Unfortunately it was going to happen, and we who support the movement need to call out those instances where it goes too far. I am talking about the justified Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, mostly characterized by widespread peaceful protests even in small rural towns that never see such things, and with a solid majority of the American people currently supporting both the BLM and its main demands. As it is, one should probably not tie the BLM to some of these recent unacceptable events, although those engaged in them will justify their actions as being part of the movement. This should not be accepted.
OK, the one that has really put me off happened last night at sometime after 10:30 PM in Madison, Wisconsin. A statue I know well was not only pulled down, but it was decapitated with both parts thrown in a nearby lake, although apparently since recovered. This statue stood on the east corner of the Capitol Square downtown. It is of Hans Christian Heg (1829-1863). An immigrant from Norway, he was an active anti-slavery abolitionist and member of the Free Soil Party who led the 15th Scandinavian American regiment in the Union army. He died fighting against the Confederacy in the Battle of Chickamauga, which it says on the base of his statue. There is absolutely no justification for this event.
This was accompanied by other pretty unacceptable nonsense. The "Forward" statue at the opposite end of the square was also pulled down and dragged down State Street. This is of a generic woman representing the state motto of "Forward," not quite as completely insane as pulling down Heg, but also without any obvious justification.The Forward motto and idea has long been associated with the Progressive tradition in the state, although I suppose one could drag in bad stuff about some of those folks, such as that some supported eugenics. But I do not think this crowd was thinking about that.
What triggered this? Apparently a man entered a restaurant with a baseball bat and a bullhorn, with which he began to harangue customers. He was later arrested for disorderly conduct, which sounds pretty reasonable to me. There was no violence or other impropriety in his arrest. But the crowd that pulled down the statues and smashed a lot of windows and attacked a state senator, putting him in the hospital for taking a photo of them, came several hours after his arrest to protest his arrest. Bah!
I note two other items that need to be disavowed and opposed by supporters of the BLM.
One was the tearing down of a statue in San Francisco of U.S. Grant. allegedly because for two years he owned a slave he inherited before he freed that slave. Well, I guess there is more case for pulling down his statue than that of Heg, for which there is zero. But he was not only the commander of the Union army that freed the slaves, but as president he supported Reconstruction that defended rights of the freed former slaves. The move to Jim Crow followed the end of his presidency.
Another is the continuation of the CHOP or CHAZ in Seattle, which, I gather, will be ended fairly soon one way or another. Initially sort of interesting, the area has been hit with shootings over the last four nights, with one over the weekend killing 19-year old Lorenzo Anderson. These are apparently not he result of outside white boogaloo racists attacking them but coming from inside this area. There so far has been zero investigation of or effort to find Anderson's murderer and arrest him.The only report I have seen is that Anderson was advocating people not setting off fireworks due to a possible fire hazard. This appears to have what got him killed, although so far there is little solid information.But, sorry, this experiment should not end and not be repeated anywhere else.
I further note that Hannity and others on Fox News are spending lots of time going on and on about this Seattle situation. Trump has been engaging in a series of increasingly unacceptable and outrageous actions, but those watching Fox and its allies hear and see none of that because, wow, there go those awful rioters in Seattle again! Initially Fox made up and distorted reporting about what was going on there, which was initially peaceful and, yes,"Summer of Love" like. But, unfortunately, now they do not need to make up stuff to put up ugly stories about it.
Barkley Rosser
Wednesday, June 24, 2020
Monday, June 22, 2020
Is The Possible V-Shaped Recovery Flattening As The Second Quarter Comes To An End?
Probably, although it is unclear whether or not we are having a V-shaped recovery (see most recent post here). However, whatever it is, it looks like the revived spread of the coronavirus is probably slowing it somewhat. New cases are up by 15% nationally from low point several weeks ago, and there are reports of businesses of various sorts closing, if not whole communities.
The pattern of the increase has various aspects:
1) It seems to be now more in red states than blue states, with the trend having been toward this since the early days of the pandemic when it first started in major Dem cities in major Dem states, such as Seattle, WA, the Bay Area of CA, and the New York metro area. Of the states with the most rapid recent increase we have only three that are predominantly Dem: CA, OR, and NV, with one purplish, NC, and the rest GOP: SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, AR, OK, TX, AZ, UT.
2) While now it is predominantly rising in GOP states where governors have not strongly encouraged social distancing or mask wearing while rushing to fully reopen, and in some cases even banning local communities from requiring mask wearing in public places, although some of those are now backing off that, such as Abbott in Texas, if one looks at this at the county level it remains that Dem counties are still outnumbering GOP ones, although the trend is strong toward GOP ones, and the line on this one will probably be crossed soon (these designations are based on how they voted in presidential election in 2016). The obvious explanation for this apparent discrepancy is that in the red states cases tend to be increasing more in densely populated areas, which are more likely to be urban areas in Dem counties in those states, such as the Houston metro area in Texas.
3) There is not a clear pattern of these either being spread across states or concentrated in particular areas. Some states with increases scattered widely include the Carolinas, Florida, and Alabama. Some where they are more isolated/concentrated in particular locales include the two largest on this list: California and Texas.
4) Certain sectors seem to be especially hit be reclosings, notably restaurants and bars as well as some sports facilities.
5) A possible offset to all this is that certain communities are still reopening, despite this new round of new cases. An example is Washington, D.C., which just got going today with its second stage of reopening, following its suburbs in MD and VA that have already done so.
Barkley Rosser
The pattern of the increase has various aspects:
1) It seems to be now more in red states than blue states, with the trend having been toward this since the early days of the pandemic when it first started in major Dem cities in major Dem states, such as Seattle, WA, the Bay Area of CA, and the New York metro area. Of the states with the most rapid recent increase we have only three that are predominantly Dem: CA, OR, and NV, with one purplish, NC, and the rest GOP: SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, AR, OK, TX, AZ, UT.
2) While now it is predominantly rising in GOP states where governors have not strongly encouraged social distancing or mask wearing while rushing to fully reopen, and in some cases even banning local communities from requiring mask wearing in public places, although some of those are now backing off that, such as Abbott in Texas, if one looks at this at the county level it remains that Dem counties are still outnumbering GOP ones, although the trend is strong toward GOP ones, and the line on this one will probably be crossed soon (these designations are based on how they voted in presidential election in 2016). The obvious explanation for this apparent discrepancy is that in the red states cases tend to be increasing more in densely populated areas, which are more likely to be urban areas in Dem counties in those states, such as the Houston metro area in Texas.
3) There is not a clear pattern of these either being spread across states or concentrated in particular areas. Some states with increases scattered widely include the Carolinas, Florida, and Alabama. Some where they are more isolated/concentrated in particular locales include the two largest on this list: California and Texas.
4) Certain sectors seem to be especially hit be reclosings, notably restaurants and bars as well as some sports facilities.
5) A possible offset to all this is that certain communities are still reopening, despite this new round of new cases. An example is Washington, D.C., which just got going today with its second stage of reopening, following its suburbs in MD and VA that have already done so.
Barkley Rosser
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Might There Be A V-Shaped Economic Recovery After All?
