
Friday, January 8, 2010
US employment is WORSENING

Thursday, January 7, 2010
China's price advantage
- 39% is from lower labour costs
- 17% from export subsidies
- 16% from 'industrial network clustering' (smart design of economic zones)
- 11% from currency devaluation
- 9% from counterfeiting and piracy
- 5% from lax environmental, and worker health and safety regimes
- 3% from catalytic foreign direct investment
Key questions for a liberal democracy
- At what point on does welfare become a net detractor to society?
- At what point does taxation become a net detractor to society?
- Who benefits from encumbering business with regulation?
Peter Schiff for Prime Minister!!
Peter Schiff for President | |
Peter Schiff for President! Okay, I'm getting a little ahead of myself; however Mr. Schiff is running for Senate in 2010 in the State of Connecticut. And, the current Senator (Dodd) has announced he's retiring as Senator of Connecticut when his term ends this year. When I first learned Peter Schiff was running for office, I was very excited about the prospect of someone like Peter holding office in the Senate. He's been one of the few people to forecast the current financial nightmare in this country long before it happened. He warned those who would listen to protect their assets. And he clearly understands and articulates the problems and functional solutions of and for this country. For more about Mr. Schiff's campaign and his views his website is http://schiffforsenate.com. He simply gets it right! Since I don't live in Connecticut, Mr. Schiff can't represent me directly. However and far more importantly, for every American who is tired of the same old failed political system and morally bankrupt politicians, he represents us all every day for the kind of functional change this country needs so desperately. I've never in my life been that excited about politics because I believe during my adult life most politicians have failed Americans and no more so that right now. I've also never considered supporting a politician financially. That's all about to change for me. Even though I'm not a resident of Connecticut, I plan on sending Mr. Schiff a donation for his campaign. I want him to win because I want his views on the national scene within the political frame work of this country. No, I'm no billionaire trying to purchase his ear, nor do I represent any large corporation or lobbying group with an agenda to promote. I simply believe supporting Mr. Schiff is good for America and might just be the beginning of the kind of change we need in Washington D.C. Peter's victory might create what I'd like to call the Schiff momentum towards more responsible people running for office across this land, and maybe over time we can restore America closer to the greatness the founders of this country had envisioned. I've never met or talked to Mr. Schiff. I'm writing this article because I feel he brings the right voice to government that is long over due. His views are squarely focused on the major issues of our time. Whether you live in California or Texas, Florida or New York, or anywhere across this country, you have the opportunity to promote healthy ideas and change for this country by supporting Mr. Schiff's efforts. Send a little contribution to his campaign. I know times are tough, but if you're tired of the same old government its time to make a difference. Send something you feel comfortable with even if you think it's a small amount. A grass roots movement of financial support outside of his home state can really add up. More importantly, your support of a Peter Schiff victory sends a clear message to all politicians you want functional change, and soon. Peter Schiff is good for Connecticut, and he's great for us all! Hope all is well! |
A crime theory demolished
By HEATHER MAC DONALD
The recession of 2008-09 has undercut one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s: the idea that the root cause of crime lies in income inequality and social injustice. As the economy started shedding jobs in 2008, criminologists and pundits predicted that crime would shoot up, since poverty, as the "root causes" theory holds, begets criminals. Instead, the opposite happened. Over seven million lost jobs later, crime has plummeted to its lowest level since the early 1960s. The consequences of this drop for how we think about social order are significant.
The notion that crime is an understandable reaction to poverty and racism took hold in the early 1960s. Sociologists Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin argued that juvenile delinquency was essentially a form of social criticism. Poor minority youth come to understand that the American promise of upward mobility is a sham, after a bigoted society denies them the opportunity to advance. These disillusioned teens then turn to crime out of thwarted expectations.
The theories put forward by Cloward, who spent his career at Columbia University, and Ohlin, who served presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Carter, provided an intellectual foundation for many Great Society-era programs. From the Mobilization for Youth on Manhattan's Lower East Side in 1963 through the federal Office of Economic Opportunity and a host of welfare, counseling and job initiatives, their ideas were turned into policy.
