#^d 2023-06-11 #^h Speaking of Which

I see that Nathan Robinson's Current Affairs has launched a biweekly News Briefing via Substack. If the free first issue is anything to judge by, it's better than what I've been trying to do (e.g., below) over the last several years. Still, I stopped cold when confronted with the paywall (Substack's minimum $5 per month, or $50 per year). Nonetheless, I got an email within minutes saying, "You're receiving free posts from Current Affairs Biweekly News Briefing." (I did nothing more, but maybe they glommed onto a cookie, as I'm a non-paying subscriber to a couple other Substack newsletters. The way they do this makes it impossible for my wife and me to share Substack accounts, which disinclines me from doing anything with them at all.)

By the way, apologies for the paywalled content linked to below. My wife subscribes to a lot of stuff (New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), which I piggyback on, so I don't notice when it's not free. On the other hand, the titles usually work as an outline, and my comments are always visible, never joined to a shakedown or any other kind of scam. If Current Affairs (or anyone else) wants to fold stuff I write here into their own offerings, more power to them. Just don't charge me for it.

I continue to be bothered by my lack of progress on any other writing front, despite the relative ease with which this weekly compendium practically writes itself.

Top story threads:

Trump: I started collecting before the Trump indictments dropped, but that only partially obsoletes Andrew Prokop: [06-08] Trump's next indictment is looming -- and the evidence against him is trickling out. Prokop also wrote: [06-08] Trump says he's been indicted again: The Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, explained; and [06-09] The detailed, damning new Trump indictment, explained.

DeSantis, and other Republicans: I originally wanted to keep all the sociopaths together, but the Trump volume argued for a separate section. Still, the only significant difference seems to be that he got caught -- something that in happier times he derided John McCain for:

While the following articles aren't strictly about Republicans, this seems like a good place for them:

Fire and smoke:

And other environmental disasters:

Ukraine War: Most observers are reporting that Ukraine seems to have started their "counteroffensive," albeit with little fanfare. Their only discernible victory so far is in getting journalists to say "counteroffensive" instead of "[Spring] offensive" -- we still need to make clear that Russia is the aggressor in this war. It's been pretty clear all Winter that Zelensky has no intention of negotiating until he first gives his fancy new war weapons -- especially the tanks -- a chance to tip the scales. While I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine manages to claw back much of the territory they lost in 2022, the only solution is still negotiation, and the only reasonable basis for negotiation is the self-determination of the people involved. Until both sides realize that, the destruction continues. And if you think this week's dam destruction was a disaster for everyone, wait until the fighting overwhelms the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant (already endangered, especially denied water from the dam).

World:

Other stories:

Dean Baker: [06-07] Owning up to mistakes and pandemic deaths: "It would be a huge step forward for both public health and US foreign policy if we could begin down the road of freely sharing health care technology rather than trying to bottle it up so that a small number of people can get very rich." Also see Ryan Cooper, below.

Zack Beauchamp: [06-11] How the right's defeats gave us the anti-LGBTQ moment: "The American right is returning to its homophobic roots." I figured the culture war over LGB was pretty much settled, but T opened it up again, largely, I think, because the right will embrace any non-economic grudge they can get any leverage on. (Gas stoves is an almost comical example.) Economic issues are trickier, because helping the rich get richer isn't all that popular, even among caste-conscious Republicans. Beauchamp's thesis is less convincing, but the right has few rivals when it comes to nursing grudges and stoking paranoia about vast left conspiracies. Otherwise, they might have to face responsibility for their repeated failures.

Irin Carmon: [06-06] When pregnancy is the crime: "An exit interview with Lynn Paltrow, who has spent decades representing women jailed for miscarriages and stillbirths."

Zachary Carter: [06-06] What if we're thinking about inflation all wrong? "Isabella Weber's heterodox ideas about government price controls are transforming policy in the United States and across Europe." With visions of magical markets dancing in their heads, economists hate price controls (even if coupled with wage controls, which softens the blow because economists also hate people), it's easy to see how they fell for the Volcker maneuver as the only proper remedy for inflation. But it's a very blunt, indiscriminate instrument, kind of like engineering a flood to put out a house fire. It may eventually work, but the collateral damage is immense, and may not even solve the real problem.

This recent round of inflation always struck me as caused by two things: the first is temporary supply chain kinks, which made it possible for companies to price gouge, some of which stuck given that most companies preferred profit to volume; which was possible due to increasing monopolization of damn near everything. Monopoly rents had trailed limits to competition because customers resist price increases, making companies reluctant to squeeze their every advantage, but the dam broke, companies could take whatever the market would bear. For proof, consider that most companies have been raking in record profits while others pay their premiums.

Weber has some interesting ideas for price controls -- often ones that avoid the bureaucratic overhead of the old OPA, although with modern computers you'd think that overhead could be slashed.

Ryan Cooper:

James K Galbraith: [06-09] Next time, dammit, just default: "Democrats feared a monster called 'default' -- but it's just another Washington scare story." Makes sense to me. In fact, makes me wonder why I didn't see something like this before the deal -- although parts of it are somewhat familiar. It's actually an old story where the Left (or its compromised proxies in parties like the Democratic) are called on to sacrifice their own goals in order to save capitalism, on the premise that not doing so would hurt worse.

