Karen Ho • VS with Jay Ackroyd

An anthropologist looks at Wall Street culture

 
Listen

Listen

Karen Ho, Professor of Anthropology joins us to discuss her book, Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street. Bringing the tools of anthropology's methodology of participant observation, Karen describes the culture and practices of the large investment banks and the people who populate them.

The pervasiveness of this culture, not just in the caverns of Wall Street, but also in the board rooms on Main Street and in suburban corporate campuses has had a profound effect on the broader culture.  Job insecurity, a hallmark of the investment banking career path has been disseminated to industries in a way that has led to apparently counterproductive results, at great expense to those industries.  

If you find this discussion interesting, consider listening to our discussions with Lynn Stout and Chris Hayes about, respectively, The Shareholder Value Myth and Twilight of the Elites.

 

Tim Noah • VS with Jay Ackroyd

Tim Noah, author of The Great Divergence join us to discuss inequality of income in America. This is especially timely, as  the census department just released the latest figures on income distribution

Despite the addition of more than two million jobs last year, soaring corporate profits and continuing economic growth, income for the typical American household did not rise in 2012 and poverty failed to fall, new data from the Census Bureau show.

 

“The poverty and income numbers are a metaphor for the entire economy,” said Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution. “Everything’s on hold, but at a bad level.”
Over a longer perspective, the figures reveal that the income of the median American household today, adjusted for inflation, is no higher than it was for the equivalent household in the late 1980s.
For all but the most highly educated and affluent Americans, incomes have stagnated, or worse, for more than a decade. The census report found that median household income, adjusted for inflation, was $51,017 in 2012, down about 9 percent from an inflation-adjusted peak of $56,080 in 1999, mostly as a result of the longest and most damaging recession since the Depression. Most people have had no gains since the economy hit bottom in 2009.

Tim has an MSNBC post analyzing the results :

A lot of people have been suggesting lately that the problem of income inequality is insoluble. “’Is the rise in inequality inevitable?” George Mason economist Tyler Cowan asks on NPR, touting his new book, Average Is Over. “It probably is.” Fortune’s Adam Lashinsky observes that “No one seems to have any good suggestions.” Harvard economist Greg Mankiw tells Thomas Edsall of The New York Times, “The question for public policy is whatif anything, to do about it.”Judging from Mankiw’s recent paper, “Defending The One Percent,” his own answer would be: nothing.
But actually, there’s quite a lot America can do to reverse growing income inequality. Whole books have been written proposing solutions. But the trend is getting worse under President Barack Obama—the first chief executive, ironically, to address the issue head-on since incomes started growing more unequal 34 years ago. “The problem that we’ve got right now is you’ve got a portion of Congress who–whose policies don’t just–want to– you know, leave things alone, they actually want to accelerate these trends,” the president replied when asked about this by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos.
Classic Washington blame-shifting, right? But in this instance, Obama’s assertion is demonstrably true, as even a cursory glance at the inequality data demonstrates.

Tim and Jay discuss, first, the main subject of Divergence--that is, the contribution of different elements of the post 1975 economy and society that reversed the trend of greater equality in income in the US.  Then we discuss the implications of a great divergence.

At the core of this issue is the recognition that the degree of income and wealth equality is not a natural phenomenon. It is a policy choice made by government officials, elected and unelected, implemented by policies of tax, subsidy and direct regulation of the economy. For instance, the estate tax was designed to prevent the multigenerational accruing and preservation of great wealth, not as a revenue generating measure. The nearly confiscatory high marginal tax rates of the late 50s contrast with the current tax structure, which also feature special subsidies for income gained through investments (or even managing other peoples investments)  rather than wage labor.  Or the setting of minimum wages and minimum standards for working conditions are regulations that directly affect income distribution. We discuss these policies, and the trade-offs that occur when policy makers decide the degree of income inequality their societies will exhibit.

 

Listen beginning Sept 19 - 9p ET

Listen beginning Sept 19 - 9p ET

Virtually Speaking with Jay Ackroyd
Timothy Noah, author The Great  Divergence: America’s Growing Inequality Crisis and What We Can Do About It
Studio Audience Chat Log - with links - Sept 19, 2013 

