From Newt Gingrich on how to make the American economy thrive:

This is not magic. This is like a cookbook. Lower taxes. Fewer regulations. A focus on American energy.

It's not as if I think that a lack of bumper sticker mottos is the left's biggest problem, but still. This is a level of almost atavistic simplicity that you can't help but be jealous of. Newt will never be president, but he's still got no equal when it comes to crowd-pleasing sound bites.

And speaking of politicians and sound bites, does it strike anyone else that Sarah Palin has basically become a social media version of Ann Coulter? That is, they're both conservatives whose schtick mostly depends on generating liberal apoplexy over their periodic word bombs, and who are both fading away because they're having problems coming up with new material that's fresh enough for anyone to care about? I didn't even know Coulter had yet another book out until I saw it at the bookstore today (in almost self-parody fashion, it's called Demonic), and likewise nobody seems to care very much anymore about whatever Palin's latest plea for attention on Facebook says (though Tina Brown apparently hasn't gotten the message yet). Sic transit etc.

The Invisible Jobless

Why is it that chronic, sky-high unemployment has produced so little political backlash? On Sunday, Catherine Rampell wrote a piece suggesting two big reasons: the unemployed don't vote in big numbers, so politicians can safely ignore them; and there are fewer institutions left these days to mobilize them the way labor unions used to. Today David Leonhardt adds a third: today's unemployment affects a relatively smaller number of people than in the past: "joblessness is concentrated among a subset of the population, rather than affecting a larger group of people for shorter periods of time."

All probably true. But Paul Krugman wrote today that the press plays a role too: "Turn on your TV and you'll see some self-satisfied pundit declaring that nothing much can be done about the economy's short-run problems." Bob Somerby takes it from there:

As he closes, he again suggests that the “supposedly serious people” you see on TV are too well-off, too self-satisfied, to give a fig—to care.

Could it be true that our High Pundit Class is simply above such concerns? Could it be that those Millionaire Pundit Values have wiped away such concerns? Could it be that they’re too well-off—too isolated, too uncaring—to worry about our ongoing economic disaster? Our possible debt ceiling debacle?

....Yesterday, in the Sunday Times, three regular columnists published columns. None of the three showed any sign of knowing that their nation’s in trouble, especially so as the deadline for possible default looms....Given the new lay-out of the Sunday Review, quite a few other columns and analysis pieces appeared in yesterday’s section. But no one seemed to have any idea that our nation is in bad trouble.

....There was nothing “wrong” with any of these columns; you may feel that some of them were quite good. But something was grossly wrong with the editor who picked these columns while picking no others. Reading yesterday’s Sunday Review, you would have no idea that anything is wrong with our economy—that millions of people are out of work, that we are facing a possible debt ceiling disaster.

....This has been going on roughly forever. Columnist Krugman to the side, why haven’t career liberal leaders ever complained about this upper-class culture?

Obviously there are lots of differences between the Great Depression and our current economic morass. But one of them was indeed the press: in the 30s, the typical newspaper writer was a modestly paid high school graduate, closer to being a blue-collar worker than a member of the middle class. Big syndicated columnists like Walter Lippman were pretty well off, but they were the exception more than the rule.

Today it's just the opposite. Punditry is dominated almost exclusively, both in print and on the air, by the rich and the upper middle class. And there's just no way around it: even if you're trying hard, it's close to impossible for someone living a comfortable life to really feel the desolation and helplessness of unemployment and economic distress when they've never really experienced it themselves and live in a social circle where it's rarely a serious problem either.

The long-term unemployed don't vote much, they aren't organized, and in electoral numbers there aren't that many of them. All true. But thanks to a political and media class that's mostly pretty well off, they're also largely invisible. Writing about them is more like an anthropological exercise than a simple description of your friends and neighbors. And it's one reason that we're doing so little to help them.

Paul Waldman:

Watching the Sunday blabbers, I was impressed with the facility with which the Republicans switched back and forth between two entirely different, and contradictory, rationales for their position on the budget and the debt ceiling. On one hand, they'd say, we simply have to cut the deficit, which is why we need to slash spending. OK, someone would say, why won't you accept some increase in taxes? You know, to cut the deficit? Absolutely not, they'd say -- you can't raise taxes when the economy is bad! That's the last thing you want to do!