Sarah Jones: [06-11] "It's not just the fringe who are committing these violent acts": Interview with Julie Burkhart, who runs the only clinic that provides surgical abortions in Wyoming. She formerly worked for the late George Tiller here in Wichita.

Peter Kafka: [06-07] Firing Chris Licht won't fix CNN. Licht drew flak for his efforts to move CNN toward the "center," especially the synthetic news event he billed as a "Trump town hall, but Kafka attributes his firing to the exposure in Tim Alberta: [06-02] Inside the meltdown at CNN. Alberta says "Licht felt he was on a mission to restore the network's reputation for serious journalism." I'm not sure that "serious journalism" is even possible on TV given diminished attention spans, but if one wanted to try, the obvious way to go about it would be to look beneath the headlines and start to notice the interests that corrupt and distort understanding.

Robert Kuttner: [06-09] Remembering William Spriggs: "A life devoted to pursuing economic justice." Died this week, at 68.

Dylan Matthews: [06-10] Labor unions aren't "booming." They're dying. "Unions won't come back without fundamental changes to bargaining."

Ian Millhiser:

Nathan Robinson:

Greg Sargent: [06-08] How Pat Robertson created today's Christian nationalist GOP: The Christian Broadcasting Network founder died at 93. Interview with Rick Perlstein.

Jeffrey St Clair: [06-09] Infamy at sea, cover-up in DC: Israel's attack on the USS Liberty: In 1964, two American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin reported being fired on, which LBJ quickly blew up into the casus belli that justified America's escalation of war against Vietnam. Three years later, another American ship was attacked at sea, this time killing 34 US sailors and injuring 174. LBJ was still president, but the only thing he escalated this time was the amount of foreign aid sent to the attackers. This is an old piece, from a 2004 book, but perhaps the story is new to you?

Maureen Tkacik: [06-02] Days of plunder: A review of two recent books on the most malign force in modern capitalism: Gretchen Morgenson/Joshua Rosner: These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs -- and Wrecks -- America, and Brendan Ballou: Plunder: Private Equity's Plan to Pillage America. Opens with more than you want to know about PetSmart, but that's just one example.

Robert Wright: [06-07] AI is at a dangerous juncture: It's hard to know just where to hook into this argument, mostly because it's unclear what AI is going to do -- the most obvious thing is to increase speed and productivity of data-intensive operations -- or more pertinently what it could do that we don't want it to do. One thing that makes that alarming is that for many years speed has been viewed as the holy grail of war (from blitzkrieg to the decision to respond to a nuclear first strike). Still, the question we should ask isn't how AI can give us (or them) an advantage in waging war, but whether our model of defense through deterrence hasn't been thorough discredited (e.g., in Ukraine).

One comment here: "AI will not be regulated properly because companies will always put profits over everything else." For all the talk about the need to regulate AI, I've never seen a concrete proposal for doing so. My best guess is that the first movers want it regulated to keep future competitors out -- that's actually a common regulation strategem. What would make more sense to me is not to regulate what AI can do but to regulate the business you can do with it, starting with how it can be monetized. A good start would be to deny any patents on it, which would disincentivize developers, especially from doing unsavory things with it. One could go a step further and require that the source code be free (in the GNU sense). For starters, that would make it publicly inspectable (and again it would disincentivize bad actors). And certainly, the products of AI shouldn't be copyrightable. (Thus far, as I understand it, they are not.) Of course, if we start talking along these lines, the current companies' push to regulate is going to evaporate. As long as politics are driven by greedy parties, this isn't likely to happen, but if the threat is real, how can we afford not to?

Abby Zimet: [06-04] A rank immunity: Henry Kissinger is still a war criminal: I thought we had flogged this not-year-dead 100-year-old carcass enough over the last couple weeks, but couldn't resist tipping you to the Wonder Wart-Hog detail used as an illustration. If you can stand more, try Jonathan Guyer: [06-08] I crashed Henry Kissinger's 100th-birthday party: "The elite love him but for some reason won't say why."

Notable tweet from @sorrelquest:

it's insane how like half of all political "arguments" boil down to one side that's universally beneficial and that everyone agrees with and one side that we need to pretend is contentious because eight people with a lot of money feel strongly about it

From Zachary D Carter:

The vagueness around whether we "need" unemployment at 4.5 percent or 5.5 percent shows how imprecise enthusiasts of this model can be, but the really extraordinary line for me is: "That's why we have central banks, is to make tough choices."

The point Furman is making is that central banks exist to do unpopular things. Democracy left to its own devices will produce too much inflation. "Too much" here being defined as about 4 percent, the "though choices" solution being millions of layoffs.

Plenty of economists agree with Furman that this is the proper role of a central bank. But that has not always been the case. It's pretty easy to create unemployment without a central bank. The U.S. had decades of deflation and persistent financial crises from 1870 to 1913.

And one of the chief arguments for establishing a central bank was to create more economic flexibility so that these crashes didn't become depressions and that deflation didn't destroy American democracy.

The idea that the Fed was supposed to handle one aspect of a full employment program was pretty common until the Volcker era. Congress passed two laws to that end, one in 1946 and another in 1978.

Managing expertise and public opinion isn't obvious or easy. But the belief that the people want too many jobs for their own good, and need to be disciplined into unemployment is not inherent to central banking. It's a very particular worldview, and one that I think is wrong.