[18:01]  AM: now!
[18:01]  WW: we're live
[18:02] DB: Ok, got it
[18:02]  SN: there it is
[18:02]  BN: There we go
[18:02]  WW: Media, audio and browser
[18:02]  AG: Dano, Remember Waye King?
[18:02]  ER: increased egalitarian only because of sustained intense worker agitation over decades
[18:02] DB: I do, Albert
[18:03]  ER: and elite consensus that they should accommodate people
[18:03]  Stuart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve
[18:03]  Stuart: A Kuznets curve is the graphical representation of Simon Kuznets' hypothesis that as a country develops, there is a natural cycle of economic inequality driven by market forces which at first increases inequality, and then decreases it after a certain average income is attained.[2]
[18:03]  WW: Here's the NYT review of Tim's book: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/books/review/the-great-divergence-by-timothy-noah.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&_r=0
[18:04]  ER: NPR the other day ran a story preparing people for a future of no middle class as it's currently assumed, the lifestyle, not the statistical middle
[18:04]  IH: I think that Kuznet was mistaken, Marx was more right, just we hit a "bump" where they equaled out more.
[18:04]  Stuart: Is that middle 60 percent by gross or net income?
[18:04] DB: °͜° Ilsa
[18:05]  WW: don't forget to precede questions with QUESTION
[18:05]  ER: Marx was remarkably cogent and prescient, it's hard to fault his analysis as far as it extends, although it's of course aged by now. I've never seen an orthodox economist approach his insights
[18:05]  IH: /me <--- not a Marx fan, but knows when the guy is right
[18:05]  JF: I never liked Zeppo
[18:05]  WW: Stuart, I passed your question along
[18:06] DB: Zeppo was never very funny
[18:06]  Stuart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Solow
[18:06]  ER: Keyness did some borrowing from Marx without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and post-Kenyseian is about as good as it gets among the mainstream (like Stiglitz, contemporary [not old] Sachs)
[18:06]  Stuart: "Robert Merton Solow (born August 23, 1924) is an American economist particularly known for his work on the theory of economic growth that culminated in the exogenous growth model named after him. He was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal (in 1961) and the 1987 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences."
[18:06]  AG: Because we have hidden the need for government to partner with and support the general population.
[18:07]  Stuart: Thanks, W.
[18:07]  Jay Ackroyd: thanks stuart
[18:08]  AE: has there been any country that implemented Marx economics? (USSR was not it)
[18:08]  Stuart: Taft-Hartley!
[18:08]  JF: Albania?
[18:08]  AG: Money is always created by the state and must therefore be regulated by the state; however, ultimately the private sector must accept this legal tender as the currency unit.
 Therefore, the private and public sectors should best be thought of as being in partnership with one another and not opposing forces. Government by the people and for the people is not the antagonist in this story, but rather an entity that should be best utilized to maximize private sector prosperity.
[18:08]  Stuart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reuther
[18:09]  Stuart: "Walter Philip Reuther (September 1, 1907 ‚Äì May 9, 1970) was an American labor union leader, who made the United Automobile Workers a major force not only in the auto industry but also in the Democratic Party in the mid 20th century. He was a socialist in the early 1930s and became a leading liberal and supporter of the New Deal coalition."
[18:09]  ER: the US does accept the use of some local currencies. I imagine it would not look favorably if those took off and it doesn't like things like BitCoin though hasn't pulled out all the guns against it
[18:09]  ER: that doesn't detract from Albert's point though =)
[18:09]  AG: Just because the idea came from Walter we are not going to implement it.
[18:10]  AG: Now where have I heard of that?
[18:10]  IH: Aka, I dont think so, I think the big flaw with Marxism (Communism?) is that it takes pure thought and introduces it to mankind, hoping that man will be logical
[18:10]  Stuart: That's a horrible theory, Albert. (Big) Private and Public are best positioned adversarially, such that each operated as a check and balance on the other.
[18:11] DB: Have to disagree, Ilsa. If Marx had been a pure Hegelian, maybe, but he wasn't
[18:11]  IH: quiet you !
[18:11] DB: °͜°
[18:11]  Stuart: When giant finance and industry partner with the state, it's the worst of all worlds. Checks and balances are necessary for small-d democratic power to meaningfully exist.
[18:11]  AG: Stuart, either you a joking or we must really agree to disagree.
[18:11]  ER: hey, I like Hegel, too
[18:12]  JF: Is Reuther one of the reasons we all drive Toyotas and Mercedes now? (semi-serious Q...)
[18:12]  IH: I think Marx just did not realize how greedy your average person was... especially when it was not the common man leading it, but one set of mandarins pushing another set out of power
[18:12]  ER: well practically speaking the private sector (big banking) is certainly in partnership with the state
[18:12]  ER: in every developed economy
[18:12]  Stuart: "wage-earners"
[18:13]  Jay Ackroyd: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/17/bridging-the-economic-divide-isnt-as-impossible-as-they-say/
[18:14]  AE: I think I agree. Marxism is obviously easily corrupted. sort of like the Libertarian plan.
[18:14]  Jay Ackroyd: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/median-income-and-poverty-rate-hold-steady-census-bureau-finds.html?_r=0
[18:14]  Jay Ackroyd: for later
[18:14]  Stuart: What kind of Democrat had taken power in the national party by 1997?
[18:14] DB: Libertarians have a very cynical view of human nature
[18:14]  AE: The Eisenhower Democrats
[18:15]  JF: is this a bonus question?
[18:15]  Stuart: Probably not the Eisenhower Democrats.
[18:15]  AE: thats what Clinton called himself
[18:16]  Stuart: Clinton called himself a "New Democrat"
[18:16]  ER: Clinton tried a modest stimulus in 1993 (that recession had been on) and was forced to back down by Wall Street
[18:16]  AG: Government is merely a tool that can be utilized to further private sector prosperity.
[18:16]  ER: he was a New Democrat, third way type opportunist, but initially was willing to be more interventionist for the broader economy
[18:17]  AG: Clinton's surplus was the basic cause of the subsequent loan bubble and finally the recession.
[18:17]  ER: Albert, channeling Mencken
[18:17]  JF: :-)
[18:17]  AG: Who is Menchen?
[18:17]  JF: a mench
[18:18] DB: H.L. Mencken
[18:18]  ER: a proto-libertarian
[18:18]  ER: :P
[18:18]  Stuart: QUESTION: Does Tim think that the term "plutocracy" is a useful or accurate descriptor?
[18:18]  IH: I am not sure that this has to do with capitalism vs ____ as much as it does humanity in general. throughout history there has been swings to out and out serfdom and control of the masses by the few. think of Czarist Russia. The question is, what do we do about it.
[18:19]  JF: good description of him Eleuth :-)
[18:19]  ER: it's clearly a plutocratic rather than democratic republic. apparatus of a republic indeed in operation but utterly co-opted. just look at the wishes of the people, consitently shown as supported by large majorities over decades, that never even get considered much less come to fruitition
[18:20]  AG: Ohhhh. Hahahah. So used to referring to him as H.L Men.
[18:20]  AG: Didn't recognize just the last name.
[18:20]  AG: I like him but not channeling him at all.
[18:21]  Stuart: QUESTION:  I seem to remember that "Bankruptcy Reform" passed rather easily...isn't it that popular policy that primarily serves the public interest is difficult to enact through modern government?
[18:21]  JF: <--missed the 'passed easuily' day in congress I guess.
[18:21]  ER: very little of "markets" money gets spent by businesses for capital investment, worker pay, etc. it just does gets hoarded and recycled in various financial markets by a small segment of the population that's the investment class
[18:22]  ER: compete means lower your pay and raise mine
[18:22]  ER: pyramid scheme
[18:22]  JF: :-)
[18:23]  ER: Bierce was also good: Politics, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
[18:23]  Stuart: Populist conservatives, not establishment conservatives.
[18:24]  ER: conservatives make the mistake of taking the public packaging of polciies seriously
[18:24]  AE: sorry. not going to talk up David Vitter lol
[18:24]  ER: that idea is at least as old as Strauss, of which Dano may be aware
[18:24]  IH: QUESTION - does the guest feel that the income disparity and power disparity that we currently see is different, or similar to the points in history where incereasingly a smaller and smaller percentage controlled a larger and larger portion of the power ?
[18:25] DB: Question: Whatever happened to the Kolko thesis? When did the corporate elite change their minds about regulation?
[18:25]  ER: yep, Stuart, and libertarians that came of birth as a large segment of the population after the business funded propaganda and think tank blitz. they've separated some since,and libertarians were willing to challenge their paymasters. there have been purges because of it
[18:26]  ER: and then some like the Kochs left the libertarian party when it refused to drop taxes to zero
[18:26]  Stuart: Really, US Senators are just tabula rasa prior to lobbyists walking in their offices?
[18:26]  ER: libertarian ideas are what we need to defeat to progress
[18:26]  IH: QUESTION is anyone else a bit weirded out by Dano's Talk Like A Pirate Day hat?
[18:26]  ER: and it's hard given actual functioning government
[18:26] DB: Jealousy is unbecoming, Ilsa
[18:26] DB: °͜°
[18:26]  AE: arg! why?
[18:27]  IH: :-)
[18:27]  AG: Caribbean pirate.
[18:27]  Stuart: Jay is right: Liz Fowler went from Max Baucus' staff to Wellpoint back to Baucus in time for the PPACA's Finance Committee draft to be written.
[18:28]  AG: glide
[18:28]  BN: It's been an interesting discussion to sit in on, but I need to jet....take care, all :)
[18:28] DB: Night, Bunni
[18:29]  Stuart: What is Tim talking about?
[18:29]  Stuart: Gensler?
[18:29]  Stuart: "In March 2009, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attempted to block his nomination to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. A statement from Sanders‚Äô office said that Gensler ‚Äúhad worked with Sen. Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan to exempt credit default swaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of AIG and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in US history.‚Äù He also accused Gensler of working to deregulate electronic energy trading, which led to the downfall of Enron, and supporting the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed American banks to become ‚Äútoo big to fail.‚Äù[16]"
[18:29]  Stuart: Oh, come on.
[18:29]  Stuart: "In early November, 2011, Gensler stepped aside from the CFTC's investigation of the giant derivatives broker MF Global because of his longstanding ties to Jon Corzine, the CEO of MF Global, for whom Gensler had worked while both were at Goldman Sachs."
[18:30]  IH: ugh, Stuart, not meaning to nag, but less cut/paste please :-D
[18:30]  ER: this week's economist had a hard on for Angela Merkel (male euphemism okay here?)
[18:30]  ER: The Economist
[18:30]  WW: it's apt, Eleu
[18:31] DB: In a good or bad way, Eleu?
[18:31]  Stuart: When was Gensler's Saul of Tarus moment, exactly?
[18:31]  ER: not clear if in the Dubya giving her a surprise massage way, Dano
[18:31] DB: Ah! Ok, Eleu
[18:32]  ER: (yes, he did that at a summit)
[18:32]  Stuart: Testify, Jay, testify.
[18:32]  Stuart: Absolutely correct.
[18:32]  AE: made Merkel let out a shout. Bush is such a dork.
[18:33]  Stuart: "indulged"
[18:34]  Stuart: What an interesting choice of words.
[18:34]  ER: I've not seen clear evidence that GMOs themselves are harmful but Monsanto et al's business practices certainly are. I see no reason not to allow GMO labeling although people will see it's nearly ubiquitous
[18:35]  Stuart: What?
[18:35]  AE: saw a number today. The 400 richest family's in USA have over 2 trillion