Maybe.
This is a matter where if it happens, I shall be proven wrong. I have mostly emphasized how much uncertainty and lack of knowledge we face about the pandemic as well as the economy in this situation, and have as a result largely stayed away from making specific or definite forecasts on those matters. However, here and in other places on the internet, I have made a lot of forecasts that the time path of GDP is likely to look like a "lazy J" or "whoosh," a pattern of a slow recovery after the very rapid decline, with a possible W if a second wave of the pandemic hits hard. What I often dismissed, sometimes rather pompously to people who seemed to push it for blind political or ideological reasons was that there might be a rapid bounceback, a V-shaped recovery. Now that looks like it might happen, or at least a modest version of it, so I may be wrong on my past forecasts.
Curiously, as noted in a fairly recent post, I was one who was not surprised by the net increase in employment in May, given the evidence noted in still earlier posts of a likely turnaround in GDP that probably dates back even into late April and probably not later than early May, looking at figures on gasoline demand and carbon emissions. It seemed not surprising that this turnaround would lead to some new hiring, even as further layoffs were clearly happening. But most of this data seemed consistent with the Whoosh scenario, with these renewed increases occurring at rates much lower than the rates of preceding decline. So the net increase in hiring in May was only 2.5%, large for a normal time, but only beginning to offset the double digit plunge that had happened before it.
But now we have the report that looks pretty accurate that retail sales rose 17.7% from April to May, not sure of the precise cutoffs for this. I made no specific forecast for that, but given the labor hiring numbers, I would figure that probably retail sales rose more than hiring. But there is no way I would have forecast a double digit increase, and might not even have predicted more than a 5% increase, if I had done so. Thus, needless to say, I am quite surprised by this figure.
Indeed, for retail sales this more than a V-shaped recovery. The rate of decline for March to April was -14.4%. Apparently retail sales are now only 8% below their peak in February. So the rate of growth of retail sales could slow to half the April to May rate and end up higher than the February level. I find this hard to believe, but I also have no good grounds for questioning this data.
Advocates of a V-shaped recovery, whether Trump and his immediate advisers, or other economists, mostly a minority, argued that an outburst of "pent-up demand" would lead to this, and it would seem that has happened, with probably some non-trivial assistance from stimulus checks and generous unemployment benefits, along with some other elements of fiscal stimulus, some of which have already stopped or are scheduled to do so in coming months. I had dismissed such a strong surge of purchasing based on people being afraid and cautious, as well as many sectors still held down specifically due to pandemic restrictions, at least through much of May.
As it is, there have been large sectoral variations in this. Among the most rapidly rising sectors have been clothing, sports equipment, and furniture. Would I have forecast these to be tops? Not particularly. Others have remained much lower, e.g. cruise lines are still going nowhere. But lots of sectors have seen pent-up demand bursting out and large sales increases, with retail sales the major part of consumption, which in turn is 70% of GDP. So this goes a long way to pushing for an overall GDP V-shaped recovery.
But, of course, while it is the largest part of GDP, consumption is not all of it. And almost certainly the other parts are not rising anywhere near this retail sales rate, with some of them even possibly declining, such as local and state government activity. Federal government activity may not be declining, but it is probably not rising that much, as the huge increases in transfer payments are not directly increases in GDP. They only stimulate that through their role in aiding this surge of retail sales that has happened. While consumers may not have been held back by all the ongoing uncertainty, certainly businesses are, so I would be surprised if we see any increase beyond minimal in capital investment now. OTOH, there may be some growth in exports as the rest of the world's economy probably turned around sooner than did the US one, and there are reports of some specific exports rising sharply, such as pork exports to China.
There is reason to believe that some of this increase in retail sales will slow down or even reverse, even as some more laggard sectors might pick up. Several of those most rapidly rising sectors feature big ticket items not likely to be ongoing, especially furniture. Some of this may have been an outburst of pent-up demand showing up on such big ticket items that will not continue or may even fall back a bit. But given that I did not catch the scale of this increase at all, I am not really in all that good of a position to make very definite forecasts on all this.
My bottom line guess on this is that GDP will still not quite look like a perfect (or more rapidly rising on the right-hand side) V, as the non-consumption parts of GDP drag behind and keep the clearly rapidly rising consumption to produce a total GDP rising more rapidly than it fell. But it is now highly likely that what we shall see in the near future does more resemble a V than any of the other shapes or letters that have been proposed, including those I forecast.
Barkley Rosser
This is a matter where if it happens, I shall be proven wrong. I have mostly emphasized how much uncertainty and lack of knowledge we face about the pandemic as well as the economy in this situation, and have as a result largely stayed away from making specific or definite forecasts on those matters. However, here and in other places on the internet, I have made a lot of forecasts that the time path of GDP is likely to look like a "lazy J" or "whoosh," a pattern of a slow recovery after the very rapid decline, with a possible W if a second wave of the pandemic hits hard. What I often dismissed, sometimes rather pompously to people who seemed to push it for blind political or ideological reasons was that there might be a rapid bounceback, a V-shaped recovery. Now that looks like it might happen, or at least a modest version of it, so I may be wrong on my past forecasts.
Curiously, as noted in a fairly recent post, I was one who was not surprised by the net increase in employment in May, given the evidence noted in still earlier posts of a likely turnaround in GDP that probably dates back even into late April and probably not later than early May, looking at figures on gasoline demand and carbon emissions. It seemed not surprising that this turnaround would lead to some new hiring, even as further layoffs were clearly happening. But most of this data seemed consistent with the Whoosh scenario, with these renewed increases occurring at rates much lower than the rates of preceding decline. So the net increase in hiring in May was only 2.5%, large for a normal time, but only beginning to offset the double digit plunge that had happened before it.
But now we have the report that looks pretty accurate that retail sales rose 17.7% from April to May, not sure of the precise cutoffs for this. I made no specific forecast for that, but given the labor hiring numbers, I would figure that probably retail sales rose more than hiring. But there is no way I would have forecast a double digit increase, and might not even have predicted more than a 5% increase, if I had done so. Thus, needless to say, I am quite surprised by this figure.
Indeed, for retail sales this more than a V-shaped recovery. The rate of decline for March to April was -14.4%. Apparently retail sales are now only 8% below their peak in February. So the rate of growth of retail sales could slow to half the April to May rate and end up higher than the February level. I find this hard to believe, but I also have no good grounds for questioning this data.
Advocates of a V-shaped recovery, whether Trump and his immediate advisers, or other economists, mostly a minority, argued that an outburst of "pent-up demand" would lead to this, and it would seem that has happened, with probably some non-trivial assistance from stimulus checks and generous unemployment benefits, along with some other elements of fiscal stimulus, some of which have already stopped or are scheduled to do so in coming months. I had dismissed such a strong surge of purchasing based on people being afraid and cautious, as well as many sectors still held down specifically due to pandemic restrictions, at least through much of May.