Paul thinks that President Obama should point out how contradictory this is. Either we need to stimulate the economy (tax cuts, spending increases) or we need to cut the deficit (tax increases, spending cuts), but it makes no sense to do half of one and half of the other.

Well, sure, if you're a garden variety Keynesian. But if you're a conservative, then you consider tax cuts good for growth, which helps reduce the deficit. Ditto for spending cuts, which not only reduce the deficit in the obvious way, but also result in a smaller, more growth-friendly public sector. There's no contradiction at all in supporting both.

So the question isn't whether Republicans are contradicting themselves. They have a theory in which they aren't. Instead, the question is this: Can Barack Obama persuade the American public that Keynesian economics is basically correct and that Republican economics is therefore crazy? Good luck with that. Everyone loves paying less in taxes, and there's a very big chunk of the public that also loves spending cuts as long as they're aimed at poor people. So they have every personal incentive to buy into the GOP's high-minded justifications for stuff they want to do anyway. And they do.

After three decades, we still haven't figured out how to effectively fight voodoo economics. It would be nice if Obama started talking sense instead of caving in to conservative nonsense, but the problem goes way beyond just him. Suggestions welcome.

The Guardian reports on yet more douchebaggery from various pieces of Rupert Murdoch's media empire:

Journalists from across News International repeatedly targeted the former prime minister Gordon Brown, attempting to access his voicemail and obtaining information from his bank account, his legal file as well as his family's medical records.....

  • Abbey National bank found evidence suggesting that a "blagger" acting for the Sunday Times on six occasions posed as Brown and gained details from his account;
  • London lawyers, Allen & Overy, were tricked into handing over details from his file by a conman working for the Sunday Times
  • Details from his infant son's medical records were obtained by the Sun, who published a story about the child's serious illness.

....The sheer scale of the data assault on Brown is unusual, with evidence of attempts to obtain his legal, financial, tax, medical and police records as well as to listen to his voicemail. All of these incidents are linked to media organisations. In many cases, there is evidence of a link to News International.

Oh lovely: they hacked into the medical records of his infant son. What's more, this story suggests that this kind of thing wasn't limited just to News of the World, nor just to the tabloids. Even the Sunday Times was in on the fun. So here's the question: how long will it be before we learn that some of Murdoch's properties in the United States were engaged in the same kind of behavior? Tick tick tick.....

For the past couple of years economists have been arguing about whether our high unemployment level is cyclical or structural. The best evidence, I think, suggests that it's some of both: perhaps two-thirds cyclical and one-third structural. But even if it were more like 50-50, who cares? It still means that we have a huge amount of cyclical unemployment on our hands, and we ought to be doing something about it.

However, there's an aspect of this debate that I've never really taken the time to flesh out on the blog: if we are suffering partly from a structural unemployment problem, when did it begin? One of the most persuasive arguments against a significant role for structural unemployment is that it simply doesn't make much sense to think that, in the fall of 2008, American workers (and Greek workers, Irish workers, Italian workers, etc.) suddenly became ill suited in mass numbers to the rigors of the modern world. It just doesn't make much sense.

But if you look at an array of economic indicators, something a bit less sudden has always seemed to be lurking in the data: a structural change that started around 2000 but was masked first by the dotcom bubble and then by the housing bubble. So when the 2008 banking crisis touched off the Great Recession, a decade's worth of structural change suddenly became apparent all at once. No more masks.

I don't know for sure how much there is to this, but it's definitely been rolling around in the back of my mind for some time. The economy of the aughts was just too lousy to explain without something going on. Bush's economic policies may have been misguided in the long term, after all, but in the short term a bunch of big tax cuts, a housing bubble, and lots of war spending should have been fairly stimulative.

Which leads to the chart below, from a study released by the Kauffman Foundation. It shows that using two different measures, new businesses have been creating fewer jobs than usual over the past decade:

"While the recession certainly deepened the jobs deficit, the U.S. economy stopped producing enough new jobs well before the downturn," said Robert Litan, Kauffman Foundation vice president of research and policy and study co-author.