[18:35]  ER: I'd count lower parts of 10% in the upper-middle class
[18:36]  JF: We call them "Lindens"
[18:36]  Stuart: So, we're really going to conflate "affluence" with aristocrats?
[18:36]  WW: the really rich don't use commercial airlines
[18:36]  Stuart: The affluent have more in common with, say, Bill Gates or David Koch than they do with folks making ten or twenty thousand dollars less? Really?
[18:37]  ER: still petite bourgeoisie, they have limitations on their autonomy, are typically making most of their income from labor than sitting on money
[18:37]  Stuart: There are people who work, and there are people who don't. 99% of us work.
[18:38] DB: Exactly, Stuart. You either own it or you work for it
[18:38]  IH: and the hedge fund manager can still be snubbed because his blood is not blue
[18:38]  Stuart: Greg Mankiw is one of the people who claims tis.
[18:38]  Stuart: "this"
[18:38]  JF: "wealth is largely irrelevant"
[18:38]  JF: cough
[18:38]  ER: the extreme concentration we have make it so the top 10%, 1%, see that they're lower and psychologiically inventivizes them to aspire for more acquisition
[18:38]  Cosmo Fenwitch: So, if you have net wealth of a billion dollars but the stock market goes down and you lose $50,000,000 one year, are you very poor?
[18:39]  AG: And, Dano, if you own it you need only work half time - 12 hours a day.
[18:39]  Stuart: Greg Mankiw, "Defending the One Percent" http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mankiw/files/defending_the_one_percent_0.pdf
[18:39]  ER: hedge fund managers may be snubbed by polite society for being bombastic nouveau riche pricks
[18:39] DB: °͜° Albert
[18:39]  ER: Stuart and I are on a similar page here
[18:40]  ER: work vs own/invest
[18:40]  Stuart: Let's hope that more liberals get on that page, Eleutherios
[18:40]  WW: /me nods
[18:40]  JF: does romney 'work?'
[18:41]  WW: Jane I don't think so
[18:41]  JF: ah.
[18:41]  ER: he did build companies in his younger days, though as typical for big business hypocrits was bailed out of a failing business
[18:41]  ER: and benefits from substantial gov't spending
[18:42]  ER: Romney's father was a respectable Eisenhower/Ford -type Republican
[18:42]  JF: sigh; yo-yo's good guy
[18:42]  WW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cellists#A
[18:43]  ER: as in Henry Ford, not the Pres. that presided over the beginning of neoliberalism
[18:43]  Delia Lake: yes, I agree, Jane
[18:43]  IH: QUESTION - is inequality the natural state of mankind?
[18:43]  AE: the Romney apple fell far from the tree
[18:43]  ER: not in Scandinavia
[18:43]  IH: which part?
[18:44]  ER: everywhere, though they're trending neoliberal
[18:44]  IH: the Denmark at least has a royal house
[18:44]  ER: and relative equality, regardless
[18:44]  AE: Romney's big campaign story about Staples was mostly bs
[18:44]  IH: I would challenge that mankind's natural state has always been inequality
[18:45]  ER: Iceland and Finland stand out as better in terms of trends (vs past inertia)
[18:45]  AG: I maintain that we need a marginal tax of 90% over $250,000.
[18:45]  JF: QUESTION: What's the status of the Volker Rule at this point?
[18:45]  Stuart: QUESTION: Aren't policies like minimum wage or Fed policy, etc...their possibility, really, indicators of the real problem with the American economy, which is a vastly disproportionate distribution of power? Don't these policies follow small-d democratic power, i.e. power is the horse that pulls the equality cart?
[18:46]  ER: nomadic tribes were fairly egalitarian, and select other post-agricultural societies but societies do tend to go unequal after agriculture and specialization
[18:46]  AG: And that tax money does nothing except drain the ability of the rich to challange the government.
[18:46]  IH: they always hyad a head man/woman though Eleu
[18:46]  ER: economic inequality begets political inequality
[18:47]  Avedon Sideshow: That's not true
[18:47]  ER: there usually, not always, were forms of hierarchy (they had a chief but often used consensus, at least of elders or warrios), but resource distribution tended egalitarian
[18:47]  Avedon Sideshow: There is no shortage - plenty of skilled people are out of work. And if there was a real shortage, they'd be raising wages to attract those poeple.
[18:47]  ER: ^^^^^^
[18:47]  AG: Government is a tool that is to be utilized by the citizens to further the private sector's prosperity
[18:48]  IH: a shortage of skilled labor because to many people are to poor to get an education post high school
[18:48]  Stuart: QUESTION: In other words, isn't it a mistake on the left to assert that, if only the proper policies were implemented by elites, our inequality misfortunes would be ameliorated, when it's really the case that politial-economic power needs to be returned --or taken-- by the people?
[18:48]  AG: Now, Stuart, I am in agreement with that.
[18:48]  IH: I agree Stuart, eat the rich!
[18:48]  ER: plenty of skilled labor except for a few select areas. and tech companies are trying to bring in foreign workers they can control and pay less (if not outright offshoring)
[18:49] DB: College should be free
[18:49]  AG: That's the present problem, the wealthy have taken control from "We the People" and are draining it for their own benefit.
[18:49]  ER: white collar and academic workers need to wake up. the rapidly increasing adoption of adjuncts (and perpetual post-docs) etc shows that neoliberalism marches beyond blue class (the logic of which should have been apparent)
[18:50] DB: Yep, Eleu
[18:50]  JF: QUESTION: Will the recent cancellation of the congrssional softball game impact recruiting of good players in the upcoming primaries?
[18:50]  ER: blue collar/working class
[18:50]  AG: QUESTION; Has any question been answered?
[18:51]  IH: nope
[18:51]  ER: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/death-of-an-adjunct-703773/
[18:52]  IH: elect democrats?
[18:52]  JF: g-m-a-f-b
[18:52]  IH: agreed Jane
[18:52]  ER: only after Occupy was inequality itself in the public discourse
[18:52]  JF: :-) Ilsa
[18:52]  ER: before there was talk about profligate banking and reform
[18:52]  ER: but not class
[18:52]  Stuart: "Certain Democrats"?
[18:52]  Stuart: What kind of Democrats?
[18:53]  IH: what was that about trees of liberty?
[18:53]  IH: those democrats
[18:54]  ER: Reagan and Bush I
[18:54]  ER: it matters
[18:54]  ER: but it's not the only solution
[18:54]  ER: incarcerating
[18:54]  AG: Revolution?
[18:54]  ER: today, not tomorrow!
[18:55]  IH: or fear of a revolution
[18:55]  ER: well, ok, maybe we need more ideological basis first
[18:55]  JF: laws need penalties
[18:55]  IH: we need them fearing it being their blood in the streets
[18:56]  ER: incipient paradigm shift? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/12/the-rise-of-the-new-new-left.html
[18:56] DB: My favorite slogan from '68 was from France (I think): We demand the immediate gratification of all our desires
[18:56]  AG: Laws need enforcement.
[18:56]  ER: absolutely, Ilsa and Albert
[18:56]  Cosmo Fenwitch: France? Guillotines?
[18:56]  JF: :-) Dano; (writes that one down)
[18:56]  ER: though savings and loan had broad prosecutions yet didn't slow down finance much
[18:57]  ER: it's important but not the only action to take
[18:57]  ER: Bill Black does great work on S&L and modern finance
[18:57]  JF: :-)
[18:57]  ER: there needs to be countervailing power
[18:58]  JF: prezactly
[18:58]  ER: Nixon wasn't nice but he did some nice policies
[18:58]  Stuart: Or they're afraid of people setting property on fire.
[18:58]  JF: Nixon was good for ping-pong
[18:58]  ER: there is a role for that, I think
[18:58]  ER: Stuart
[18:58]  AE: HMO's was not one of Nixon's better policies
[18:59]  ER: one of the worst
[19:00]  ER: Vietnam is a mixed thing, escalated then pulled out (against before he was before it before he was against it)
[19:00]  JF: support for HMOs was 'good idea. poor execution'
[19:01]  IH: another 20 years and Nixon will be remembered as one of the best presidents ever
[19:01]  JF: we all think heath maintenance is better and cheaper that reactive treatment
[19:01]  AE: huh?
[19:01]  ER: don't talk about Reagan in that tone of text, Ilsa
[19:01] DB: Only because most of us who remember him will be dead
[19:01]  AG: Actually I see the parallels with Germany from 1925 to 1935 as being much closer.
[19:01]  ER: Dano ¬∞Õú¬∞ :(
[19:01]  IH: Dano, but he DID do a lot of interesting things...
[19:02]  IH: agreed Albert
[19:02]  ER: there are indeed parallels, Albert
[19:02]  AE: HMO's have a srsly flawed biz model
[19:02]  JF: ...
[19:02]  Stuart: QUESTION: How has "politics become more tribal" on the left? Doesn't Tim mean "Democrats" when he refers to the left?
[19:02]  JF: Medicine has a conter-productive incentive
[19:03]  WW: "Policy makers and people they sleep with?"
[19:03]  IH: its kind of sick... in a cannibalism kind of way, to think of making money off of people being ill
[19:03]  ER: post-Occupy
[19:03]  JF: :-)
[19:03]  ER: post-popular movement
[19:03]  Stuart: I know, excellent turn of phrase from Jay
[19:04]  ER: QE, bailouts, and acceptable stimulus took care of the rich
[19:04]  JF: soon the story will be told: Bill Clinton and Madeline albright
[19:04]  ER: they suffered very briefly in 2007-08
[19:05]  ER: concentration now surpasses that period
[19:05]  Stuart: Hmm..since when does "taking on the chin" equate to "the government is an appendage of their own affairs"?
[19:06]  ER: scholarship only goes so far, Keynes' ideas were pushed by popular movements before he formally recommended them and wrote them up academically
[19:06]  JF: discussion... 'full of sound and fury signifying nothing'
[19:06]  ER: a Polish economist had many similar ideas prior to Keynes but that's a seprate issue
[19:06]  IH: "they got a lot of discussion going" = "gee... it would have been great if they had gotten their act together"
[19:06]  Katana Sword 2.1: releasing controls
[19:06]  ER: scholarship certianly matters but I'm really noting the absence of popular movement's
[19:07]  ER: which are invariably driving positive social/political change
[19:07]  ER: invariably
[19:07]  JF: how many polish economists does it take to monitize a lightbulb
[19:07]  ER: infinity before 1990
[19:08]  AG: None. That violates austerity.
[19:08]  JF: :-)
[19:08]  AG: Sound gone?
[19:08]  WW: I think we lost Tim
[19:08]  WW: ok, he's back
[19:08]  IH: but that doesnt matter, what matters is who THINKS they are the 1%, not actually who is.
[19:08]  ER: Stuart's last question was good too
[19:09]  ER: democracy is precise?
[19:09]  ER: what's the objection?
[19:09]  AG: Define Dictator.
[19:09]  ER: it's not precise in a certain light but what word is
[19:09]  AG: An hour filled with information.
[19:09]  AE: I am trying to google another book. it argues that economic inequality is the norm. The USA in the 50's and 60's with strong unions was an outlier.
[19:10]  JF: Thank you :-)
[19:10]  ER: there's something to that in terms of history, but that doesn't mean it's some natural state
[19:10]  ER: AKa
[19:10]  IH: Aka, I tend to agree
[19:10]  Delia Lake: great show. thank you Tim. thank you Jay.
[19:10]  WW: thank you everyone, good discussion
[19:10]  AG: Ilsa, you have the land audo on?
[19:11]  AG: :=))
[19:11]  IH: yeah, I do
[19:11]  AG: :=))
[19:11]  Delia Lake: lol
[19:11]  Stuart: Thanks, Eleutherios.
[19:11]  AE: no there is nothing natural about the economy, except that econmic things like the stock market and wages etc tend to revert to the norm.
[19:11]  IH: lol
[19:12]  ER: you mean equilibrium?
[19:12]  ER: norm definitely is problematic
[19:12]  Stuart: OK, Jay is sitting in our temporary RW studio, and we've got to tear down and get going.
[19:12]  AE: if you believe that then real estate and the stock market are going to have a huge correction
[19:12]  Stuart: RL
[19:12]  Stuart: Take care, folks.
[19:12]  AG: Bye, stuart
[19:13]  AE: I mean the historical average of things
[19:13]  JF: What I learned today: Lauren Lauren is the daughter of Neil and Sharon Bush. She opted for a redundent name since its easier to remember.
[19:13]  JF: Sounds good to me. :-)
[19:14]  JF: laterz!
[19:14]  AG: Like my friend, XX x
[19:14]  AG: The "x" is for the Phd.
[19:15]  AM: 'night, everybody.
[19:15]  AG: Good night.
[19:15]  WW: Good night