If crime was a rational response to income inequality, the thinking went, government can best fight it through social services and wealth redistribution, not through arrests and incarceration. Even law enforcement officials came to embrace the root causes theory, which let them off the hook for rising lawlessness. Through the late 1980s, the FBI's annual national crime report included the disclaimer that "criminal homicide is largely a societal problem which is beyond the control of the police." Policing, it was understood, can only respond to crime after the fact; preventing it is the domain of government welfare programs.
Barbara KelleyThe 1960s themselves offered a challenge to the poverty-causes-crime thesis. Homicides rose 43%, despite an expanding economy and a surge in government jobs for inner-city residents. The Great Depression also contradicted the idea that need breeds predation, since crime rates dropped during that prolonged crisis. The academy's commitment to root causes apologetics nevertheless persisted. Andrew Karmen of New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice echoed Cloward and Ohlin in 2000 in his book "New York Murder Mystery." Crime, he wrote, is "a distorted form of social protest." And as the current recession deepened, liberal media outlets called for more government social programs to fight the coming crime wave. In late 2008, the New York Times urged President Barack Obama to crank up federal spending on after-school programs, social workers, and summer jobs. "The economic crisis," the paper's editorialists wrote, "has clearly created the conditions for more crime and more gangs—among hopeless, jobless young men in the inner cities."
Even then crime patterns were defying expectations. And by the end of 2009, the purported association between economic hardship and crime was in shambles. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, homicide dropped 10% nationwide in the first six months of 2009; violent crime dropped 4.4% and property crime dropped 6.1%. Car thefts are down nearly 19%. The crime plunge is sharpest in many areas that have been hit the hardest by the housing collapse. Unemployment in California is 12.3%, but homicides in Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Times reported recently, dropped 25% over the course of 2009. Car thefts there are down nearly 20%.
The recession crime free fall continues a trend of declining national crime rates that began in the 1990s, during a very different economy. The causes of that long-term drop are hotly disputed, but an increase in the number of people incarcerated had a large effect on crime in the last decade and continues to affect crime rates today, however much anti-incarceration activists deny it. The number of state and federal prisoners grew fivefold between 1977 and 2008, from 300,000 to 1.6 million.
***
The spread of data-driven policing has also contributed to the 2000s' crime drop. At the start of the recession, the two police chiefs who confidently announced that their cities' crime rates would remain recession-proof were Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton and New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. As New York Police Commissioner in the mid-1990s, Mr. Bratton pioneered the intensive use of crime data to determine policing strategies and to hold precinct commanders accountable—a process known as Compstat. Commissioner Kelly has continued Mr. Bratton's revolutionary policies, leading to New York's stunning 16-year 77% crime drop. The two police leaders were true to their word. In 2009, the city of L.A. saw a 17% drop in homicides, an 8% drop in property crimes, and a 10% drop in violent crimes. In New York, homicides fell 19%, to their lowest level since reliable records were first kept in 1963.
The Compstat mentality is the opposite of root causes excuse-making; it holds that policing can and must control crime for the sake of urban economic viability. More and more police chiefs have adopted the Compstat philosophy of crime-fighting and the information-based policing techniques that it spawned. Their success in lowering crime shows that the government can control antisocial behavior and provide public safety through enforcing the rule of law. Moreover, the state has the moral right and obligation to do so, regardless of economic conditions or income inequality.
The recession could still affect crime rates if cities cut their police forces and states start releasing prisoners early. Both forms of cost-saving would be self-defeating. Public safety is the precondition for thriving urban life. In 1990s New York, crime did not drop because the economy improved; rather, the city's economy revived because crime was cut in half. Keeping crime rates low now is the best guarantee that cities across the country will be able to exploit the inevitable economic recovery when it comes.
