1
U.S.
Memphis Drops Confederate Names From Parks, Sowing New Battles
The City Council’s decision to remove Confederate names from three parks has sparked controversy in the face of a state bill that would make such renamings more difficult."In 1795 the Spanish governor of Louisiana, Manuel Gayoso de Lemos, acquired land for a fort from the Chickasaw. Fort San Fernando de las Barrancas was built in the summer of 1795 on the fourth Chickasaw Bluff, just south of the Wolf River. It gave Spain control of navigation on the Mississippi River in the region until 1797 when it was abandoned in keeping with Pinckney's Treaty.[6][7] The fort was dismantled, its lumber and iron shipped away. Its ruins went unnoticed when Memphis was laid out twenty years later.[8]
The land comprising present-day Memphis remained in a largely unorganized territory throughout most of the 18th century. In 1796, the site became the westernmost point of the newly admitted state of Tennessee, located in the Southwest United States.
19th century
As the cotton economy of the antebellum South depended on the forced labor of large numbers of African-American slaves, Memphis became a major slave market. In 1857, the Memphis and Charleston Railroad was completed, the only east-west railroad across the southern states prior to the Civil War.
Tennessee seceded from the Union in June 1861, and Memphis briefly became a Confederate stronghold. Union ironclad gunboats captured the city in the naval Battle of Memphis on June 6, 1862, and the city remained under Union control for the duration of the war. Memphis became a Union supply base and continued to prosper throughout the war. Meanwhile, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest harassed Union forces in the area.
In the 1870s, a series of yellow fever epidemics devastated Memphis. The worst outbreak, in 1878, reduced the population by nearly 75% as many people died or fled the city permanently. Property tax revenues collapsed, and the city could not make payments on its municipal debts. As a result, Memphis temporarily lost its city charter and was a taxing district from 1878–1893. The city was rechartered in 1893
2
Business Day
Reports Show Income Is Up, and So Is Spending
A range of economic indicators showed signs of strength and momentum despite the broad federal spending cuts known as the sequester.No Trickle
I should give a shout-out to Larry Mishel’s note
showing that the share of corporate-sector income going to profits has
soared to levels not seen in more than 40 years. Here’s another way to
see the same thing, with total workers’ compensation in blue and profits
in red, both shown as indexes with the quarter before the recession at
100:
There doesn’t seem to be much trickle-down going on."
The Price Is Wrong
But which price — that is the question.
It’s a slow morning on the economic news front, as we wait for various euro shoes to drop, so I thought I’d share a meditation I’ve been having on the diagnosis and misdiagnosis of the Lesser Depression. It’s not really different from what I’ve been saying all along, but maybe coming at it from a different angle is somewhat enlightening.
So, start with our big problem, which is mass unemployment. Basic supply and demand analysis says that things like that aren’t supposed to happen: prices are supposed to rise or fall to clear markets. So what’s with this apparent massive and persistent excess supply of labor?
In general, market disequilibrium is a sign of prices out of whack; and most people commenting on our mess accept the notion that one or more prices are for some reason not adjusting. The big divide comes over the question of which price is wrong.
As I see it, the whole structural/classical/Austrian/supply-side/whatever side of this debate basically believes that the problem lies in the labor market. (I know, the Austrians will deny it — but it doesn’t matter what you say about their position, any comprehensible statement leads to angry claims that you don’t understand their depths). For some reason, they would argue, wages are too high given the demand for labor. Some of them accept the notion that it’s because of downward nominal wage rigidity; more, I think, believe that workers are being encouraged to hold out for unsustainable wages by moocher-friendly programs like food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability insurance, and whatever.
As regular readers know, I find this prima facie absurd — it’s essentially the claim that soup kitchens caused the Great Depression. But let’s stick with the economic logic for now.
So what’s the alternative view? It’s basically the notion that the interest rate is wrong — that given the overhang of debt and other factors depressing private demand, real interest rates would have to be deeply negative to match desired saving with desired investment at full employment. And real rates can’t go that negative because expected inflation is low and nominal rates can’t go below zero: we’re in a liquidity trap.
There are strong policy implications of these two views. If you think the problem is that wages are too high, your solution is that we need to meaner to workers — cut off their unemployment insurance, make them hungry by cutting off food stamps, so they have no alternative to do whatever it takes to get jobs, and wages fall. If you think the problem is the zero lower bound on interest rates, you think that this kind of solution wouldn’t just be cruel, it would make the economy worse, both because cutting workers’ incomes would reduce demand and because deflation would increase the burden of debt.