Kevin Murphy • History of Progressivism • VS with Jay Ackroyd

kcmhopper.jpg

Kevin C Murphy — speechwriter, ghostwriter, researcher, editor, and advisor to progressive campaigns and political organizations — joins Virtually Speaking to discuss his fascinating doctoral dissertation, written proximately for his doctorate in History from Columbia but certainly looks like a book in the making.  

Uphill all the Way: The Fortunes of Progressivism, 1919-1929  reviews the period immediately after what historians have traditionally characterized as the end of the Progressive Era. In fact, Kevin shows  how elements of the progressive movement lived on, hidden in the apparent era of Normalcy, become absorbed into both Republican and Democratic parties.  In Kevin's words:

While examining the trajectory of progressives during the Harding and Coolidge years, this study also inquires into how civic progressivism -- a philosophy rooted in preserving the public interest and producing change through elevated citizenship and educated public opinion -- was tempered and transformed by the events of the post-war period and the New Era.
Listen

Listen

In the discussion, we explore the early stages of Harding's under appreciated administration--Kevin compares Harding/Coolidge to JFK/LBJ, with the President who died office providing the policy and political scaffolding that allowed his vice president to accomplish a large number of fundamental policy changes.  We then discuss how this period informs our current period, with the technocratic, anti-democratic elements of the progressive movement turned into todays Third Way centrism, while the urban progressives like Al Smith or Franklin Roosevelts sowed the seeds of the contemporary liberal wing of the party.

We also discuss Herbert Hoover as a reality-based advocate of technocratic solutions through public/private partnership, mechanisms that were reflected in, for instance, FDR's National Recovery Administration.  Hero of the post-war food assistance program Hoover implemend a program that reflected the middle class values and ethics of the movement that brought us both the Suffragette and the Temperance movements.

Under appreciated as well, notes Kevin, are the populist elements of the progressive movement, which included the founding of the KKK, a grass roots movement of the 20s that had a much broader membership and agenda than the contemporary version of the organization,  we can see reflected in the current right wing populism self-designated Tea Party members. 

 

Lynn Stout • VS with Jay Ackroyd

Author The Shareholder Value Myth; Distinguished Professor of Corporate and Business Law, Cornell University

Lynn Stout joins us to discuss her book, The Shareholder Value Myth.  The idea that a public corporation has one, and only objective — to maximize shareholder value — is such a widely held idea that it's deeply implicit in much current business writing.

Listen

Listen

What else is a corporation to do, but to maximize shareholder value? There might be some dispute over whether to manage a corporation for short term returns and a steadily rising stock price, by just beating analysts' quarterly targets or to take a longer term view of accepting quarterly ups and downs, while providing a steady growth and a reliable stream of dividends But in either case, the idea is to maximize shareholder value, right?

Lynn Stout argues in her book that this view is wrong both in principle — that as independent entities with multiple stakeholders, including a heterogenous set of (stock and bond) investors with different goals — corporations cannot, should not, and never were intended to focus solely on maximizing shareholder value.

Lynn is not alone in this view. Citing Thomas Kuhn's classic comments on paradigm shifts arising from bold individuals noting theoretical anomalies and empirical failure of  normal science, we've seen some exploration of the idea that maybe....perhaps, corporate governance means a little bit more. 