Ms. Mac Donald is a contributing editor at the Manhattan Institute's City Journal.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Pre-requisite knowledge to vote?
As an extremely inquisitive bloke I recently found myself wondering why I had the political opinion that I did on a range of issues. No sooner would I have a political opinion than an article, discussion or new thought would lead to a change of mind based on new facts/information. Needless to say this was frustrating for someone who tries to be a little more structured in their thinking.
Get free Political Science courses from the world’s leading universities. You can download these audio & video courses straight to your computer or mp3 player. For more online courses, visit our complete collection ofFree Courses.
- American Politics: Campaign Strategy – iTunes – Feed – MP3s – Dan Schnur, UC Berkeley
- Climate Change: Law and Policy – iTunes – Feed – Stream – Cymie Payne
- Environmental Law and Policy – iTunes – Holly Doremus, UC Berkeley
- Geography of US Presidential Elections – YouTube – iTunes – Martin Lewis, Stanford
- International Politics – Feed – Johns Hopkins
- Introduction to German Politics – iTunes – Feed – Andreas Busch, Oxford University
- Introduction to Political Philosophy – YouTube – iTunes –Download Course, Steven B. Smith, Yale
- Introduction to Political Theory – Feed – UCLA
- Issues in Foreign Policy after 911 – iTunes – Feed – MP3s – Harry Kriesler, UC Berkeley
- Justice: A Journey in Moral Reasoning (Video) – Video – Michael Sandel, Harvard
- Perspectives on China (Video) – Video – Roderick MacFarquhar, Harvard
- Politics and Strategy – Feed – MP3s – Kathleen Bawn, UCLA
- Republicanism – Feed - Johns Hopkins
- Theories of Law and Society – iTunes – Feed - David Lieberman, UC Berkeley
- Undergrad Colloquium on Political Science – iTunes – Feed – Alan Ross, UC Berkeley
Dr. Charles Anderson situates classical thinkers in their times and shows how they foreshadow major changes in Western thought. He also applies their theories to contemporary political, social, and economic concerns in an engaging manner. You will find these thinkers also brought to life as persons, often real characters with some contradictions and even irritating qualities. In the lectures on Socrates, pay attention to his likening of Socrates to an irritating guy who sidles up to you in a Northwoods bar and peppers you with puzzling questions until you want to brush him off.
1-in-10 chance of US anarchy!
Today, Paul Farrell quoted Barton Biggs as predicting the breakdown of civilization and anarchy:
In his 2008 bestseller "Wealth, War and Wisdom" former Morgan Stanley research guru Barton Biggs warns us to prepare for a "breakdown of civilization ... Your safe haven must be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food ... It should be well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc ... A few rounds over the approaching brigands' heads would probably be a compelling persuader that there are easier farms to pillage." Biggs sounds like an anarchist militiaman.I haven't read Wealth, War and Wisdom, and I wanted to find out what Biggs is actually forecasting for the U.S.
I found a recent (December 15th) interview in which Biggs gives specifics:
Is what’s happening now in Dubai and Greece, for example, a canary in the coal mine? In Greece, there is real chaos and anarchy, with mobs on the street. If Dubai goes down the drain, there’s going to be serious trouble, because they have a million or so imported workers from third-world countries. They are working their butts off, and they have been cheated for years, in terms of what they are paid and their food allowances. There are going to be real problems there.Marc Faber also recommends buying a farm. And many experts and officials have warned of economic crisis-induced unrest.
You can make the case that it is not inconceivable that the barbarians could be at the gate in Europe, Japan and the US. It’s one chance in ten that’s going to happen but, as a person with wealth, you must ask what type of insurance to take out against that ...
It sounds simplistic, but there’s nothing the matter with having some kind of self-sufficient farm that is not close to the big cities. It sounds almost stupid, but it sure paid off in occupied Europe during World War II. I don’t think periods of anarchy are going to last a long time in countries like the US. Butcould we have four or five months of anarchy? I think there’s one chance in ten that could happen.