizzy over the possibility of the GOP electing a pro-choice Jewish self identifying "Democrat" as VP. Oh, what drama!

That is why it is easy to envision angry antiabortion Republicans storming out of the convention in protest over a putative McCain-Lieberman ticket.

The Bush Poison Pill...

Krugman offered a quick analysis of Obama and McCain's tax policy proposals and how they have been influenced by the Bush tax cuts. Krugman views the Bush tax cuts as exerting negative influence on the campaign and the future administration's ability to change course.

I realized that the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration are, in effect, a fiscal poison pill aimed at future administrations.

True, the tax cuts won’t prevent a change in management — the Constitution sees to that. But they will make it hard for the next president to change the country’s direction.

McCain may be the more disappointing case, as he has been falling over himself to endorse making the Bush cuts permanent and has plans to lower the corporate rate even more. This coming from the "maverick" who at one point stood boldly against this political pandering to the hard-rich-right. Alas, he has fallen into the role of standard electioneer and couldn't possibly be expected to stand up for what is best for the country.

Obama, on the other hand, offers a plan that will at least partially roll back the Bush tax cuts. His plan is forecasted to raise federal revenues over the next decade, while McCain's will see further drops during a time when the deficit is growing daily.

Barack Obama’s tax plan is more responsible than Mr. McCain’s: relative to current policy, the Tax Policy Center estimates, the Obama plan would raise revenue by $700 billion over the next decade, compared with a $600 billion loss for Mr. McCain.

The Obama plan is also far more progressive, sharply reducing after-tax incomes for the richest 1 percent of Americans while raising incomes for the bottom 80 percent.

The potential problem with the Obama plan is that this increase of $700 billion probably isn't enough to cover universal health care. Krugman views Obama's plan as being limited by the fact that he only proposes raising taxes on those with incomes over $250K. Additionally, the Obama plan gives some of this additional revenue away by exempting all income below $50K for seniors. This one gets my goat, and Krugman raises the correct question.

Mr. Obama’s plan to eliminate income taxes on seniors with incomes under $50,000: since most seniors already pay no income taxes, this would do nothing for those most in need. And one wonders why we should create the precedent of exempting particular demographic groups from taxes.

I know the cynical answer to this is that old folks vote, but come on. There is no reason that a senior making $49K should be exempt from income tax, when a younger person (or in some cases even a family) would not be. This is also political pandering. I am all for helping those most in need, but as Krugman points out-- the most in need seniors already pay no income tax, so who does this help?

At the end of the day, any truly progressive individual will come around to the clear realization that the Obama plan is much more preferable than the McCain offering. This does not mean, however, that we should just accept the weaknesses in the Obama proposal as necessary. If change is the ticket, then you can't be afraid to change the big issues.

The Triple Threat...

Perusing the NYT today, I found a very interesting snippet in Friedman's column.

“Call it the triple deficit,” said Mr. Rothkopf. “A fiscal deficit that will soon have us choosing between rationed health care, sufficient education, adequate infrastructure and traditional levels of defense spending, a trade deficit that has us borrowing from our rivals to the point of real vulnerability, and a geopolitical deficit that is a legacy of Iraq, which may result in hesitancy to take strong stands where we must.”

Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, and author of the new book Superclass, which I may have to read despite it's conspiracy theory sounding blurbs...

Each one of them is one in a million. They number six thousand on a planet of six billion. They run our governments, our largest corporations, the powerhouses of international ?nance, the media, world religions, and, from the shadows, the world’s most dangerous criminal and terrorist organizations. They are the global superclass, and they are shaping the history of our time.

Under any circumstance the "triple threat" mentioned hits on a lot of my concern with the current American situation. How do we work through these three deficits? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know we aren't doing much to address any of the three at this time.

"The Democratic Recession" - Friedman 5/7/08

It appears that Friedman is back from book leave, and offers a solid insight into what he terms the looming democratic recession.

And the numbers tell the story. At the end of last year, Freedom House, which tracks democratic trends and elections around the globe, noted that 2007 was by far the worst year for freedom in the world since the end of the cold war. Almost four times as many states — 38 — declined in their freedom scores as improved — 10.

Friedman offers up the point that this decrease in democracy and freedom is inversely correlated with the price of oil, which doesn't seem completely baseless. I know that the democratic recession that is occuring in Russia should probably be of more concern to America and the West than it has been.

So, if the price of oil rising decreases democracy and freedom, we should want to do our best to lower the price of oil, right? Unfortunately, we have our love for oil and it may just be more than our love for democracy and freedom...

Friedman ties this all back to the 2008 election (which for the next 6 months will be mandatory) with a snippet of why the gas tax holiday is crazy...

But we also need to do everything possible to develop alternatives to oil to weaken the petro-dictators. That’s another reason the John McCain-Hillary Clinton proposal to lift the federal gasoline tax for the summer — so Americans can drive more and keep the price of gasoline up — is not a harmless little giveaway. It’s not the end of civilization, either.