What my side of the debate would call for, instead, is a reduction in the real interest rate, if possible, by raising expected inflation; and failing that, more government spending to increase demand and put idle resources to work.
So how can you tell which side is right? Well, these differing views make differing predictions. If you believe that the problem is excessive wages, you believe that the economy is fundamentally suffering from a supply-side constraint. In that case government borrowing is competing with the private sector for a limited quantity of resources, so big budget deficits should lead to soaring interest rates; meanwhile, because the supply of goods is limited, large increases in the money supply should lead to soaring inflation. Oh, and cuts in government spending should, if anything, be expansionary, because they both release resources to the private sector and make life tougher for workers who try to live on public benefits.
If, on the other hand, you believe that the problem lies in a shortfall of demand due to the zero lower bound, you believe that government borrowing needn’t drive up rates, because it puts unemployed resources to work; that monetary expansion won’t be inflationary, because the money will just sit there; and that fiscal austerity will be strongly contractionary.
I leave the adjudication of these competing claims as an exercise for readers.
Oh, and one more thing: no, you can’t say “Well, there may be truth to both views”. Either the economy is supply-constrained or it’s demand-constrained. Of course even the most ardent demand-siders will admit that there are supply constraints in there somewhere, that if we had an economic boom we would, after some period of time, enter a regime where printing money is inflationary and government borrowing drive up interest rates. But not here, not now.
So yes, the price is wrong — but it’s a terrible, disastrous mistake to focus on the wrong wrong price."
It’s a slow morning on the economic news front, as we wait for various euro shoes to drop, so I thought I’d share a meditation I’ve been having on the diagnosis and misdiagnosis of the Lesser Depression. It’s not really different from what I’ve been saying all along, but maybe coming at it from a different angle is somewhat enlightening.
So, start with our big problem, which is mass unemployment. Basic supply and demand analysis says that things like that aren’t supposed to happen: prices are supposed to rise or fall to clear markets. So what’s with this apparent massive and persistent excess supply of labor?
In general, market disequilibrium is a sign of prices out of whack; and most people commenting on our mess accept the notion that one or more prices are for some reason not adjusting. The big divide comes over the question of which price is wrong.
As I see it, the whole structural/classical/Austrian/supply-side/whatever side of this debate basically believes that the problem lies in the labor market. (I know, the Austrians will deny it — but it doesn’t matter what you say about their position, any comprehensible statement leads to angry claims that you don’t understand their depths). For some reason, they would argue, wages are too high given the demand for labor. Some of them accept the notion that it’s because of downward nominal wage rigidity; more, I think, believe that workers are being encouraged to hold out for unsustainable wages by moocher-friendly programs like food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability insurance, and whatever.
As regular readers know, I find this prima facie absurd — it’s essentially the claim that soup kitchens caused the Great Depression. But let’s stick with the economic logic for now.
So what’s the alternative view? It’s basically the notion that the interest rate is wrong — that given the overhang of debt and other factors depressing private demand, real interest rates would have to be deeply negative to match desired saving with desired investment at full employment. And real rates can’t go that negative because expected inflation is low and nominal rates can’t go below zero: we’re in a liquidity trap.
There are strong policy implications of these two views. If you think the problem is that wages are too high, your solution is that we need to meaner to workers — cut off their unemployment insurance, make them hungry by cutting off food stamps, so they have no alternative to do whatever it takes to get jobs, and wages fall. If you think the problem is the zero lower bound on interest rates, you think that this kind of solution wouldn’t just be cruel, it would make the economy worse, both because cutting workers’ incomes would reduce demand and because deflation would increase the burden of debt.
What my side of the debate would call for, instead, is a reduction in the real interest rate, if possible, by raising expected inflation; and failing that, more government spending to increase demand and put idle resources to work.
So how can you tell which side is right? Well, these differing views make differing predictions. If you believe that the problem is excessive wages, you believe that the economy is fundamentally suffering from a supply-side constraint. In that case government borrowing is competing with the private sector for a limited quantity of resources, so big budget deficits should lead to soaring interest rates; meanwhile, because the supply of goods is limited, large increases in the money supply should lead to soaring inflation. Oh, and cuts in government spending should, if anything, be expansionary, because they both release resources to the private sector and make life tougher for workers who try to live on public benefits.
If, on the other hand, you believe that the problem lies in a shortfall of demand due to the zero lower bound, you believe that government borrowing needn’t drive up rates, because it puts unemployed resources to work; that monetary expansion won’t be inflationary, because the money will just sit there; and that fiscal austerity will be strongly contractionary.
