Kevin Drum

Factlet of the Day

| Wed May 13, 2009 1:55 PM EDT

Tyler Cowen passes along the news that Americans used to chew their food 25 times before swallowing, but today the average is down to ten chews.  Interesting!  But how do we know this?  Has it been measured?  Here's the original source for the claim:

The modern American diet is mostly made up of "easy calories."  According to Gail Civille, a food-industry consultant and the owner of Sensory Spectrum, Americans of the past typically had to chew a mouthful of food as many as 25 times before swallowing; the average American today chews only 10 times.

In part, this is because fat, which has become ubuiquitous, is a lubricant. We don't eat as much lean meat, which requires more saliva to ready it for swallowing.  "We want food that's higher in fat, marbled, so when you eat it, it melts in your mouth," says Civille.  Food is easier to eat when it breaks down more quickly in the mouth.  "If I have fat in there, I just chew it up and — whoosh! — away it goes."

John Haywood, a prominent restaurant concept designer, agrees.  Processing, he says, creates a sort of "adult baby food."  By processing, he means removing the elements in whole food — like fiber and gristle — that are harder to chew and swallow.

Hmmm.  That's certainly plausible, but I still want to know where those exact figures come from.  I demand proof.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Quote of the Day - 5.13.09

| Wed May 13, 2009 1:15 PM EDT

From conservative Jerry Taylor, writing at National Review Online:

The question for conservatives is this: Do you want President Obama to succeed in painting the Republican party as the party of Rush Limbaugh? Given his sub-Nixon popularity figures, I can’t believe I’m causing a firestorm by suggesting the answer here is probably “no.”

Oh, but he is causing a firestorm.  As near as I can tell, not a single person at NRO is coming to Taylor's aid.  They like being the party of Limbaugh.

In other news of the ongoing intellectual collapse of the conservative movement, Politico's Roger Simon reports that the Republican National Committee will meet in an extraordinary special session next week to approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”  Yippee!  They're like five-year-olds in a sandbox.  I can't wait to see what NRO thinks of this.

How to Screw Your Constituents

| Wed May 13, 2009 12:52 PM EDT

Matt Yglesias watches the sausage grinder at work on the Waxman-Markey climate bill and is especially outraged at so-called moderates who insist that a large fraction of carbon emission permits should be given away, rather than auctioned off:

The moderate bloc [...] has portrayed itself as concerned with the climate crisis but worried about the tradeoffs with short-term economic growth. But the concession they’ve forced here doesn’t do anything to boost short-term growth. Instead, whereas auctioning the permits would have made rich people bear most of the cost of reducing emissions, by giving the permits away you make poor people bear most of the cost.

The environmental impact of the two methods is similar, and the overall costs are similar. But the moderates acted swiftly and decisively to reallocate a portion of the costs onto the backs of the poor. And they’ve done so specifically under guise of looking out for the interests of the working class. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

In a way, this is even worse than Matt makes it out to be.  As I understand the politics of the situation, the problem is basically regional: a lot of moderates come from the midwest and the south, where they rely on coal-fired plants for the bulk of their electricity.  These plants emit more carbon than even other fossil-fueled plants, and way more carbon than hydro or solar plants.  And to make it even worse, most of these states have done very little to become more energy efficient over the years.  Put all this together and the bottom line is that carbon pricing hits them much harder than it hits, say, California.

This means that any bill that raises the price of carbon is disproportionately painful for the midwest and the south.  So they want relief.  Now, you can argue that global warming is such serious stuff that they shouldn't be given any, but let's face it: this kind of regional politics is pretty standard stuff.  It's hard to get too bent out of shape about it.

Except for one thing: it won't work.  The theory here is that giving away permits to coal-fired plants means they don't have to raise prices.  After all, the permits are free.  And this means that voters in the midwest and the south won't start hauling out their pitchforks and throwing out incumbents because their electric bills have gone up.

But guess what?  The electric utilities are going to raise their prices anyway.  Kevin Drum explains:

The economic theory involved is a little hairy, but those permits have a value on the open market, and that means that in many cases marginal producers can make more money selling their permits than by producing power. They'll only be willing to produce power if they can raise prices enough to make the power-producing business more profitable than the permit-selling business, and eventually everyone will jack up prices to follow suit.