See FT's iconoclast Felix Salmon for instance. On why Apple should ignore its shareholders.  Or on the discount a company takes by being public

Professor Stout is an internationally recognized expert in the fields of corporate governance, securities regulation, financial derivatives, law and economics, and moral behavior. The author of numerous articles and books on these topics; her most recent book is The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations and the Public (Berrerr Koehler 2012). Professor Stout also serves as an Independent Trustee for the Eaton Vance family of mutual funds; as a member of the Board of Advisors for the Aspen Institute’s Business & Society Program; as Executive Advisor to the Brookings Institution Project on Corporate Purpose; and as a Research Fellow for the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research. She holds a B.A. summa cum laude and a Masters in Public Affairs from Princeton University and a J.D. from the Yale Law School.

 

 

Listen

Listen

David Cay Johnston • VS with Jay Ackroyd

VS_head_DavidCayJohnsont.png

June 27 - Investigative journalist, CJR contributor and 2001 Pulitzer prize recipient David Cay Johnston comes by to talk about modern debt peonage or neo-feudalism. More at Columbia Journalism Review.

Follow @DavidCayJ @JayAckroyd

LISTEN  

The idea of modern debt peonage or neo-feudalism came to my attention at Marcy Wheeler's FDL blog. It's an old concept--the idea is that you can sell yourself into temporary slavery, with a plan of working off the debt. Most of us will remember hearing about indentured servitude as a means of funding a new life in America during the 17th and 18th centuries. But the practice is as old as domesticated agriculture. David Graeber discusses the practice at length in Debt, the First 5000 Years, describing, as well, the idea of a jubilee year when all debt, including servitude debt, is forgiven.  This was necessary, Graeber claims to forestall peasant uprising and land seizure.

consumer-debt-problems.png

Americans, and to a lesser extent, other OECD citizens are experiencing a revival of debt peonage. Students graduate from college, as Duncan Black has put it, with a mortgage and no house to show for it. Hourly workers find themselves dependent on checking cashing services that provide usurious, self-perpetuating payroll loans.  Middle class workers pay extremely high real interest rates on their consumer debt, and have had their retirement funds move from secure pension funds with a certain payout at retirement to 401K programs subject to market fluctuation and investment dollars lost to fees and transaction costs.

This has led to consumer product companies adjusting their market strategies to what they call an hour-glass or dumbbell economy, with a small number of very rich consumers marketed to on one end, and a large number of working class consumers at the other--and no more middle class. Companies like Proctor and Gamble that have focused on America's huge middle glass are no longer doing so.

In the wake of the worst recession in 50 years, there's little doubt that the American middle class—the 40% of households with annual incomes between $50,000 and $140,000 a year—is in distress. Even before the recession, incomes of American middle-class families weren't keeping up with inflation, especially with the rising costs of what are considered the essential ingredients of middle-class life—college education, health care and housing. In 2009,  the Census Bureau says income of the median family, the one smack in the middle of the middle, was lower, adjusted for inflation, than in 1998. 

UPDATE:

David referred to two of his articles in this discussion:  

Labor Share of National Income Plummets

Wages Fall At Record Pace

Gaius Publius comments and summarizes at AmericaBlog

Richard Eskow • VS with Jay Ackroyd

Listen

Listen

Richard Eskow touches on  attempts to fight off the gutting of social insurance programs, grand bargain 'theater;' and then discusses wisdom, and its presence, or absence, from our network driven society. The springboard for the latter conversation is his essay Buying Wisdom

Buying Wisdom

The Art of Mindful Networking

Outside a conference on mindfulness for the Silicon Valley crowd stood a corkboard and a pad of yellow Post-it Notes. There, in keeping with the conference’s “Wisdom 2.0” name and theme, attendees were invited to write down their thoughts on creating a “global wisdom culture.” There were 50 or 60 suggestions on the board, mostly for things like online platforms to encourage “lateral communication.” But something was missing, I thought. I grabbed a pen, tore off a Post-it, and added a word that was conspicuously absent from the board: Wisdom.

VS_banner_Tricycle.png

I know: It might seem like a cheap shot. It’s just that, well, even the very name of the conference seemed off somehow. In the tech world, “2.0” is used to note a newer, better version of the original product. Upgrading the world’s wisdom teachings is a pretty heady ambition. Maybe an inflated sense of self-importance is simply to be expected when an executive from one of the organization’s corporate sponsors, himself a speaker at the event, says things like “Wisdom 2.0 is, quite possibly, the most important gathering of our times.”

Really? The most important gathering of our times? Not the Yalta Conference, or Nixon in China, or the UN Special Session on Nuclear Disarmament? Can’t we at least give the Kyoto talks on the environment an honorable mention?

There’s a revolutionary, fast-paced, and transformative wave sweeping through the elite cultures of the 21st century—but it’s not what its boosters think it is. It’s a wave not of technology but of narcissism, and it’s cresting at the intersection of wealth, corporate power, and guilt, as the rich and wannabe rich nourish their acquisitive drives with expressions of self-love. The third annual Wisdom 2.0 conference was suffused with the same self-satisfied glow that’s found at corporate feel-good events like the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting, events where powerful and wealthy elites come to network, schmooze, and congratulate themselves on their own generosity and understanding. Every other presentation at the Clinton gathering seemed to feature images of impoverished African children dancing in water from their village’s new well, while almost entirely missing was any discussion of the role some of the corporations represented there played in creating that poverty.

The Wisdom 2.0 conference provided the same kind of balm for the corporate conscience, but in a different way. While there were some excellent speakers, too many presentations merely offered purveyors of frequently mindless online pastimes the chance to convince themselves that they’re really promoting mindfulness.

If “mindfulness” is to create genuine change in our society, it must involve being mindful of more than just our own need for comfort, good health, or serenity. It must entail being mindful of the social and economic forces that allow some to prosper while others struggle, forces that promote and perpetuate certain behaviors and thought patterns while discouraging or suppressing others. Without that awareness, “mindfulness” will quickly descend into another luxury item that permits the few to ignore the impact of their behavior on others. If they are to attain the significance to which they aspire, conferences like Wisdom 2.0 must open themselves up to a broader kind of awareness than they can achieve by promoting a feel-good, tunnel-vision version of “mindfulness.”

The gathering, which was held February in a hotel and conference center in Silicon Valley, was presented as an exploration of the intersection of modern technology and ancient spiritual traditions. Its theme, according to the website, was “living with awareness, wisdom, and compassion.” It featured well-known Western Buddhist teachers like Jack Kornfield, Jon Kabat-Zinn, and Roshi Joan Halifax. The spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle was also one of the featured speakers, and some newer figures on the scene, like psychologist and mindfulness teacher Kelly McGonigal (her website tells us it is “where science and compassion meet”) and her sister, my former colleague Jane McGonigal, whose work on computer gaming and social change has made her a rising media star who has been profiled at length on shows like Fareed Zakaria’s CNN program. (Our chat was interrupted in mid-sentence by a couple of investment consultants eager to “network” with her; it was that kind of event.)

Wisdom 2.0’s sponsors and supporters have included such tech giants as Google, Yahoo! and Facebook—and it shows. Their support helped organizers gather this constellation of Western mindfulness luminaries, often pairing them with executives from sponsoring corporations in sessions that felt like awkward blind-date dinner conversations. The “Zynga Meets Zen” session, for example, featured Roshi Joan Halifax and Eric Schiermeyer, a founder of the online game company Zynga, and himself a Wisdom 2.0 supporter. The roshi seemed to bristle slightly as conference organizer Soren Gordhamar introduced Zen and gaming on seemingly equal terms—but it could be argued that she didn’t bristle enough. “There is a kind of brilliance in Zen,” said Gordhamar, “and a different kind of brilliance in games....”

Gordhamar’s remark seemed to equate Zen Buddhism’s accomplishments with those of a company whose most notable achievement is the Facebook game FarmVille, but Schiermeyer was not one to see any incongruity in the comparison. Rather, he went on to effusively praise his own venture’s capacity for “clarity and insight.” Schiermeyer, like many other speakers, pushed the idea that mindfulness can and should be marketed the same way companies like Zynga market FarmVille, or with the same techniques they use to motivate their owners and employees—through acquisitiveness and need, or what Schiermeyer called “the technology of incentive.” There is a world in which the works of Dogen and Eisai as human achievements are indistinguishable from a game that encourages users to buy and trade pastel-colored animals on social media sites. To attend conferences like Wisdom 2.0 is to enter that world.