As it is, there have been large sectoral variations in this. Among the most rapidly rising sectors have been clothing, sports equipment, and furniture. Would I have forecast these to be tops? Not particularly. Others have remained much lower, e.g. cruise lines are still going nowhere. But lots of sectors have seen pent-up demand bursting out and large sales increases, with retail sales the major part of consumption, which in turn is 70% of GDP. So this goes a long way to pushing for an overall GDP V-shaped recovery.
But, of course, while it is the largest part of GDP, consumption is not all of it. And almost certainly the other parts are not rising anywhere near this retail sales rate, with some of them even possibly declining, such as local and state government activity. Federal government activity may not be declining, but it is probably not rising that much, as the huge increases in transfer payments are not directly increases in GDP. They only stimulate that through their role in aiding this surge of retail sales that has happened. While consumers may not have been held back by all the ongoing uncertainty, certainly businesses are, so I would be surprised if we see any increase beyond minimal in capital investment now. OTOH, there may be some growth in exports as the rest of the world's economy probably turned around sooner than did the US one, and there are reports of some specific exports rising sharply, such as pork exports to China.
There is reason to believe that some of this increase in retail sales will slow down or even reverse, even as some more laggard sectors might pick up. Several of those most rapidly rising sectors feature big ticket items not likely to be ongoing, especially furniture. Some of this may have been an outburst of pent-up demand showing up on such big ticket items that will not continue or may even fall back a bit. But given that I did not catch the scale of this increase at all, I am not really in all that good of a position to make very definite forecasts on all this.
My bottom line guess on this is that GDP will still not quite look like a perfect (or more rapidly rising on the right-hand side) V, as the non-consumption parts of GDP drag behind and keep the clearly rapidly rising consumption to produce a total GDP rising more rapidly than it fell. But it is now highly likely that what we shall see in the near future does more resemble a V than any of the other shapes or letters that have been proposed, including those I forecast.
Barkley Rosser
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Do BLM Protests Prove No More Pandemic?
It has become a widespread meme that the many protests over the murder of George Floyd and other racially based police brutality will show that it is fine to end all shutdowns related to the pandemic and end all rules about social distancing and wearing face masks. Here we are reaching two weeks since these protests with thousands of people involved, supposedly all violating those rules, and we are not seeing a surge of Covid-19 cases coming out of the locations where these big protests have happened.
Well, it turns out, that while the reports are scattered, apparently at many of the protests many people wear face masks, not only that, there is apparently a lot of trying to keep some distance from each other as well, although based on the performance of nations in East Asia, it is pretty clear that the wearing of face masks is the most useful. Among other cities with large protests where this has been observed is Philadelphia. But in many places there has been much urging of this.
It is a mere anecdote, but I can report that I attended one such protest, admittedly in peaceful Harrisonburg, VA where I live where we have a black mayor and a black police chief. But I attended a peaceful protest with over 1000 people. Almost everybody was wearing a mask, and most people were keeping distance from each other. There has been a lot of this.
So, this meme widely spouted with great arrogance by many observers is just misleading. It is quite likely we shall see no spike of cases following most of these protests, although possibly in some locations. But that does not mean this will hold for places where reopenings coincide with lots of people imitating our president and not wearing face masks or maintaining social distancing. And indeed, we are seeing surges of cases in many such states, with the vast majority of those being where we have seen such attitudes and policies.
Barkley Rosser
Well, it turns out, that while the reports are scattered, apparently at many of the protests many people wear face masks, not only that, there is apparently a lot of trying to keep some distance from each other as well, although based on the performance of nations in East Asia, it is pretty clear that the wearing of face masks is the most useful. Among other cities with large protests where this has been observed is Philadelphia. But in many places there has been much urging of this.
It is a mere anecdote, but I can report that I attended one such protest, admittedly in peaceful Harrisonburg, VA where I live where we have a black mayor and a black police chief. But I attended a peaceful protest with over 1000 people. Almost everybody was wearing a mask, and most people were keeping distance from each other. There has been a lot of this.
So, this meme widely spouted with great arrogance by many observers is just misleading. It is quite likely we shall see no spike of cases following most of these protests, although possibly in some locations. But that does not mean this will hold for places where reopenings coincide with lots of people imitating our president and not wearing face masks or maintaining social distancing. And indeed, we are seeing surges of cases in many such states, with the vast majority of those being where we have seen such attitudes and policies.
Barkley Rosser
Monday, June 15, 2020
Econospeak And Angry Bear Still On List Of Top Economics Blogs, Now For 2020
Intelligent Economist has again put out its annual list of the top 100 economics blogs, with some new ones and some gone, although two of those were due to retirements, especially the much-missed Economists View of Mark Thoma. Anyway, both Econospeak and Angry Bear are still on the list, the latter in the general category while for whatever reason Econospeak continues to be put in the financial blog category. Oh well, at least they say complimentary things about us (not really "they," but Prateep Agarwal, who seems to be the person making this list).
Barkley Rosser
Barkley Rosser
Saturday, June 13, 2020
Why Trump Is in Trouble
Trump is staggering. He’s plunging in the polls, and his behavior has become erratic and unhinged. I don’t mean he’s being crude, infantile and wrapped in a world of fantasy—he’s always like that. Rather, I see him as suddenly incoherent, fumbling with threats and catchphrases as if he were locked out of his house at night, frantically trying one key after another to see if any will work.
Why?
Here’s my theory: throughout his career, Trump has been resolutely self-defining. He selects his issues, positions and attributes (clever deal-maker, hardass boss, financial/sexual/political winner, tough guy warrior for patriarchal values, underdog rebel against the Establishment) to construct a persona of his own choice. He takes the initiative.
2016 was a great year for him. While much was wrong with America, none of it was urgent in a screaming you-can’t-look-away-from-this sort of way. There was plenty of political space for Trump to define what he thought the country should be focused on and why he would be the one to fix it. The media provided invaluable service, making a big deal of every tweet, boastful claim or rally-fueled hyperbole. Through them, Trump told us what the election was about: the invasion of dangerous immigrants pouring through our undefended borders, the humiliation of the America by China, and the haughty, corrupt elitism of Democratic politicians. Even by disputing his take on these things, the media reinforced the notion that these were the main issues facing the country.
What has collapsed for Trump, finally in 2020, is not just the economy, the health of the population or the racial order, but his ability to determine what the issues are: he has lost control of the narrative. This is not because the Democrats have beat him at his own game. On the contrary, they are as clueless about these things as they’ve always been. His problem is that we are facing real crises that demand our attention whether we want them to or not. Trump has almost no influence over what politics are about in an election year; the pandemic, the economy and the revulsion against racism and police violence define the political moment on their own. This is why he seems to be flailing: his entire career has been based on his projection of his needs onto the world, and he has hardly any capacity to respond to the demands of others.
Bad news for Trump: we don’t know how long the current challenge to the racial order will last, but the pandemic and the economic crisis will be with us well beyond November. They will call the shots. Trump can blather about some other fantasy issue being the real problem, but few will listen.
Why?
Here’s my theory: throughout his career, Trump has been resolutely self-defining. He selects his issues, positions and attributes (clever deal-maker, hardass boss, financial/sexual/political winner, tough guy warrior for patriarchal values, underdog rebel against the Establishment) to construct a persona of his own choice. He takes the initiative.