....The study [...] found that historically, new firms in the United States have generated about 3 million new jobs every year, but that recent cohorts have performed much worse, creating only 2.3 million jobs in 2009...."Not only are these businesses starting out smaller than their predecessors, they are staying smaller," said E.J. Reedy, Kauffman Research Fellow and study co-author. "Cohorts of businesses rarely add jobs in the aggregate as they age. A cohort’s initial level of employment is likely the maximum number of jobs it will provide over its lifetime. Thus, falling contributions of jobs at new businesses will be felt in the U.S. economy for years."

This is just one data point, and it doesn't (or shouldn't) diminish the need for monetary and fiscal action to reduce the cyclical chunk of our current unemployment problem. At the same time, it does suggest that there are structural issues at work too, and they've been at work for a while. We just didn't notice them so much when the good times were rolling.

From Jonathan Rauch, guest blogging for Andrew Sullivan:

If some strange magnetic pulse wiped out every blog post written since the format began, hardly anything memorable or important would be lost; and, after 15 years or whatever, it's too late to hope for maturation. The medium is the problem. The Web is great for shopping and research, but intrinsically lousy for serious reading and writing. Over the past decade and more, the most striking fact about the blogosphere is how little it has produced of distinction or durability.

Oh yeah, that's going to go over well. It's pretty much true, of course, since your average blog post is about as durable as a story in a daily newspaper, and you know what they say about yesterday's news, don't you? It's also pretty much true of the weekly column writing business, though I suppose you can at least collect those in a book and pretend that they've found immortality that way.

Of course, some mediums are designed for posterity and some are designed to help readers make sense of the daily grind in real time. I hope Rauch hasn't gotten the two mixed up.

This is interesting. A few years ago, as part of the worldwide ban on CFCs to protect the ozone layer, CFC-based asthma inhalers were banned. Asthma sufferers everywhere complained about this, because the replacement HFA-based inhalers didn't work as well. They fingered the culprits as an unholy alliance of idiot bureaucrats and overbearing environmentalists, who banned the inhalers even though their contribution to ozone destruction was minuscule and all other CFC uses had already been eliminated.

I love the ozone layer as much as anyone, but I was sympathetic to the asthma crowd. Thus I was interested to read Nick Baumann's piece in the current issue of MoJo explaining who was behind the CFC inhaler ban. As it turns out, it wasn't really environmentalists who made the big push, it was the manufacturers of asthma inhalers:

Pharmaceutical companies, worried about the emergence of generic competition, soon spied an opening. If they could create and patent a new variety of CFC-free inhalers, securing the exclusive rights to sell them, they could force off-brand competitors out of the market and jack up prices.

....The pharma consortium transformed from primarily an R&D outfit searching for substitutes for CFC-based inhalers into a lobbying group intent on eliminating the old inhalers. It set up shop in the K Street offices of Drinker Biddle, a major DC law firm....The lobbying paid off. In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved an outright ban on many CFC-based inhalers starting in 2009.

....The switch to the new inhalers will cost American consumers, insurance companies, and the government some $8 billion by 2017, according to FDA estimates. That's money in the drug companies' pockets. In 2007, a top market-research firm alerted investors that the US inhaler market "will soon change from low-value to significant." Sure enough, at nearly $1 billion a year, sales of the market-leading inhaler, ProAir, now rival Viagra's.

Maybe the ban on CFC inhalers would have happened anyway. But even if it did, there was no special reason that it had to wipe out the generic market for asthma inhalers at the same time. So score one for big pharma. By my count, that makes the current score Big Pharma 873, Taxpayers 0.

A reminder for everyone writing about the debt ceiling games: We don't reach the debt ceiling on August 2nd. We reached it two months ago, on May 16th. Treasury has been playing games ever since ("borrowing" from pension funds, suspending securities that help states manage their finances, etc. etc.).

August 2nd is merely the date when the games run out and we actually stop paying some bills. But just for the record, Congress blew through the debt ceiling long ago and has been mucking around ever since.

From Upton Sinclair, on politics:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

This goes a long way toward explaining Congress and its indifference to our economic woes in a single sentence.

Via YouGov, here is all of modern American politics explained in a single handy chart. Enjoy.