Like last year’s Buddhist Geeks conference, the meeting also included a lot of talk about “branding.” Schiermeyer’s bent for motivational selling proved to be popular, never more incongruously so than when he said that “if somebody wants to become a millionaire, which a lot of people do, and ... you can convince them that the best way to become a millionaire is to adopt these practices in a directed, conscious way, then you'll end up having a bunch of really conscious millionaires."

A venture capitalist in the audience agreed, telling me afterwards that “people today want to be millionaires, so we should market spirituality together with the ability to become a millionaire." He defended Schiermeyer's position. “What’s the worst that could happen? “You’d have a lot of mindful millionaires. That would be a good thing.” Unfortunately, comments like these may have been inevitable, since conference organizer Gordhamar was occasionally given to saying things like "there's a place for the authenticity of a lineage and a practice ... and there's this other voice which says No, but every generation is different, let's just go wherever they're putting their attention, who cares where the hell they're putting their attention, let's meet them there and let's be very creative in how we can incorporate it ... both potentially have a place."

Is that so? What about the matter of motivation? What matters isn’t just whether you’re mindful but also what you are mindful of. If your awareness is centered on money and comfort, does that help anyone else? Does it help you?

The Wisdom 2.0 conference and its organizers were also promoting a technology-centered vision of mindfulness like that reflected in the Buddhist Geeks podcast and conference, websites like Indranet, and a growing cottage industry of techno-spirituality books, blogs, and software products. At their best, these sites and gatherings can represent a kind of democratic leveling of differences among participants. We saw this, for example, at the Buddhist Geeks conference, where, much as they do on the Internet itself, attendees mixed without regard to name recognition, status, sect, or practice. But at their worst, Buddhist technophiles confuse science with spirituality and information with insight, and in the process, they overlook their own best opportunities to make a real contribution to society.

The clinicalization of spirituality, which seems to reduce it to a matter of physical and mental health, is a common feature of these conferences. While there is some good data suggesting that mindfulness and meditation can have a beneficial impact on individual health, that shouldn’t be confused with wisdom. Too many of these conferences and speakers conflate wisdom with well-being, enlightenment with ease, and compassion with comfort. A quick review of history’s great spiritual figures—the Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad being among the best known— shows that they often rejected their own ease and comfort in pursuit of higher wisdom, or sacrificed themselves for a higher purpose once they found it. The journey from sacrifice to enlightenment is codified in religious traditions that range from Native American Sun Dance rituals to Tibetan practices of solitary meditation in caves.

If the subject is wisdom, those reams of blood pressure reports and magnetic resonance studies aren’t as meaningful as their champions claim. “The hours of folly are measured by the clock,” wrote the poet William Blake, “but of wisdom, no clock can measure.”

As at so many gatherings in the digital delta, the discussion at Wisdom 2.0 often confused the medium with the message— or, as they say now, the “platform” with the “content.” Digital technology—computers, cell phones, the Internet—are indeed a breakthrough in human communication, much as printed books, radio, and television all once were. But if the purveyors of those technologies were equally convinced they were revolutionizing the human experience, they left no record of it. The printing press played a central role in the Protestant Reformation, but it is hard to imagine Gutenberg sponsoring a gathering to praise the new wisdom he was bringing into being through his invention. Television pioneer David Sarnoff never tried to book Gandhi into a meeting room to praise the revolutionary human potential of his medium. What is it about digital entrepreneurs that creates such excessive self-regard? A greater sense of history—of block printing in the spread of Buddhism, or books in the democratization of Christianity— would provide these conferences with greater context for discussing newer technologies.

The “awareness” at Wisdom 2.0 too often lacked the “wisdom” and “compassion” organizers promised. The many hagiographic references to Steve Jobs praised a digital pioneer who became, of course, extremely wealthy. Jobs’s turtleneck-wearing, quasi-Buddhist persona was a natural fit for this crowd. But few attendees showed any interest in the tragic world of workers at the Chinese factories who built Jobs’s Apple products. According to independent reports, their lives were made much worse because Jobs chose to ignore reports from aid groups and others about working conditions there.

It’s a shame. Conference organizer Soren Gordhamar has written a book, also called Wisdom 2.0, and he’s a good writer with many useful things to say. It’s unfortunate that the conference didn’t stick more closely to the themes he explored in the book, which asks good questions about the balance between online time and “real life,” the medium’s untapped potential for aiding personal growth, and the challenges of being human in a digital age. You could build a good conference around those questions. The digital generation has few maps to guide it through the new territory wrought by its technology, and support and kindness are always worth sending toward any group of people trying to find their way. But this approach won’t meet their needs any more than it will meet society’s.

Some speakers spoke to those needs eloquently. Jon Kabat- Zinn openly discussed social issues in a way that challenged the insular nature of the gathering. Representative Tim Ryan, a member of Congress from the struggling Ohio Rust Belt, offered a refreshing break from entrepreneurial self-congratulation to discuss the value of mindfulness in urban settings and among children from impoverished families. Congressman Ryan, who has written a book called Mindful Nation, was generous in his assessment of the conference when I spoke with him a few months afterward. It’s “progress,” he said of the conflict between entrepreneurial acquisitiveness and mindfulness.

But the surprise challenge to self-satisfied cocooning came from Eckhart Tolle. I haven’t read much Tolle, who had always struck me as a nebulous and New Agey figure, but he led a meditation exercise masterfully. Tolle told a story about the usefulness of silence—one that ended with a friend sending him a blank text message. That led to the joking idea of an app that sends blank text messages to iPhone users at intervals throughout the day. More importantly, Tolle’s remarks brought a broader awareness into the room. We need a new social order, he said in a soft voice, and a new banking system. These systems have been created by the old egoic consciousness, he added. What’s more, said Tolle, we could drown in an excess of information and suppress creativity through an excess of thinking. These words challenged both the self-satisfaction and the economic goals of many conference attendees, and in doing that, Tolle provided a glimpse of what gatherings like this can be— and what they must become, if they are to be meaningful.

Instead, Wisdom 2.0 featured too many words like those that appeared on a conference whiteboard: “Can the soul learn to tweet?”

Wisdom is not necessarily synonymous with comfort, or better health, or even happiness. If Wisdom 2.0 had addressed the sometimes painful conflict between technological growth and human needs, it would have been forced to challenge its attendees, its speakers—and yes, its corporate sponsors. It could be argued that this, and not feel-good sessions for acquisitive millionaires, is the work of wisdom. Philosophers like Mortimer Adler, along with later thinkers like the economist Kenneth Boulding, created a simple hierarchy, known as DIKW, that was applied to early thinking about computer technology. It stood for Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom, with data at the lowest rung on the ladder and wisdom at the highest. Each of these rungs is important. But data and information are not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom.

One week after the conference ended I found myself at a different gathering, this one a gathering of Sufi musicians in South Africa, where I had traveled to follow the work of an aid group working with HIV-positive Zulu villagers. A young Sufi singer from Mauritius made a striking observation. “All prophets in history,” she said, “came to upset the social order, not reinforce it.” That should be the goal of Wisdom 2.0 or any other gathering that claims to pursue true innovation—because insight is disruptive, wisdom upsets the old order, and mindfulness must inevitably lead us to confront those aspects of ourselves we’d rather bury in self-congratulation.

 

“Wisdom,” said William Blake, “is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy.” That market isn’t a great place to “network” with potential customers, or to find venture capital for your next start-up company. But if these conferences genuinely want to promote wisdom, they’ll need to go there eventually.

Richard (RJ) Eskow is a writer, consultant, and Senior Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future. A former country singer and punk musician, Richard became a Wall Street executive during the "go-go" 1990s, specializing in healthcare services, information technology, risk management, insurance, and financial analysis.  Among other companies, he worked for AIG, long before its notorious 2008 collapse.