This may sound abstract—even a bit fantastical—but it's absolutely real. In fact, when permits in phase one of Europe's ETS system were handed out for free, electricity prices rose and power companies pocketed a windfall profit (which Britain's Department of Trade and Industry estimated at about $1.1 billion a year in the UK alone). Dale Bryk, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), puts it bluntly: "If you ask them point-blank if they'll charge customers for free permits, they won't tell you. But they know they will."

If moderates were demanding free permits because they wanted to keep electric prices in their states low for a few years while they work on converting to new power sources, that would be one thing.  We could argue about whether it's a good idea, but at least it's normal, understandable stuff.  But that's not what they're doing.  Prices are going to go up regardless, and the free permits do nothing except provide windfall profits to operators of coal plants.  The moderates pushing this "compromise" either don't understand basic economics, in which they case they need to learn some, or else they understand it perfectly well and like the idea of screwing their constituents in order to provide a bonanza for coal plant operators.  In either case, yes, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Retail Sales

| Wed May 13, 2009 12:11 PM EDT

The economy continues to suck:

Retail sales decreased by 0.4% compared to the prior month, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. Economists expected an increase of 0.1%.

Sales in March were revised down, decreasing 1.3% instead of 1.2% as previously reported. Sales rose in January and February, after sliding six straight months.

So how long is this going to last? My rough guess is this: one way or another, the U.S. savings rate has to increase enough that we not only get rid of our trade deficit, but start to reverse it.  That's going to require a drop in domestic consumption on the order of 10% or so over the medium term. This can be masked somewhat by tax cuts and government stimulus and fluctuations in the exchange rate, but eventually consumption has to come down.

And it has!  The chart on the right, from Calculated Risk, tells the story: retail sales have dropped something like 12% in the past year or so.  That doesn't mean our trade deficit has reversed or anything — that's not likely to happen for quite a while — but it does mean that personal consumption might be getting close to sustainable levels now.  Maybe.  I wouldn't bet the ranch on it, but if you're looking for some slightly less grim news than usual, this is it.

The End of Universal Default?

| Tue May 12, 2009 11:43 PM EDT

I forgot to blog about this earlier, but here's the latest news on Chris Dodd's bill to bring a little common sense to the credit card industry:

Dodd's original bill had sought to ban all interest rate increases on existing balances.

Under the compromise measure, agreed to over the weekend by Dodd and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), card issuers would be allowed to retroactively bump up rates for any borrower at least 60 days behind on payments. However, if the borrower subsequently paid on time for six months, the card issuer would have to restore the original rate.

The bill also would prohibit card issuers from increasing rates during the first year a credit card account was opened and would require them to get a customer's permission to process transactions that would push the account balance over the credit limit. Another provision would require card issuers to post credit card agreements online.

It's good to see that the credit card industry still has a friend in Richard Shelby.  We certainly wouldn't want to pass a law that completely prevents a company from retroactively raising the interest rate on a loan it's already made, would we?

Eh.  At least it's something.  Presumably this means that credit card companies can no longer retroactively increase your rates just because you were a few days late paying your water bill, either.  Though I think I'd want to read the fine print before I was sure of that.

In any case, now it's time to see if any Republicans will vote for this bill.  They might!  Constituents are pissed at credit card companies, after all.  In the past Republicans could prevent bills like this from even coming to a vote, but now that they're going to be forced to take a public position they just might decide that discretion is the better part of valor.  Cozying up to your finance industry pals is one thing, but losing your seat over it is quite another.

Rove on Torture

| Tue May 12, 2009 5:02 PM EDT

On Fox News last night, Karl Rove suggested that President Obama's decision to treat captives decently will become an incentive for terrorists to join al-Qaeda:

It has served, frankly, I think, as a recruiting tool. They can now take these memoranda and go to prospective, you know, recruits and say, This is the worst that the enemy, the United States, would ever do to you....It’s given them a tool to make it more attractive to recruit people, and you know, this kind of thing is harmful to us over the long haul.

Even by the normal standards of torture apologetics, this is batshit crazy.  "The Americans are so civilized they treat their prisoners decently!  We must destroy these infidels!"