2016 was a great year for him. While much was wrong with America, none of it was urgent in a screaming you-can’t-look-away-from-this sort of way. There was plenty of political space for Trump to define what he thought the country should be focused on and why he would be the one to fix it. The media provided invaluable service, making a big deal of every tweet, boastful claim or rally-fueled hyperbole. Through them, Trump told us what the election was about: the invasion of dangerous immigrants pouring through our undefended borders, the humiliation of the America by China, and the haughty, corrupt elitism of Democratic politicians. Even by disputing his take on these things, the media reinforced the notion that these were the main issues facing the country.
What has collapsed for Trump, finally in 2020, is not just the economy, the health of the population or the racial order, but his ability to determine what the issues are: he has lost control of the narrative. This is not because the Democrats have beat him at his own game. On the contrary, they are as clueless about these things as they’ve always been. His problem is that we are facing real crises that demand our attention whether we want them to or not. Trump has almost no influence over what politics are about in an election year; the pandemic, the economy and the revulsion against racism and police violence define the political moment on their own. This is why he seems to be flailing: his entire career has been based on his projection of his needs onto the world, and he has hardly any capacity to respond to the demands of others.
Bad news for Trump: we don’t know how long the current challenge to the racial order will last, but the pandemic and the economic crisis will be with us well beyond November. They will call the shots. Trump can blather about some other fantasy issue being the real problem, but few will listen.
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Stephen Miller's Racist Fix for Race Relations, Part II
To show that systemic police racism is a myth, Kirsanow presented a list of statistics compiled "from the 2018 National Crime Victimization Survey, Census data, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, and other sources" and cited his dissenting statement 2018 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report for further discussion. The first thing to note is that Kirsanow's statement was a dissent. He disagreed with the findings of the report adopted by the majority. One of those findings had to do with the inadequacy of data collection dealing with police violence. The report found that:
The public continues to hear competing narratives by law enforcement and community members, and the hard reality is that available national and local data is flawed and inadequate.
A central contributing factor is the absence of mandatory federal reporting and standardized reporting guidelines.Former Director of the FBI James Comey characterized the data as "incomplete and therefore, in the aggregate, unreliable." I know, I know, Comey is a deep-state enemy of Donald Trump and therefore anything he said back in February of 2015 was simply a baseless attempt to discredit the President. The FBI publishes a honking huge disclaimer warning against the improper use of UCR data. None of that seems to matter to Kirsanow's high school debate deployment of selected, clumsily massaged statistics.
Of course, there is no way to challenge Kirsanow's numbers with better numbers because "the hard reality is that available national and local data is flawed and inadequate." It is a hard reality that Kirsanow would presumably prefer to retain, given his dissent from the Civil Rights Commission's report. Kirsanow is a lawyer, not a statistician, so it is probably unfair to challenge the logic of his claim that "[i]n 2015, a cop was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was likely to be killed by a cop."
Say what? Almost 20 times as many cops killed by Black men as unarmed Black men killed by cops? Well, no. Kirsanow arrived at his imagin-scary 18.5 times ratio by way of a per capita calculation that is not only preposterous but also wrong in Kirsanow's own terms, even setting aside the not inconsiderable fact that according to the Civil Rights Commission report only about half of police killings of civilians are reported to the FBI.
What Kirsanow did to arrive at his seemingly astonishing ratio is compare cops killed by Black men per 100.000 cops to unarmed Black males killed by cops per 100,000 Black males. The preposterous part of the per capita comparison is that the population of cops is not comparable to a population of African-American males. For example, there are no (or very few) individuals under the age of 20 something or over the age of 60 something in a population of cops. I could go on but the point is that "sworn officers" are not a demographic, they're an occupational category.
O.K. that's just the preposterous part. Now for the part where Kirsanow's calculation fails on its own terms. He compares unarmed Black males killed by cops to cops killed by Black males, where presumably both cops and their killers were armed. This shows conclusively that not all Black males are unarmed at all times yet both unarmed and armed Black males are included in the population Kirsanow used to calculate his per capita comparison. How silly. This may sound like nit-picking but it's the kind of thing that just kind of slips in when you are trying to lie with statistics but don't really understand descriptive statistics.
Yeah, but what about -- gasp! -- BLACK-ON-BLACK violent crime?!? If one actually read the criminology literature one would learn that violent crime is multi-factored, that most violent crime occurs within a given community and higher crime rates are associated with poverty. The analysis is nuanced and doesn't identify any single factor as decisive but here is an intriguing anecdote: white people living in poverty have a higher rate of violent crime than Black people living in poverty.
Black people are more than twice as likely as white people to live in poverty (22% to 9%). Now those two populations are not strictly comparable but then neither are the white and Black general populations that Kirsanow compares with abandon. But if we adjust for poverty using those percentages, the crime discrepancy vanishes! We can't do that because it makes inappropriate assumptions about non-comparable populations. But the reason I brought it up is to point out that the populations Kirsanow compares so blithely are also not comparable. One has a 22% poverty rate and the other has a 9% poverty rate. One of these things is not like the other.
Expect to hear Peter Kirsanow's name a lot in the coming days and possibly see his mangled numbers in Trump's speech on race relations written by Miller. He's African-American. He's a U.S. Civil Rights Commission commissioner. He's conservative. He ticks all the boxes.
Oh, and he's statistical illiterate who uses numbers to score high school debating points.
Stephen Miller's Racist Fix for Race Relations
Word is circulating that Stephen Miller is writing Donald Trump's speech on race relations. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Trump's "solution" to the current malaise in the U.S. will involve extending a ban on immigration and expanding enforcement and expulsion of undocumented individuals. This seems like a safe bet to me because Miller really is a one-trick pony and Trump relishes rehashing his greatest hits. Maybe Miller will toss in some "enterprise zones" or other ornamental trivia but the meat will be anti-immigration.
They playbook for this will be Miller's Immigration Handbook for a New Republican Majority that he wrote for Jeff Sessions in 2015. Footnote 21 of that handbook states that, "Amnesty and uncontrolled immigration disproportionately harms African-American workers, and has been described by U.S. Civil Rights Commission member Peter Kirsanow as a 'disaster.'" The handbook also cites a poll commissioned by Kellyanne \Conway, one finding of which was that "86% of black voters and 71% of Hispanic voters said companies should raise wages and improve working conditions instead of increasing immigration."
Two years ago, I posted a couple of pieces discussing Miller's handbook in more detail: The Lump That Begot Trump and Goebbels or Gompers?: A Closer Look at Stephen Miller's Immigration Manifesto. I hope these pieces provide some insight into just how dangerous and effective Miller's and Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric can be, especially given the hypocrisy of neo-liberal promotion of immigration as exemplified by Tony Blair's and Gerhard Schroeder's "Third Way" advocating "a new supply-side agenda for the left". To put it bluntly, "Third Way" immigration policy was intended to create jobs by keeping wages low through an abundant supply of labor. The transfer of income from the working class to the wealthy would provide ample funds for "investment."