I leave the adjudication of these competing claims as an exercise for readers.
Oh, and one more thing: no, you can’t say “Well, there may be truth to both views”. Either the economy is supply-constrained or it’s demand-constrained. Of course even the most ardent demand-siders will admit that there are supply constraints in there somewhere, that if we had an economic boom we would, after some period of time, enter a regime where printing money is inflationary and government borrowing drive up interest rates. But not here, not now.
So yes, the price is wrong — but it’s a terrible, disastrous mistake to focus on the wrong wrong price."
3
World
Cost of Environmental Damage in China Growing Rapidly Amid Industrialization
A report from the Ministry of Environmental Protection put the figure at $230 billion in 2010, based on costs rising from pollution and damage to the ecosystem.| Year | Coal Production (Billion short tons) |
|---|---|
| 2000 | 1.00 |
| 2001 | 1.11 |
| 2002 | 1.42 |
| 2003 | 1.61 |
| 2004 | 2.00 |
| 2005 | 2.19 |
| 2006 | 2.38 |
| 2007 | 2.62 |
| 2008 | 2.72 |
| 2009 | 2.96 |
| Coal in China (Mt)*[10] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Production | Net import | Net available | |
| 2005 | 2,226 | -47 | 2,179 |
| 2008 | 2,761 | nd | 2,761 |
| 2009 | 2,971 | 114 | 3,085 |
| 2010 | 3,162 | 157 | 3,319 |
| 2011 | 3,576 | 177 | 3,753 |
| by IEA, exclude China Hong Kong | |||
Coal has quadrupled since 2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China
More than I want to dig at tonight.
The question: are people dying faster recently due to pollution?
If so how much?
4
World
Fixing the Failed Elevator Pitch: Translating Military Skills for Civilian Employers
A program by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce unveils a resume-building website intended to help young veterans translate their military experiences for civilian employers.
5
U.S.
On Space Coast, Signs of Comeback After End of an Era
After a harsh economic downturn and the loss of 8,000 jobs at NASA when a shuttle program ended, Brevard County, Fla., is recovering by diversifying beyond aerospace.
6
Opinion
California Beaming
You can laugh at the sunbaked barbarians, but their renaissance is another chapter in the American experiment.
7
N.Y. / Region
Landlord Accused of Endangering Tenants
A Queens landlord who authorities said had packed nearly 50 people in illegally converted apartments was charged with reckless endangerment and other crimes.
8
Business Day
Survey Details Data Theft Concerns for U.S. Firms in China
The report from the American Chamber of Commerce in China also detailed concerns over weak enforcement of intellectual property rights and restricted Internet access.
9
Business Day
Hospitals Question Medicare Rules on Readmissions
In response to new federal regulations, institutions are spending millions to help patients avoid returning to the hospital, but some say that the penalties they seek to avoid are unjust.
10
11
U.S.
Indiana: Judge Blocks Parts of State Immigration Law
A federal judge has permanently blocked Indiana from enforcing two main provisions of its 2011 immigration law.
12
Business Day
A Start-Up Tries to Give Wine Spritzers a New Image and a Second Wind
A year from now, Jayla Siciliano hopes Bon Affair’s bottles will be lining the shelves of all the Whole Foods stores in California and offered on Virgin America flights.
13
Opinion
Poor Baby: Daddy’s Got a Text Message
Readers react to an essay calling for more personal interaction and less texting.
14
N.Y. / Region
Relying on Hotel Rooms for Thousands Uprooted by Hurricane Sandy
City officials said those in hotels were mostly poor, with no home to return to or not enough income to qualify for available apartments.
15
Business Day
A Top Agency Expands Its Social Footprint
A division of McCann Erickson New York that specializes in social media will grow to 30 employees, and will stress interactions with consumers.
16
U.S.
Tip Sheet: What to Do After Your Admissions Decision Arrives
Now that college acceptance and wait-list offers are out, a college counselor offers a list of what should — and shouldn’t — happen next.
17
U.S.
James M. Nabrit, a Fighter for Civil Rights, Dies at 80
Mr. Nabrit was a longtime lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund who argued for school integration at the Supreme Court.
18
Opinion
The Talmud and Other Diet Books
When Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-obesity programs fail, look to God and the ancient Greeks.
19
N.Y. / Region
New Cabs Could Avoid Hybrid Ban
The Bloomberg administration wanted all cabs to be Nissan NV200s, but relented and said some large hybrids could be allowed.
20
No comments:
Post a Comment