Richard spent several years leading a consortium of universities, consulting groups, and research centers which advised the US State Department, the World Bank, foundations, and private corporations on social policy in over 20 countries.  His group played a central role in advising Central and Eastern European countries on healthcare, social welfare, and technology during their emergence from Communism.

Peter Moskos • VS with Jay Ackroyd

PMoskos.jpg

Peter Moskos was born in Chicago, graduated from Evanston Township High School, and lives in Astoria, NYC. He has worked as a movie theater usher, a Chicago Cubs usher, waiter, busboy, cook, bartender, bar manager, theater technician (lights and sound), boat captain, police officer, and professor.

While enrolled as a Harvard University graduate student, Moskos worked as a Baltimore City police officer from 1999 to 2001. He patrolled midnight shift in Baltimore’s high-crime Eastern District.

Cop in the Hood (Princeton University Press, 2008), Moskos’s first book, examines policing from a first-hand police perspective, focusing on the failure of the drug war and its impact on police culture and arrest decision in the ghetto. Cop in the Hood won the 2008 PROSE Award for Best Book in Sociology.

Moskos's second book, In Defense of Flogging (Basic Books, 2011), is a subversive attack on the prison-industrial complex. It earned Moskos recognition as one of Atlantic Magazine's Brave Thinkers of 2011.

Listen here!

Listen here!

Peter and Jay discuss the militarization of American police forces.  This includes not just equipment, or tactics, but also national coordination of what have always been locally controlled policy forces into much more of an internal security force designed to suppress people opposed to federal policies. 

The New York Times has covered the topic 

Radley Balko has written extensively on the topic. Some links: 

Huffington Post series

Cato 

He's also written a book, which is included below with the links to Peter's work. 

 

 

 

David Brin • VS with Jay Ackroyd

David and Jay spend the first half hour talking about privacy, security and transparency referring to David's The Transparent Society. Still current, and positively prophetic about the role of ubiquitous cameras, TTS explores the necessity of creating two-way transparency, where government and powerful private interests are required to be as transparent as ordinary citizens. David continues to explore transparency issues, as Brin's corollary to Moore's Law (cameras will get smaller, cheaper, more numerous and more mobile every year) continues its relentless march.

Then SETI.  And SF/Fantasy

Click to listen

Click to listen

David Brin is a scientist, speaker, technical consultant and world-known author. His novels have been New York Times Bestsellers, winning multiple Hugo, Nebula and other awards. At least a dozen have been translated into more than twenty languages.

His 1989 ecological thriller, Earth, foreshadowed global warming, cyberwarfare and near-future trends such as the World Wide Web*. A 1998 movie, directed by Kevin Costner, was loosely based on The Postman.

Brin serves on advisory committees dealing with subjects as diverse as national defense and homeland security, astronomy and space exploration, SETI and nanotechnology, future/prediction and philanthropy. His non-fiction book -- The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Freedom and Privacy? -- deals with secrecy in the modern world. It won the Freedom of Speech Prize from the American Library Association.

As a public "scientist/futurist" David appears frequently on TV, including, most recently, on many episodes of "The Universe" and on the History Channel's best-watched show (ever) "Life After People." He also was a regular cast member on "The ArciTECHS." (For others, see "Media and Punditry.")

Links:

 Scoopit

David Brin about the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) 

Specifically about METI 

 David on science fiction 

Advice for Writers

 

Marcy Wheeler • VS with Jay Ackroyd

The President made quite a speech on national security issues, to some interesting reviews.  There was something for everyone, which is not really a good thing, because everyone doesn't agree on everything. Ultimately someone is going to be  disappointed. And I have a sneaking suspicion who is likely to be disappointed.

Marcy and I discuss what we can infer from the speech, in the context of what the Administration, and the military and bureaucratic leadership have actually done. 

Listen live - 5/30 9p ET - or later

Listen live - 5/30 9p ET - or later

Marcy grew up bi-coastally, starting with every town in New York with an IBM. Then she moved to Poway, California, home of several participants in the Duke Cunningham scandal. Since then, she has lived in Western MA, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Ann Arbor, and — just recently — Western Michigan.

She got a BA from Amherst College, where she spent much of her time on the rugby pitch. A PhD program in Comparative Literature brought her to Michigan; she got the PhD but decided academics was not her thing. Her research, though, was on a cool journalistic form called the “feuilleton” — a kind of conversational essay that was important to the expansion of modern newspapers in much of the rest of the world. It was pretty good preparation to become a blogger, if a PhD can ever be considered training for blogging.

After leaving academics, Marcy consulted for the auto industry, much of it in Asia. But her contract moved to Asia, along with most of Michigan’s jobs, so she did what anyone else would do. Write a book, (Anatomy of Deceit) and keep blogging. 

Marcy has been blogging full time since 2007. She’s known for her live-blogging of the Scooter Libby trial, her discovery of the number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, and generally for her weedy analysis of document dumps.

Marcy met her husband Mr. emptywheel playing Ultimate Frisbee, though she retired from the sport several years ago. Marcy, Mr. EW and their dog — McCaffrey the MilleniaLab — live in a loft in a lovely urban hellhole.

Dean Baker • VS with Jay Ackroyd

Dean_Baker.jpg

Dean Baker — Economist and Co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy & Research —  talks about the current state of the economics profession with Jay Ackroyd. Follow @deanbaker13 @jayackroyd @ceprdc

Listen beginning 9p ET

Listen beginning 9p ET

Background — The Economics Profession has been through some hard times in the past three decades. There have been troubles in microeconomics. Basic assumptions about consumer and firm behavior have been called into question by empirical observation.  It turns out that people, or rather, consumers are not solely concerned with getting the most stuff possible at the lowest possible price. In lab experiments, like the Dictator Game, people consistently express a preference for fairness over the narrow self-interest that defines the rational Economic Man.at the heart of consumer theory.  Outside the lab, we see consumers expressing a preference not for the cheapest possible sneakers and clothing, but for goods that are produced by workers in decent conditions.

Likewise, we've seen that firms don't behave just by relentlessly driving down their costs in order to gain market share and greater profits than their competitors. They also spend a great deal of effort trying to create monopolies over market segments--"rent-seeking" in the economic parlance.  The idea of an modern economy driven by an unregulated collection of firms responding only to the signals of an Invisible Hand is quaint but inaccurate. Not so quaint, really; the idea that competition is both rare and can only persist with constant government intervention is part of standard economics instruction, instruction rooted in concepts introduced in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.


But the problems in macroeconomics have been more serious. The OECD has gone through a period where policies have been adopted that have slowed the rate of growth of these economies and done so at the expense of the broad citizenry, but in service to a very small, very wealthy creditor/rentier class.  Most recently and prominently, the economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have been shown to have advocated such perverse policies, based on what is now known to be faulty data in a dubious model. The R-squared incident is a manifestation of a much deeper intellectual problem in economics, macroeconomics in particular, of a failure to adopt scientific methods and procedures to avoid errors of this kind from making their way into the literature, and also the general public.

Dean Baker is the author of The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive, Taking Economics Seriously, False Profits: Recovering from the Bubble Economy, Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy, The United States Since 1980, The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer, Social Security: The Phony Crisis (with Mark Weisbrot), and The Benefits of Full Employment (with Jared Bernstein). He was the editor of Getting Prices Right: The Debate Over the Consumer Price Index, which was a winner of a Choice Book Award as one of the outstanding academic books of the year. He appears frequently on TV and radio programs, including CNN, CBS News, PBS NewsHour, and National Public Radio. His blog, Beat the Press, features commentary on economic reporting. He received his B.A. from Swarthmore College and his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan.

Ian Welsh • VS with Jay Ackroyd

IansRavens.png
Listen

Listen

Ian Welsh writes at IanWelsh.net. A blogger since 2003, Ian been the Managing Editor of FireDogLake and the Agonist. His work has appeared at Naked Capitalism, Huffington Post, Alternet, and Truthout, as well as the now defunct Blogging of the President (BOPNews). In Canada his work has appeared in Pogge.ca and BlogsCanada. He is an editor, writer and social media consultant who currently lives in Toronto.