In short, Miller's and Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric is dangerous and effective because Blair and Schroeder (and Clinton and Obama) enacted right-wing, supply-side economic policies in the name of "the ['responsible'] left."
They playbook for this will be Miller's Immigration Handbook for a New Republican Majority that he wrote for Jeff Sessions in 2015. Footnote 21 of that handbook states that, "Amnesty and uncontrolled immigration disproportionately harms African-American workers, and has been described by U.S. Civil Rights Commission member Peter Kirsanow as a 'disaster.'" The handbook also cites a poll commissioned by Kellyanne \Conway, one finding of which was that "86% of black voters and 71% of Hispanic voters said companies should raise wages and improve working conditions instead of increasing immigration."
Two years ago, I posted a couple of pieces discussing Miller's handbook in more detail: The Lump That Begot Trump and Goebbels or Gompers?: A Closer Look at Stephen Miller's Immigration Manifesto. I hope these pieces provide some insight into just how dangerous and effective Miller's and Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric can be, especially given the hypocrisy of neo-liberal promotion of immigration as exemplified by Tony Blair's and Gerhard Schroeder's "Third Way" advocating "a new supply-side agenda for the left". To put it bluntly, "Third Way" immigration policy was intended to create jobs by keeping wages low through an abundant supply of labor. The transfer of income from the working class to the wealthy would provide ample funds for "investment."
In short, Miller's and Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric is dangerous and effective because Blair and Schroeder (and Clinton and Obama) enacted right-wing, supply-side economic policies in the name of "the ['responsible'] left."
Monday, June 8, 2020
Tear Gas Versus Pepper Spray
Or pepper gas.
So, AG Barr and Pres. Trump (and also the commander of the US Park Police, I think) have been hotly denying that tear gas was used last Mondy in the attack by the Praetorian Guard on peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square. Various of them have also been claiming that as many as three warnings were issued to the crowd before they attacked and also have claimed that the protesters were throwing things at them and hus were violent rioters. The latter claims have been denied by nearly all observers, including journalists, although it may have been that perfunctory warnings were issued very quietly so that almost nobody could hear them and that maybe one bottle got thrown. Barr has also denied giving the order for this attack, laying it on the Park Police chief, and also denied that it had anything to do withTrump walking across the square a few minutes after the protesters were cleared to have his photo op at St. John's Church with an upside-down backwards Bible, after church personnel were forced off their own church grounds by the attack. All of this has turned into a massive embarrassment as polls on this have turned sharply against Trump, and the National Guard from 11 states are now being removed from Washington, if not the still non-IDed Praetorian Guard Barr oversees himself.
Then we have the matter of tear gas, with proetestors clearly crying and coughing and exhibiting symptoms usually associated with being tear gassed as they fled the square, and with most of them claiming to have been "tear gassed." This has been roundly denied by the three parties identified above. Instead it has been admitted that "pepper balls" were thrown into the crowd, along with rubber bullets being used and flash-bang grenades. While both Barr and Trump have both since claimed that these "pepper balls" are not "eye irritants," clearly they are, and a variety of expert sources have reported that they are.
I shall add here my own personal observation, perhaps not relevant due to the passage of time and a basic lack of substantial knowledge on my part. However, half a century ago when I was involved in various protests while attending the University of Wisconsin-Madison, most of them anti-Vietnam War, but some on other mostly racial issues as well, such as after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., I accumulated along with others some experience with being on the receiving end of several different "gases." In particular we at times thought that we were being tear gased while at other times it was claimed that we were being "pepper gased." Now I do not know what the relation is, if any,between that long ago "pepper gas" and these "pepper balls" used last Monday in Washington, but back then we viewed that "pepper gas" as being more painful and unpleasant than what we identified as being mere "tear gas." I can also attest that such was used as I had to clean "pepper" off my shower walls in the apartment I was in near campus after such an attack.
So, bottom line, if today's "pepper balls" are anything like the "pepper spray" used in Madison way back then, then this stuff is actually worse than conventional tear gas and bragging about using it rather than "tear gas" may well be a farce that is not remotely funny.
Barkley Rosser
So, AG Barr and Pres. Trump (and also the commander of the US Park Police, I think) have been hotly denying that tear gas was used last Mondy in the attack by the Praetorian Guard on peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square. Various of them have also been claiming that as many as three warnings were issued to the crowd before they attacked and also have claimed that the protesters were throwing things at them and hus were violent rioters. The latter claims have been denied by nearly all observers, including journalists, although it may have been that perfunctory warnings were issued very quietly so that almost nobody could hear them and that maybe one bottle got thrown. Barr has also denied giving the order for this attack, laying it on the Park Police chief, and also denied that it had anything to do withTrump walking across the square a few minutes after the protesters were cleared to have his photo op at St. John's Church with an upside-down backwards Bible, after church personnel were forced off their own church grounds by the attack. All of this has turned into a massive embarrassment as polls on this have turned sharply against Trump, and the National Guard from 11 states are now being removed from Washington, if not the still non-IDed Praetorian Guard Barr oversees himself.
Then we have the matter of tear gas, with proetestors clearly crying and coughing and exhibiting symptoms usually associated with being tear gassed as they fled the square, and with most of them claiming to have been "tear gassed." This has been roundly denied by the three parties identified above. Instead it has been admitted that "pepper balls" were thrown into the crowd, along with rubber bullets being used and flash-bang grenades. While both Barr and Trump have both since claimed that these "pepper balls" are not "eye irritants," clearly they are, and a variety of expert sources have reported that they are.
I shall add here my own personal observation, perhaps not relevant due to the passage of time and a basic lack of substantial knowledge on my part. However, half a century ago when I was involved in various protests while attending the University of Wisconsin-Madison, most of them anti-Vietnam War, but some on other mostly racial issues as well, such as after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., I accumulated along with others some experience with being on the receiving end of several different "gases." In particular we at times thought that we were being tear gased while at other times it was claimed that we were being "pepper gased." Now I do not know what the relation is, if any,between that long ago "pepper gas" and these "pepper balls" used last Monday in Washington, but back then we viewed that "pepper gas" as being more painful and unpleasant than what we identified as being mere "tear gas." I can also attest that such was used as I had to clean "pepper" off my shower walls in the apartment I was in near campus after such an attack.
So, bottom line, if today's "pepper balls" are anything like the "pepper spray" used in Madison way back then, then this stuff is actually worse than conventional tear gas and bragging about using it rather than "tear gas" may well be a farce that is not remotely funny.
Barkley Rosser
Saturday, June 6, 2020
Looking Down Right Now
"Ryan is looking down right now, and you know that, and he is very happy, because I think he just broke a record."
"Hopefully George is looking down right now and saying this is a great thing that's happening for our country,"Trump's cynical invoking of George Floyd yesterday has a history that explains what he imagined he was doing. In the first week after his inauguration, Trump approved a Navy Seal raid on suspected positions of al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in the village of Yakla in Yemen. His National Security Adviser, General Flynn had portrayed the proposed raid as a "game changer" that would contrast Trump's toughness with Obama's supposed indecisiveness.
