Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
Where it gets us into trouble, according to Sloman and Fernbach, is in the political domain. It’s one thing for me to flush a toilet without knowing how it operates, and another for me to favor (or oppose) an immigration ban without knowing what I’m talking about. Sloman and Fernbach cite a survey conducted in 2014, not long after Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Respondents were asked how they thought the U.S. should react, and also whether they could identify Ukraine on a map. The farther off base they were about the geography, the more likely they were to favor military intervention. (Respondents were so unsure of Ukraine’s location that the median guess was wrong by eighteen hundred miles, roughly the distance from Kiev to Madrid.)
5 weeks ago
They’re back, as wrong as ever. Enough of Nigel Lawson and his band of 80s ultras | Will Hutton
In any league table of national figures who have been consistently wrong on almost every major judgment Nigel Lawson must rank close to number one. As Britain and his party reel from the impact of intolerable intergenerational and geographical inequality, stagnating productivity, a vast personal debt burden, and now the poison of Brexit, Lawson is the man most closely associated with the ideas and policies that have brought us to our current pass.

With a wholly unjustified reputation for being an economic superman that buoys up his no less unjustified self-confidence, Lawson remains an insidious, if wizened, scorpion, as indiscriminately dangerous to his own side as to his ideological opponents.
5 weeks ago
Stephen Bush: If you sneer at Wetherspoons, you've never feared splitting the bill
There’s a bigger point here than appreciating the joy of a sit-down meal you can afford in the company of people you like. Slating Wetherspoons in the pages of The Sunday Times shows how easy it is to forget what not having very much money is actually like, and how little sympathy we have for people who fall on hard times.

That’s why punitive policies which punish the poor – like the cap on child benefit after the second child, or sanctions for missing appointments at the Job Centre even if it is due to sickness or bad transport – are so popular: because increasingly large parts of society can’t comprehend what it’s like to be frightened of splitting the bill.
6 weeks ago
The poppy has lost its original meaning – time to ditch it
With each year, the run up to Remembrance Sunday seems to become less about paying tribute to the fallen and more a litmus test for a particular sort of nauseating pub bore nationalism, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the great sacrifice of war.
6 weeks ago
Krugman: The Schlock Of The New
True, nobody saw the crisis coming. But that wasn’t because orthodoxy had no room for such a thing – on the contrary, panics and bank runs are an old topic, discussed in every principles book. The reason nobody saw this coming was an empirical failure – few realized that the rise of shadow banking had done an end run around Depression-era bank safeguards.

The point was that only the dimmest of free-market ideologues reacted with utter bewilderment. The rest of us slapped our foreheads and said, “Diamond-Dybvig! How stupid of me! Diamond-Dybvig!”

So new economic thinking since the crisis has proved, for the most part, to consist of bad ideas that serve a conservative political agenda. Not exactly the script we were promised, is it?

And while there are such people on both left and right, there’s a huge asymmetry in wealth and influence between the two sides. Confused views on the left get some followers, provoke a back-and-forth on a few blogs, and generate some nasty tweets. Confused views on the right get mainlined straight into policy pronouncements by the European Commission and the leadership of the Republican Party.
6 weeks ago
Stumbling and Mumbling: Yes, the BBC is biased
This corroborates Tom Mills’ point, that “the BBC will aim to fairly and accurately reflect the balance of opinion amongst elites.” Or as Cardiff University researchers put it (pdf):

"The paradigm of impartiality-as-balance means that only a narrow range of views and voices are heard on the most contentious and important issues."

This, though, is not just unbalanced, but also a way of excluding and alienating outsiders – not just women (that rape “gag”) but also the working class, minorities and, we might add, the economically literate.
6 weeks ago
Stumbling and Mumbling: The impact bias against Labour
This week’s prize for an epic lack of self-awareness goes to Philip Hammond, who told us that a Labour government would lead to “a collapse in business investment and a crash in the value of the pound, causing a shockwave of inflation”

How will we tell the difference from a Tory government?

The Tories have given us not one, not two but three of the worst economic policy errors of modern times: austerity; the vote to leave the EU (which was due in part to austerity); and then the pursuit of a hard Brexit. They have set the bar for economic competence lower than a snake’s belly. Even if you think Labour’s policies leave much to be desired*, they clear this low hurdle.

How, then, can anyone believe otherwise?

One answer, of course, is motivated reasoning: it’s easy to believe what you want to believe.

Another is ambiguity aversion. To people accustomed to 30 years of neoliberalism, Labour looks like an uncertain prospect even if it is offering what is really only mildish social democracy – and people hate uncertainty.

A third answer is that Tory policies favour the 1% whereas Labour’s don’t, and these have massively disproportionate political influence. They also – unlike the poor – have an over-inflated sense of entitlement and take umbrage at Labour’s challenge to those entitlements.

But there’s a fourth thing I’d like to emphasize. It’s adaptation.
7 weeks ago
Colin Kidd | Gove or Galtieri
There is an air of wistful regret to Ziblatt’s conclusion that ‘a viable and robust conservative political party’ with a ‘chance of winning elections at least some of the time’ is the price we pay for democratic stability. The alternatives, he contends, come at a much heavier price. Churchill once joked that ‘democracy was the worst form of government, apart from all the others’; but in Ziblatt’s bleak refinement of that insight, we wouldn’t have a functioning democracy at all without a viable Conservative option at the ballot box.
9 weeks ago
How the Elderly Lose Their Rights | The New Yorker
Guardians can sell the assets and control the lives of senior citizens without their consent—and reap a profit from it.

By Rachel Aviv
9 weeks ago
How house flippers, not poor subprime borrowers, triggered the US housing market crash — Quartz
Analyzing a huge dataset of anonymous credit scores from Equifax, a credit reporting bureau, the economists—Stefania Albanesi of the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Geneva’s Giacomo De Giorgi, and Jaromir Nosal of Boston College—found that the biggest growth of mortgage debt during the housing boom came from those with credit scores in the middle and top of the credit score distribution—and that these borrowers accounted for a disproportionate share of defaults.

As for those with low credit scores—the “subprime” borrowers who supposedly caused the crisis—their borrowing stayed virtually constant throughout the boom. And while it’s true that these types of borrowers usually default at relatively higher rates, they didn’t after the 2007 housing collapse. The lowest quartile in the credit score distribution accounted for 70% of foreclosures during the boom years, falling to just 35% during the crisis.
9 weeks ago
Stumbling and Mumbling: The crisis of positive-sum capitalism
From the mid-40s to the mid-70s, high wage growth and full employment were in capitalists’ interests. Rising wages sustained aggregate demand not only via consumer spending growth, but also because higher wages gave firms incentives to invest in labour-saving technology.

In the 70s, though, this ceased to be the case. Wage growth then began to squeeze capitalists’ profits. The positive-sum game became a zero-sum one, as Marglin and Bhaduri have described.

The solution to this was Thatcherism, or if you prefer neoliberalism. Policies aimed at restoring profit margins by weakening trades unions and the welfare state and creating job insecurity helped to raise productivity, profit rates and growth.

But we might now be back in a phase of a positive-sum game.
9 weeks ago

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: