A headline correlation. This paper will make the rounds for awhile. But something of a side note may eclipse it:
Their bottom line? The residual difference in economic growth observed between Republican and Democrat presidents is a "mystery." What BW13 may have actually rediscovered is that we don't know where economic growth actually comes from. Solving that riddle will require going beyond simple statistics.
Science is hard.
So what do we do to bring back labor's share of income? We wait. The Great Labor Dump can only happen once. When it's over - when insanely huge amounts of investment in China have saturated that country with capital, for example - labor's share will bounce back.
I hear phrases like "the hollowing out of the middle class", and I wonder what causes that. As mentioned in the post, there a few theories, and people are trying to figure out what's going on. It might be [primarily] an effect of the end of the Cold War era trade regime. We'll see.
"Media outlets have been reporting the Peterson Institute’s estimate of $1 trillion in higher global output as a result of the deal, but what’s most interesting about the deal is that it happened only because the member states decided to focus on a narrow slice of the issues under discussion in the Doha Round."
This agreement could end up being a pretty big deal for a few reasons (but one of which isn't the $1 trillion; that's fairly small as a fraction of total world output, though not nothing): 1. trade deals create winners and losers; it will be important to watch who loses, especially if it's the poor. 2. If this changes the psychology of the WTO, and makes future agreements more likely, that trend could end up mattering quite a bit in the long run.
Now, the "narrow"-ness of the deal... It's still the tale of the strong dictating to the weak: U.S.' (and allies') policies of industrial farming, coupled with large government subsidies, have driven trade partners' farmers out of business, and made many countries quite reliant on us for food (purchase, and/or aid). That hasn't changed (some aspects may make it worse; others, better), and continues to be one of the most contentious issues.
Here's the thing: every once in a while, the neoconservatives are right. There are other actors out there who share this kind of bullying worldview, and the neoconservative policy response is usually best way to deal with them.
Fight fire with fire. But when people aren't lobbing Molotovs, it might not be the best to act crazy.
Good read on the general trends in contemporary U.S. conservatism, and its current political calculus which may support or hinder different kinds of social justice efforts.
Thousands of Christian civilians sought refuge at an airport guarded by French soldiers Friday, fleeing from the mostly Muslim ex-rebels with machetes and guns who rule the country a day after the worst violence to hit the chaotic capital in nine months.
The situation in the CAR is getting worse. We'll see if the UNSC-approved French mission will have an effect.
Up to 30,000 Eritreans have been abducted since 2007 and taken to Egypt's Sinai to suffer torture and ransom demands, new research says.
The study, presented to the European parliament, says Eritrean and Sudanese security officers are colluding with the kidnap gangs.
That is sick.
There are two questions that need to be answered in relation to the Central African “genocide”: first, is it in fact a genocide-in-the-making? And second, why did the analytical frame become set on genocide? I start with the first.