The raid was a fiasco. AQAP had somehow learned of the impending raid and fortified their positions. Chief Petty Officer William "Ryan" Owens was mortally wounded and at least five other American personnel were also wounded. Dozens of civilians were killed. Owens's father called the mission "a screw-up from the start that ended badly."
Characteristically, Trump deflected responsibility for the raid to the generals and the previous administration while incongruously insisting that it had been a tremendous success. A month later, though, came his opportunity to seize the narrative. At his first address to a joint session of Congress, Trump read from the teleprompter a glowing tribute to Officer Owens. He performed the encomium with gusto. When he finished, senators, representatives and guests stood in a sustained ovation while Owens's tearful widow, a guest of Ivanka Trump, gazed upward.
Trump then ad-libbed his remark about Ryan looking down. The quip was well received with gentle chuckling. It nicely broke the tension of the dramatic spectacle.
Now one might dismiss the episode as a cynical, and sinister, exploitation of a pointless death -- not to mention the "collateral damage" -- and a widow's grief. But that isn't the way CNN panelist and ex-Obama aide Van Jones saw it. Jones lauded the performance as "one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics." It was, in Jones's view, the moment Trump "became president of the United States":
That was one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics, period, and he did something extraordinary. And for people who have been hoping that he would become unifying, hoping that he might find some way to become presidential, they should be happy with that moment. For people who have been hoping that maybe he would remain a divisive cartoon, which he often finds a way to do, they should begin to become a little bit worried tonight, because that thing you just saw him do—if he finds a way to do that over and over again, he's going to be there for eight years. Now, there was a lot that he said in that speech that was counterfactual, that was not right, that I oppose and will oppose. But he did something tonight that you cannot take away from him. He became president of the United States.Undoubtedly Trump would have been shown Jones's effusive commentary and would have basked in its obsequious glow. Yesterday, when he pulled his "looking down right now" stunt for the second time, he probably expected it to resonate as a unifying moment, thinking he was finding "a way to do that over and over again" without quite understanding what "that" had been. George Floyd was not a Navy Seal killed in action. He was an African-American man murdered by cops. The protesters are not sycophantic trained seals like the senators and representatives (of both parties). And, of course, Princess Ivanka had neglected to bring a grieving widow in tow to the "press conference." There was nothing "presidential" about Trump's ghoulish sequel of his "most extraordinary moment."
If the prior performance illuminates the latter one, the opposite is also true. Trump's tribute to Ryan Owens was no less cynical than his clumsy attempt to enlist George Floyd as a posthumous protagonist of the allegedly "great thing that's happening for our country."
Friday, June 5, 2020
Jobs Report Not Really All That Surprising
I am a bit taken aback at how shocked so many are about the new jobs report showing that net hiring in May was positive. For regular readers here I have made several posts here noting that the US economy was almost certainly growing, probably for at least a month. The most recent was my one a few days ago on Rising Oil Demand, and an earlier one, where I was vaguer about the US economy, was the one on Rising Carbon Emissions. It has been clear to me that the US economy hit bottom in terms of output about a month ago, which put it about a month behind the world economy as a whole and two months behind China. All of this correlates with how the relative patterns of the pandemic have gone, with China a month ahead of most of the world and about two months ahead of the US. I think it has been pretty clear that US GDP has been growing, so nobody should be all that surprised that the labor market has turned around and net hiring is now positive.
How did all this confusion come about? I think the issue is that we get weekly reports on fresh layoffs as measured by new applications for unemployment insurance while we only get monthly reports on net hiring, with our monthly BLS reports such as the one that came out today and surprised the heck out of so many observers who should have known better. I note that I did not forecast an increase in net hiring, but I had avoided making any forecasts on employment beyond the comment that it is a lagging indicator behind output, which would allow for net hiring to have still been negative. But I was somewhat mystified by what seemed to be such an disjuncture, clear evidence GDP was rising while there were these ongoing weekly reports of many more getting laid off.
The answer is now fairly clear. Indeed lots of layoffs are happening and probably will for some time to come. But, not only have those numbers been falling, but the ongoing layoffs are increasingly concentrated in certain sectors, such as education where net hiring was negative in May. Indeed, we are likely to see a surge of layoffs in the local and state government sectors as those have not seen revenues rise and are not getting federal aid and also face balanced budget constraints.
However, hiring has been going on in other sectors, not publicly reported until today. Among those are hospitality and tourism, construction, and manufacturing (hence rising oil demand and carbon emissions). Some numbers I have seen on some blogs, so not sure they are accurate, include a claim that a full 54% of the hiring occurred in the restaurant sector. Yes, there have been a lot of reopenings there, if still somewhat limited. Another odd figure Tyler Cowen reports on MR is that supposedly 10% of the new jobs are in the dentistry sector. Really? Who am I to say.
I do note that by some alternative procedures than reported, the unemployment rate should be 3% higher than reported, and thus would have increased. Nevertheless, it does seem that there was a net increase in jobs during May.
What does this portend for the future? I remain doubtful of a "V" shaped recovery, despite a lot of crowing about such today. This growth is so far fairly slow, and the decline in the unemployment rate not all that dramatic. The pandemic is still expanding in some states, with Florida hitting a new daily high for new cases on Wednesday, even if new cases are gradually declining nationally. Even if there is no second wave, fear of such and the continuing presence of the virus will hinder rapid growth for some time, probably at least through most of the third quarter. But I would say that the probability of a "U" shaped recovery has probably risen, with a possibly much more rapid growth rate in the crucial fourth quarter if indeed the virus continues not only to decline but to really stay down, thus reducing peoples' fears and allowing them to really get out there and spend and "go back to (almost) normal."
Barkley Rosser
How did all this confusion come about? I think the issue is that we get weekly reports on fresh layoffs as measured by new applications for unemployment insurance while we only get monthly reports on net hiring, with our monthly BLS reports such as the one that came out today and surprised the heck out of so many observers who should have known better. I note that I did not forecast an increase in net hiring, but I had avoided making any forecasts on employment beyond the comment that it is a lagging indicator behind output, which would allow for net hiring to have still been negative. But I was somewhat mystified by what seemed to be such an disjuncture, clear evidence GDP was rising while there were these ongoing weekly reports of many more getting laid off.
The answer is now fairly clear. Indeed lots of layoffs are happening and probably will for some time to come. But, not only have those numbers been falling, but the ongoing layoffs are increasingly concentrated in certain sectors, such as education where net hiring was negative in May. Indeed, we are likely to see a surge of layoffs in the local and state government sectors as those have not seen revenues rise and are not getting federal aid and also face balanced budget constraints.
However, hiring has been going on in other sectors, not publicly reported until today. Among those are hospitality and tourism, construction, and manufacturing (hence rising oil demand and carbon emissions). Some numbers I have seen on some blogs, so not sure they are accurate, include a claim that a full 54% of the hiring occurred in the restaurant sector. Yes, there have been a lot of reopenings there, if still somewhat limited. Another odd figure Tyler Cowen reports on MR is that supposedly 10% of the new jobs are in the dentistry sector. Really? Who am I to say.