Jay and Ian discuss the security state, and the complex tensions involved with the  weapons ownership as a constitutionally protected right of self-defense with the progressive position of increased regulation of gun ownership and use.  In general, there is an interesting conflict in contemporary liberalism's trust and distrust of state apparatus. Matt Stoller explored this tension, in the context of Ron Paul's political candidacy.

Glenn W. Smith • VS with Jay Ackroyd

VS_head_GlennWSmithHat.jpg

Glenn W. Smith and Jay discuss Texas as harbinger for the nation: the opportunity for Texas to lead the way to a liberal resurgence in the United States. Majority views--solid majorities--in Texas echo the rest of the nation's rejection of both the Republican program of austerity and the centrist Democratic program of government partnership with powerful private interests.  Read Glenn at Progressive VoicesFiredoglake

They consider Texas' demographics and the alignment of the polls with those of the majority of Americans on critical issues like gun safety, social insurance, health care, job creation and immigration. Follow @GlennWSmith

Listen! 

Listen! 

By Glenn W. Smith

Glenn — author, seasoned campaign veteran, and former political journalist — is engaged in the progressive revival in Texas.  A specialist in message framing, he has a long-standing collaboration with George Lakoff.  Glenn managed Ann Richards successful campaign for Texas governor. His 2004 book, The Politics of Deceit, foresaw the revolution in campaign technology that now plays a significant role in the rising power of progressives.

Gaius Publius • VS with Jay Ackroyd

Click to listen
Click to listen

May 2, 2013 - Jay talks with Gaius Publius (AMERICAblog) about the basics of the climate crisis story from a lay perspective. They begin with a clip from Paul Wignall, author of Mass Extinctions & Their Aftermath. Follow @JayAckroyd @Gaius_Publius

Links to slide #1 mass extinctions  — #2 earth temperature — #3 temperature projections to 2100 — #4 "A1FI" is current path — #5 Ref: Eras, periods & epochs

There is a cataclysm taking place on Earth. It's happening much, much faster than the world's policy-makers have been responding. Gaius provides an extended summary of Climate Change resources over at AMERICAblog.

Gaius and Jay discuss the rapidly shortening window for policy change to reduce the magnitude of the inevitable global catastrophe. 

The program starts with a conversation with Paul Wignall, Professor of Paleontology at the University of Leeds.  Paul is the co-author of Mass Extinctions and Their Aftermath. There have been five mass extinctions: the Ordovician-Silurian; the Late Devonian;   the Permian; the Triassic-Jurassic;  Cretaceous-Tertiary ( the K/T event).  Most working paleontologists believe we are in the midst of a new geological era, the Anthropocene, characterized by very rapid changes in climate and speciation that represent the sixth mass extinction.

Without action taken in the next decade or so, the human species faces huge habitat loss and attendant reduction in population over the next century unless drastic action is taken immediately. Much of this rapid climate change is associated with the massive release of greenhouse gases sequestered underneath the Earth's surface. The release of tens of millions of years' accumulation hydrocarbons has taken place in just the last three centuries, an eyeblink in the geological record.  And carbon release continues to accelerate.

Recommended reading

     The climate crisis in three easy charts

James Hansen’s prediction (scroll down for the mass extinction quote):

     Hansen on 3°C: Quarter to half of species on earth may die from global warming

Where we’re headed and how fast. GP's thoughts, after studying climate literature for most of last year:

     Your Climate Crisis elevator speech

     Thoughts on climate crisis speed — My personal climate model

Gaius Publius — A professional writer of stories, poems, and books on climate, education & technology. Gaius Publius has two political-themed works in process, one fiction and one non-fiction. Frequent writer and Contributing Editor at AMERICAblog.com. Occasional guest on Ring of Fire Radio, The Matt Filipowicz Show and other venues. Follow @Gaius_Publius.

PDF
PDF

Mass Extinctions and Their Aftermath
By A. Hallam, P. B. Wignall

Ian Welsh • VS with Jay Ackroyd

Ian Welsh and Jay Ackroyd

Ian Welsh and Jay Ackroyd

ian Welsh  was the Managing Editor of FireDogLake and the Agonist. His work has also appeared at Huffington Post, Alternet, and Truthout, as well as the now defunct Blogging of the President (BOPNews). In Canada his work has appeared in Pogge.ca and BlogsCanada. He is an editor, writer and social media consultant who currently lives in Toronto.

Ian and Jay talk about how the events in Boston illuminate the intelligence and military apparatus now operate in the US,  in support of an increasingly oligarchic system of governance throughout much of the OECD. 

Links:

Ian:

Marcy Wheeler:

Tim Green:

Daniel Marans • VS with Jay Ackroyd

Click to listen

Click to listen

April 18 • Daniel Marans, Policy Director, @NoSocSecCuts and Executive Producer, @TakeActionNews stops by to discuss the Back to Work Budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a proposal from the New America Foundation to expand Social Security. See the membership of the Caucus. Follow @nosocseccuts @DanielMarans @Jayackroyd

We recommend reading
From the House Comm on the Budget: The Path to Prosperity: a Blueprint for American Renewal
From the Senate Budget Comm: Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity
From the Congressional Progressive Caucus: Back to Work Budget

Ilana Solomon & Maira Sutton • VS with Jay Ackroyd

Click to Listen

Click to Listen

Maira Sutton — Global Policy Analyst — Electronic Freedom Foundation and Sierra Club Trade Representative Ilana Solomon join us to discuss the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) —  a trade agreement that has  been called NAFTA on steroids. We discuss the likely impact  on environmental and intellectual freedom issues. Follow @ilana_solomon1 @maira @eff @JayAckroyd

Jay's notes here

Expose the TPP here

Maira Sutton is a Global Policy Analyst at the Electronic Frontier       Foundation (EFF), a non-profit organization based in San Francisco       that has been defending users' digital civil liberties for over 20       years. She leads EFF's international advocacy campaigns on       copyright reform around the world, with a focus on how       international law and trade agreements carry intellectual property       policies that restrict free expression, privacy and digital       innovation.

Ilana Solomon — Recognized for leadership in international development while working to confront climate change as a policy analyst with ActionAid USA;  Ilana joined the Sierra Club Responsible Trade program in 2012 as its Trade Representative.

Ilana writes about the intersection of the environment and trade in Huffington Post, on Sierra Club’s Compass, and on Twitter, focused heavily on ensuring that the U.S. uses trade responsibly and considers the environment and workers’ rights when joining and negotiating any proposed trade pact. Jay posted more.

Update: June 9, The Sierra Club submitted comments on Japan's participation in the TPP, which are due to USTR on Sunday. Our main concern is still that Japan's inclusion will mean more harmful fracked gas exports. You can view the comments here: http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/Japan_TPP_Federal_Register_USTR-2013-0022.pdf?docID=13341 

Rob't L. Trivers • VS with Jay Ackroyd

VS_head_Trivers.png

 Aired March 7, 2013. Lightly edited. Jay Ackroyd hosts American evolutionary biologist and sociobiologist Robert L. Trivers, Professor of Anthropology and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University.

Click for NYT review by John Horgan

Click for NYT review by John Horgan

Trivers stopped by to discuss issues he explores in his new book The Folly of Fools,  a treatse on the role deception, especially self-deception, plays in human (and other specie's) lives. 

Links:  Implicit Association Test Demonstration test from Project Implicit, which gauges prejudicial attitudes or beliefs about certain groups of people.

Stephanie Kelton • VS with Jay Ackroyd

VS_Thumb_Kelton4.png
Click to listen

Click to listen

Seriously good stuff. An accessible masters class in economics. In this combined and lightly edited rerun of conversations recorded June 2012 and Feb 2013, Jay Ackroyd and Stephanie Kelton, Professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City discuss Modern Monetary Theory. In a far ranging conversation, they consider the differences between the budgets of households and sovereign states, both domestic and foreign, the platinum coin concept and the nature of fiat currency. Follow @deficitowl @JayAckroyd

Read Stephanie at New Economic Perspectives (click the banner)

VS_banner_Kelton2.png