It’s just another little nail in the coffin of democracy around the world.

Orwell and Obama...

Jeff Greenfield penned an interesting article viewing Obama through an Orwellian lens of class consciousness. Greenfield attempts to critique the current Democratic/liberal/progressive American movement through Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier. Orwell used Wigan Pier to offer a descriptive account of the lives of the working poor in Northern England in the 30's. He peppered this astute work of journalism with a critique of contemporary socialism in England, especially focusing on the fact that many of it's adherents were of an elitist character. Greenfield does dig out one of my favorite Orwell statements regarding English Socialism...

One key to the movement's lack of popularity, Orwell argues, is its supporters. "As with the Christian religion," he writes, "the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."

Orwell was famous for his willingness to point out the flaws of the left, and his indictment of the superiority complex of the organized Socialist movement is still prescient.* I often find causes of interest to me overpopulated with those who seem to want to feel good about the cause, but yet do as little as possible to extend its benefits to the masses. This form of exclusivity runs explicitly against the philosophic roots of liberalism and progressive politics. It is, however, unfortunately a very real part of any organized political movement that espouses a voice for the working class. The leaders too often forget what gives them the power, and alas an internal ruling class forgets to embrace who and what they stand for...

Orwell also rails against the condescension many on the left display toward those they profess to care most about. Describing a gathering of leftists in London, he says, "every person there, male and female, bore the worst stigmata of sniffish middle-class superiority. If a real working man, a miner dirty from the pit, for instance, had suddenly walked into their midst, they would have been embarrassed, angry and disgusted; some, I should think, would have fled holding their noses."

* I do think, however, that it is important to recall that Orwell wrote Wigan Pier in a different context than contemporary America. The social classes in England of Orwell's time were much more static than those in America today. This is not to say that many of the same issues regarding class elitism don't appear in today's world, but it seems to me that there is less of a permanent inter-class disdain established at birth. The class differences are often related to lifestyle choices, which depending on how you read Orwell, may well be what should be expected and maybe even praised.

Friedman returns, "Dumb as We Wanna Be"

Mr. Friedman graces us with his opinion in today's NYT, focusing on energy policy. The long and short of it is that our politicians are failing us in a serious way. With Clinton joining McCain in calling for a gas tax holiday and the Bush-Congress inability to figure out a compromise on tax credits for renewables, we are faced with an energy policy that is working directly against our long term sustainable interest.

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.

I hate to focus in on the word Serious (I know Mr. Mel-Anon loves to abuse it), but I really think Friedman is on the money in this instance. Political pandering, or transactional politics, or whatever you wish to term it isn't horrible in and of itself, but when it encourages and incentivizes behavior that is against our long term public interest it really gets my goat. I'm not suprised that the McCain camp would stump for a shortsighted and ass backwards policy, but Clinton joining in is truly disappointing. I don't see how a campaign that highlights it's candidates policy credentials can keep a straight face when it comes to such a silly proposal.

If you want to help Joe and Jane Sixpack, start by developing an energy policy that reduces our reliance on non-renewables and focuses on conservation.

Lock'em up, say the masses...

I had previously posted an "Economic Data Tidbit" on the topic of incarceration rates, so I thought it appropriate to link to Liptak's article in the NYT today, which is part of his American Exception series on the distinctness of the American judicial arena.

Perhaps the most interesting portion of the article is one of the possible causes for the extreme disparity, democracy!

Most state court judges and prosecutors in the United States are elected and are therefore sensitive to a public that is, according to opinion polls, generally in favor of tough crime policies. In the rest of the world, criminal justice professionals tend to be civil servants who are insulated from popular demands for tough sentencing.

Mr. Whitman, who has studied Tocqueville’s work on American penitentiaries, was asked what accounted for America’s booming prison population.

“Unfortunately, a lot of the answer is democracy — just what Tocqueville was talking about,” he said. “We have a highly politicized criminal justice system.”

This is a fine example of one of those conundrums that any viable democracy must face -- how do we balance the majority's collective will with the rights of the minority? Well, we may be taking the route of just locking up the minority --- and taking away their right to vote when they return to "normal" society as well. Woot! Go Democracy!

Economic Data Tidbit -- Prisoners per 100K

Prisoners per 100K population (latest available year)*

1. United States 737
2. Russia 613
3. Virgin Islands (US) 549
4. Belize 505
5. Turkmenistan 489
6. Cuba 487
7. Bermuda 464
8. Bahamas 462
9. Cayman Islands 453
10. Belarus 426
11. Barbados 367

The US has a 20% higher rate than any other nation in the world and twice as high of a rate of all but 9 other nations. Included in those nine nations are such bastions of freedom as Turkmenistan and Cuba. The real craziness in this data is the fact that America's rate is increasing at a fairly strong clip. This is definately an example of unsustainable policy, since it's only a matter of time until we don't have any guards for all the prisoners.

* From The Economist, 2008 Pocket World in Figures