I do note that by some alternative procedures than reported, the unemployment rate should be 3% higher than reported, and thus would have increased. Nevertheless, it does seem that there was a net increase in jobs during May.
What does this portend for the future? I remain doubtful of a "V" shaped recovery, despite a lot of crowing about such today. This growth is so far fairly slow, and the decline in the unemployment rate not all that dramatic. The pandemic is still expanding in some states, with Florida hitting a new daily high for new cases on Wednesday, even if new cases are gradually declining nationally. Even if there is no second wave, fear of such and the continuing presence of the virus will hinder rapid growth for some time, probably at least through most of the third quarter. But I would say that the probability of a "U" shaped recovery has probably risen, with a possibly much more rapid growth rate in the crucial fourth quarter if indeed the virus continues not only to decline but to really stay down, thus reducing peoples' fears and allowing them to really get out there and spend and "go back to (almost) normal."
Barkley Rosser
Wednesday, June 3, 2020
Has Trump Created A Praetorian Guard In Washington?
President Trump has already shown his Orwellian tendencies by giving a speech on Monday in the Rose Garden in which he dcclared his "respect" for peaceful protesters at the very moment that forces ultimately responding to an order by Trump violently attacked peaceful protesters in front of the White House to remove them from Lafayette Square, as well as priests and parishioners from the patio of their St. John's Church across from the White House. This attack and removal of the protesters as well as church people allowed Trump to walk across the square fot photo op at the church, holding up a Bible backwards and upside down. While it has been admitted that ultimately this attack reflected Trump wanting to have this photo op, it remains unclear precisely which federal forces were part of the attack and exactly who was immediately commanding them. It seems at a minimum that this involved federal Park Police, but may have included DC National Guard, and maybe Secret service personnel, as well as maybe others, although no DC police or officials, with Mayor Bowswe opposing this action.
Mosr seem to think that AG Barr gave the immediate order, but he does not seem to official authority over several of these groups, notably the Secret Service. SecDef Esper and Chief of Staff Gen. Milley were present during Trump's walk across the square, but are now apparently claiming not to have any responsibiliy for this. Esper and Milley have since come under strong criticism by many people either in the GOP such as the Lincoln Project group as well as current and former high DOD officials, including James Miller who publicly resigned from the DOD Science Board in protest as well as a strong memo by former SecDef "Mad Dog" Mattis.
However, possibly the most disturbing development out of this has been the appearance of unidentified figures, some in uniforms of some sort, some not, who seem to be acting to control protestors and keep them out of various public areas. These may have participated in the attack on Monday, but they would have been just part of groups that were identifiable, even if they were acting illegally and with unclear authority. However, these people are much more mysterious, although when asked who they are, a few have said they are from the "Department of Justice," which is of course overseen by AG Barr. Is he overseeing a new Praetorian Guard that is beyond the Secret Service to do Trump's will?
There are two clear actions these mysterious figures have been involved in. One was to line up on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to keep the public out. Why were they doing this? Nobody seems to know. But they were in camouflage and armed. At least they do not seem to be militsry from the DOD.
The other place they have been seriously and obviously present, although they have been reported to be wandering around time harassing protesters, is around the White House itself, where they seem to have superseded the Secret Service more clearly. They have been the agents expanding the perimeter around the WH within which even peaceful protesters are not allowed. It is pretty clear they do not have the legal right to do this, but nobody is stopping them. Here they are showing their potential Praetorian Guard role, personal protectors and agents of the president, operating anonymously without authority, but willing to do is direct bidding. I am wondering if they will be disbanded when things quiet down, or will they still be around in November when the election comes.
There are various speculatons about who these are. One theory is that they are federal prison guards. Another is that they are from ICE, a specially trained force. There is also a report today that Barr has just granted the DEA extraordinary authority to surveil protsters, although maybe these anonymous figures in the streets are not DEA. A final even weirder theory is that they are a private group ultimately under EdSec De Vos or her brother, Eric Prince. The idea that we might have private security group assuming law enforcement authority in Washington against the wishes of the mayor and hiding itss identity is most disturbing.
Addnda, 6/4:
This morning's Washington Post reports that apparently the unidentified forces include US Marshalls and some FBI personnel, all of these part of the Dept.of Justice. Apparently AG Barr has been commanding this Praetorian Guard from FBI HQ. Meanwhile, Pres. Trump has been adding more layers of fences around the White House.
More Addenda: The new fences around the WH now enclose St. John's Church. When the Episcopal bishop of DC showed up with some folks to hold a vigil on the church grounds, the Praetorian Guard refused to let them in to do so. They ended up sitting on the ground nearby to hold their vigil.
More recently, AG Barr held a presser in which we learned that ATF agents are also involved in all this, although mostly "to enforce gun rights." It came out that a lot of these PGs with no IDs on them are indeed prison guards, with their chief saying "we mostly work inside prisons so do not need IDs.," to which Barr added something like "So they do not like to answer people asking who they are." Right. Also, apparently, the only "group" behind all the violence, is "antifa," something FBI Director Wray confirmed, even though a day or two ago the FBI itself said it found no evidence of this nonexistent group doing anythign.
Barkley Rosser
Mosr seem to think that AG Barr gave the immediate order, but he does not seem to official authority over several of these groups, notably the Secret Service. SecDef Esper and Chief of Staff Gen. Milley were present during Trump's walk across the square, but are now apparently claiming not to have any responsibiliy for this. Esper and Milley have since come under strong criticism by many people either in the GOP such as the Lincoln Project group as well as current and former high DOD officials, including James Miller who publicly resigned from the DOD Science Board in protest as well as a strong memo by former SecDef "Mad Dog" Mattis.
However, possibly the most disturbing development out of this has been the appearance of unidentified figures, some in uniforms of some sort, some not, who seem to be acting to control protestors and keep them out of various public areas. These may have participated in the attack on Monday, but they would have been just part of groups that were identifiable, even if they were acting illegally and with unclear authority. However, these people are much more mysterious, although when asked who they are, a few have said they are from the "Department of Justice," which is of course overseen by AG Barr. Is he overseeing a new Praetorian Guard that is beyond the Secret Service to do Trump's will?
There are two clear actions these mysterious figures have been involved in. One was to line up on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to keep the public out. Why were they doing this? Nobody seems to know. But they were in camouflage and armed. At least they do not seem to be militsry from the DOD.
The other place they have been seriously and obviously present, although they have been reported to be wandering around time harassing protesters, is around the White House itself, where they seem to have superseded the Secret Service more clearly. They have been the agents expanding the perimeter around the WH within which even peaceful protesters are not allowed. It is pretty clear they do not have the legal right to do this, but nobody is stopping them. Here they are showing their potential Praetorian Guard role, personal protectors and agents of the president, operating anonymously without authority, but willing to do is direct bidding. I am wondering if they will be disbanded when things quiet down, or will they still be around in November when the election comes.