That's quite a sales pitch, isn't it? Once again, Rove is demonstrating the tin ear for human nature that led him to destroy the fortunes of the Republican Party in a mere eight years.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The Tragedy of the Cod

| Tue May 12, 2009 4:28 PM EDT

Guess what?  Cap-and trade isn't just for limiting carbon emissions.  Here's Jonathan Adler on the destruction of our fisheries:

Protecting fishery resources requires keeping fish catches to sustainable levels. The most effective way to do this is through so-called "catch-share" policies, a property-based conservation regime often called "IFQs" or (as some now say) "cap-and-trade for fish," which allocate tradeable shares of the catch among fishery participants.

....Greenwire reports that the Administration's budget request for NOAA includes a dramatic increase in funding for catch-share management. According to Greenwire, the request "indicates a major push from the administration" to push the adoption of catch-share systems in the nation's fisheries. If so, this will be very good news for fish, and a significant step toward sustainable management of marine resources.

But remember the lesson of Iceland!  Bored, rich fishermen can eventually become a problem:

[In the early 70s] the Icelandic government took radical action: they privatized the fish. Each fisherman was assigned a quota, based roughly on his historical catches. If you were a big-time Icelandic fisherman you got this piece of paper that entitled you to, say, 1 percent of the total catch allowed to be pulled from Iceland’s waters that season.....Your percentage of the annual haul was fixed, and this piece of paper entitled you to it in perpetuity.

....It was horribly unfair: a public resource — all the fish in the Icelandic sea — was simply turned over to a handful of lucky Icelanders. Overnight, Iceland had its first billionaires, and they were all fishermen. But as social policy it was ingenious: in a single stroke the fish became a source of real, sustainable wealth rather than shaky sustenance....Since its fishing policy transformed Iceland, the place has become, in effect, a machine for turning cod into Ph.D.’s.

But this, of course, creates a new problem: people with Ph.D.’s don’t want to fish for a living. They need something else to do.

Unfortunately for Iceland, "something else" turned out to include lots of insane investment schemes.  Perhaps periodic auctions of long-term leases would be a better idea than outright privatization.

Up the Academy

| Tue May 12, 2009 2:31 PM EDT

In the wake of Gen. David McKiernan's firing yesterday, Tom Ricks points out an interesting trend: the top military guys in the war on terror are now all West Point graduates.  Conversely, the guys who have taken the bulk of the heat for failures are nearly all non-grads.  I'm not sure what, if anything, to make of that, but it's a curious coincidence.

Skin in the Game

| Tue May 12, 2009 1:49 PM EDT

What if we got rid of healthcare insurance and made people pay for medical services out of their own pocket?  Put more skin in the game, as it were?  Would it keep costs down and improve the quality of service?  Tyler Cowen takes a look at autism treatment and comes away skeptical.

The Internet and You

| Tue May 12, 2009 1:23 PM EDT

Peter Suderman thinks the web isn't making us dumber, it's just making us different:

Reading on the web is almost certainly affecting the way we process information, but it’s not making us stupid. Instead, it’s changing the way we’re smart. Rather than storehouses of in-depth information, the web is turning our brains into indexes. These days, it’s not what you know — it’s what you know you can access, and cross reference.

In other words, books taught us to think like they do — as tools for storing extensive knowledge. Now the web teaches us to think like it does — as a tool for recall and connection. We won’t be so good at memorizing everything there is to know about a particular small-bore topic, but we’ll be a lot better at knowing what there is to be known about the broader category the topic fits into, and what other information might provide insight and context.

I find this an enormously appealing argument.  Unfortunately, I can't think of any evidence at all to suggest it's true.  Understanding "broader categories" — the context into which individual pieces of knowledge fit — requires you to read books.  Full stop.  Maybe someday it won't, but it does now. 

As longtime readers know, I'm generally a scourge of cranky elders who spend a lot of time kvetching about how ill educated kids are today compared to the golden age they used to live in.  Spare me.  But that doesn't mean the opposite is true either.  Kids who grow up on the internet may be great at looking up odd bits of information quickly, but my experience is that they often suck at figuring out what that information means and what conclusions it's reasonable to draw from it.  That's because they don't know the context.  They don't know the rest of the story.  And that's because they don't read enough books.

I'd love to be wrong about this.  But I'm not.  If you want to understand the world, not just collect endless factlets, you still need to read books.  If you do, the internet makes you smarter.  If you don't, it makes you dumber.