There are various speculatons about who these are. One theory is that they are federal prison guards. Another is that they are from ICE, a specially trained force. There is also a report today that Barr has just granted the DEA extraordinary authority to surveil protsters, although maybe these anonymous figures in the streets are not DEA. A final even weirder theory is that they are a private group ultimately under EdSec De Vos or her brother, Eric Prince. The idea that we might have private security group assuming law enforcement authority in Washington against the wishes of the mayor and hiding itss identity is most disturbing.
Addnda, 6/4:
This morning's Washington Post reports that apparently the unidentified forces include US Marshalls and some FBI personnel, all of these part of the Dept.of Justice. Apparently AG Barr has been commanding this Praetorian Guard from FBI HQ. Meanwhile, Pres. Trump has been adding more layers of fences around the White House.
More Addenda: The new fences around the WH now enclose St. John's Church. When the Episcopal bishop of DC showed up with some folks to hold a vigil on the church grounds, the Praetorian Guard refused to let them in to do so. They ended up sitting on the ground nearby to hold their vigil.
More recently, AG Barr held a presser in which we learned that ATF agents are also involved in all this, although mostly "to enforce gun rights." It came out that a lot of these PGs with no IDs on them are indeed prison guards, with their chief saying "we mostly work inside prisons so do not need IDs.," to which Barr added something like "So they do not like to answer people asking who they are." Right. Also, apparently, the only "group" behind all the violence, is "antifa," something FBI Director Wray confirmed, even though a day or two ago the FBI itself said it found no evidence of this nonexistent group doing anythign.
Barkley Rosser
Global Oil Demand Rises
Back on April 20 we saw briefly the bizarre appearance of negative oil prices in certain markets. Today for the first time in many months Brent crude briefly topped $40 per barrel, although it fell back below that level (WTI is tending to be about $3 behind it, despite a single day recently when for the first time in years it nearly matched Brent crude at only 18 cents lower). However, it looks like the recent trend of global oil prices rising will continue some more, with prices likely to go above $40 and stay there. How far beyond that I shall not forecast. But this is a price level where many oil exporting nations can get out of immediate financial crisis, with many of them actually making money, if not as much as they would with still higher prices.
One element of this price rise is on the supply side, especially with Saudi Arabia and Russia apparently maintaining a production cut agreement they have. Rumors from OilPrice.com suggest there may be cheating on these agreements to come. But for now these two are holding the line on the supply side.
More important has been the increase on the demand side, which looks set to continue rising for at least the near future. I have posted previously on how global carbon emissions appear to have bottomed around April 7, with them rising since, if still well below pre-pandemic levels. Burning fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions, so it is quite possible that oil demand has been rising since around then, even though it was 10 days after then that oil prices did their brief plunge into negative territory.
According to OilPrice.com it is China that is leading this increase in oil demand. It was the first economy to drop due to the pandemic, with its oil demand declining about 40% during February. However, it looks that China's demand has returned as of May to a level 92% of its peak prior to the pandemic. That is substantial, while leaving more room for further growth.
Another nation with a large economy making an even sharper turnaround is India. In early April at the beginning of its two month lockdown its demand declined by 60%, but now it is estiimated that in June its demand will return fully to its pre-pandemic level.
US demand has also made a turnaround, although it did not decline as much and is recovering more slowly. But its demand is rising and will almost certainly continue to do so, if not at a rate that would happen if there were a V-style economic recovery.
Barkley Rosser
Monday, June 1, 2020
Ironies Of Minneapolis
In 1944 the Minnesota Democratic Party united with the Farmer-Labor Party to form the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, one of the most progressive state branches of the US Democratic Party. In 1948 its mayor of Minneapolis, Hubert H. Humphrey introduced at the national convention the resolution supporting civil rights for African-Americans whose acceptance led to a walkout by Strom Thurmond and other Dixiecrats, with Thurmond running for president against Truman. Humphrey would later become a famously progressive US senator and eventually LBJ's vice president, which dragged him down due to the Vietnam War.
He was succeeded by equally progressive Arthur Naftalin as Minneapolis mayor, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota, who served until 1969. However, for reasons that remain somewhat unclear, the attempted progressive policies of these majors did not result in excellent conditions for the city's then quite small African American population, who lived in highly segregated neighborhoods. Whatever progress did happen was substantially damaged by Naftalin's successor as mayor, Charles Stenvig, the city's police chief, who ran on a platform that demanded to "take the handcuffs off the police" and promised to crack down on "racial militants." He was reelected in 1971, and many see him being a major influence in the police department of Minneapolis becoming an exceptionally racist and vicious one.
All this is recounted in a 2008 paper that appeared in the journal American Studies by Jeffrey T. Manuel and Andrew Urban, "'You Can't Legislate the Heart': Minneapolis Mayor Charles Stenvig and the Politics of Law and Order." vol. 43, issue 3/4, pp. 195-219.
Furthermore, with African-Americans moving more into the city in more recent years, the gap between educational outcome as well income and employment outcomes between the races has increased to be among the highest in the nation, despite the liberal past and reputation of the city. These facts contribute to the bad racial situation in the city, which combined with the racist police department have led to this awful current situation there.
A source on the educational gap is mprnews.or/story/2019/10/14/mn-among-worst-achievmentgap-states , and a source on the income and employment gas is politic.com/magazine/story/2016/07/minnesota-race-inequality-philando-castile-214053 , this latter also dealing with bad racial police behavior in Minneapolis.
I thank Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution for these sources, and this general account, which I did not know of. This is indeed a sad tale, given the proud and generally admirable history of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.
Barkley Rosser
He was succeeded by equally progressive Arthur Naftalin as Minneapolis mayor, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota, who served until 1969. However, for reasons that remain somewhat unclear, the attempted progressive policies of these majors did not result in excellent conditions for the city's then quite small African American population, who lived in highly segregated neighborhoods. Whatever progress did happen was substantially damaged by Naftalin's successor as mayor, Charles Stenvig, the city's police chief, who ran on a platform that demanded to "take the handcuffs off the police" and promised to crack down on "racial militants." He was reelected in 1971, and many see him being a major influence in the police department of Minneapolis becoming an exceptionally racist and vicious one.
All this is recounted in a 2008 paper that appeared in the journal American Studies by Jeffrey T. Manuel and Andrew Urban, "'You Can't Legislate the Heart': Minneapolis Mayor Charles Stenvig and the Politics of Law and Order." vol. 43, issue 3/4, pp. 195-219.
Furthermore, with African-Americans moving more into the city in more recent years, the gap between educational outcome as well income and employment outcomes between the races has increased to be among the highest in the nation, despite the liberal past and reputation of the city. These facts contribute to the bad racial situation in the city, which combined with the racist police department have led to this awful current situation there.
A source on the educational gap is mprnews.or/story/2019/10/14/mn-among-worst-achievmentgap-states , and a source on the income and employment gas is politic.com/magazine/story/2016/07/minnesota-race-inequality-philando-castile-214053 , this latter also dealing with bad racial police behavior in Minneapolis.
I thank Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution for these sources, and this general account, which I did not know of. This is indeed a sad tale, given the proud and generally admirable history of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.
Barkley Rosser